Why is DALL-E a scam?

https://twitter.com/dananthonykelly/status/1550277441721012224

by akaij • 4 years ago

57 33 4 years ago

dtagames2• 4 years ago

It would be nigh impossible to connect any particular DALL-E output with any particular input, thus making a legal novelty but not a scam.

Also, in the paid version, all rights accrue to the user, not to OpenAI, so that assertion is false.

bulbosaur1233• 4 years ago

It's clearly an artist seething at grim realization that they are about to get irrevocably replaced.

benj111• 4 years ago

Now this is where I have my little rant about 'art' Art represents two different things. That pretty picture in IKEA is 'art' the Mona Lisa is also 'art'. In one context it's a necessarily human endeavour, on the other, it's something to make you buy one box of corn flakes over another.

I wish we had 2 different words for these things. Artist has a different ring than graphic designer.

One deserves to be protected, and I don't think will go away anyway, the other may well be automated away, but will invoke the former to protect itself.

ekianjo3• 4 years ago

Painters were not (entirely) replaced by photographers. Pretty sure that even with Dall-E around, there will still be a market for pure human creation, or even hybrid one.

donkarma2• 4 years ago

lolno, artists aren't getting replaced any time soon. try getting something with a transparent background from it or more than 2 layers of composition. it falls apart when you try to do anything with a complex prompt and you have to describe the prompt, let alone the fact pretty much everyone who buys art likes to finetune it which would be awful to do here

bergenty• 4 years ago

Nonsense. I’ve been immersed in the world for decades and absorbed all sorts of human creativity during that time. When I create something it’s still mine.

nsonha• 4 years ago

That’s not what “scam” means, I think the word is “exploitative”, but even that is debatable.

nyolfen• 4 years ago

as many responses to this point out, it is doing the exact same thing as people. i learned about computers by reviewing the work of others. i sell those skills for money.

donkarma2• 4 years ago

yeah but i cant imagine you put Getty Images' watermark in your code

suyash2• 4 years ago

Not a SCAM but a scummy way to create ML Model based on stolen artwork.

hypertele-Xii• 4 years ago

Only in a socially constructed system of intellectual property based on modern artificial scarcity for the benefit of propertyholders.

bulbosaur1233• 4 years ago

It's not just DALLE. This logic can be applied to Imagine, Parti, Midjourney, Gato, GPT-3 and any other ML technology.

ronsor• 4 years ago

How is it mechanically different from a human studying various artwork—besides the quantity of works studied?

ravishi• 4 years ago

The human. People all comparing it to humans here, but for humans to study art, be influenced by it and create derivative works, they have to invest their most precious resource: time. That makes all the difference.

mejutoco2• 4 years ago

The scale is different. Quantity is a quality of its own, etc.

Cypher• 4 years ago

are all words based on stolen letters

ekianjo3• 4 years ago

based on stolen artwork.

if it were only trained on public artwork (where copyright has expired) would that still be a problem?

freemint• 4 years ago

Not under the current understanding of copyright.

marssaxman• 4 years ago

The idea that the copyright to a piece of artwork is an asset which can be owned, and therefore stolen, is a relatively recent invention of dubious social utility. For this completely new field of human endeavor, we could choose many different precedents to apply when inventing rules of conduct.

The history of private property is rife with abuse and exploitation. We should not rush to extend such ideas into new arenas.

bulbosaur1233• 4 years ago

Any idea when could we expect DALLE to reach Google Parti levels of detail?

Thorentis• 4 years ago

To be fair, consider the human brain as purely a neural network that trains on any and all artwork it encounters over its lifetime. It then produces a piece of artwork. Is it wrong for that brain to charge for copies of the artwork?

I find it quite amusing that there seems to be overlap between people who think IP/copyright law needs an overhaul, and people who think that Github Code Pilot and DallE are exploitive.

mejutoco2• 4 years ago

Those two opinions are orthogonal. One might believe that Mickey Mouse should not dictate copyright law and think these tools are exploitative.

I use them, I do not think they are evil. I can also appreciate the asymmetry of using code with restrictive licenses or private to train an ML vs the consumer visibility over, for instance, windows source code. In the case of DallE I find it fascinating and useful, and can likewise appreciate the asymmetry of having the compute power and placing restrictions on which prompts are allowed,

It is not difficult to see how those asymmetries can be seen as exploitative. I don’t have a side but the thought is easy to entertain.

Edit: grammar

ralusek• 4 years ago

Don't fight it. Let the future wash over you.

sidcool• 4 years ago

I don't have an opinion on whether it's a scam. But if it's able to create original art work after going through the others I'd be impressed.

waynesonfire• 4 years ago

This is such a new frontier but there is something there.

If I draw a picture and release it into the world; I'm familiar with that process. I know, it'll be viewed and consumed by human eyeballs and I understand to some degree their capabilities and motives, or maybe I pretend I do. The point is, the release of the content into the wild was done with some understanding of its consequences.

Now, along comes DALL-E, it's an unfamiliar, new class of a consumer. It'll swallow anything you produce and turn it into profit for another human, right before your eyes. It'll also do so in such a way without _recognizing_ the contributors to its success. DALL-E is a black box where the effort of creators goes in and someone else pocket is made fatter.

The key point for me is that DALL-E would be worthless without it consuming other peoples work. Folks here have mentioned how they've consumed content over their lives that others have produced... yeah, but, with enough time you could have got there yourself. DALL-E simply cannot. It is absolutely necessary for it to consume the content of others.

kleinsch• 4 years ago

Everyone who learns to create art has a background in what’s been done before them. I don’t see painters in galleries list everything that’s gone into their education. Song credits don’t have the thousands of albums the creators have listened to. Computers are displacing humans here for sure, but they way they learn and apply it is the same.

Why is DALL-E a scam?

Related Stories