1 - It will deflate
2 - It will explode
Deflation is where the output of system tends toward a fixed point (AI art gets blander and blander). As it feeds on it's own output (which becomes the dominant training material because its cheap and plentiful) each vector is compressed.
Chaos (explosion) is where the output gets less predictable and more crazy on each iteration. Who knows what emerges before the system breaks.
Positive feedback systems are generally bad. For example, in biology/food; we started feeding cattle on the rendered down remains of other dead cattle. The result was Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, a lethal prion that thrived within the feedback loop.
I guess your argument could be changed slightly to "Why buy stock photos when I can take a photo with my phone?"
it's pretty easy to tell some generative software to "Female giving a presentation in a well lit office with windows open" and get something pretty decent.
This goes for anything that needs props that a normal person doesn't have.
Honestly not a lot though, it's so easy. It's not really comparable to taking them with a phone because you don't have to have access to the subject!
Or possibly you would have to have your own model which is trained on that space of images that is relevant to what you are looking for.
Look at what virtually all the hobbyists and enthusiasts out there are doing with this stuff. It's almost all exlusively these: surrealism, fantasy and dumb memes. In all these fun genres, bad details, like hands with six fingers, or laughably wrong shadows, do not matter.
As far as I know, this is Shutterstock opinion and there is no judge rules or new laws addressing the situation.
As far as I know it’s even legal to study the style of one specific artist and create imitation art as long as it’s clear that this is a new artwork from a new artist and about ~50% different from any existing works.
So a prompt like “a photo of Times Square in the style of Ansel Adams” should be ~50%+ unique.
The trickiest area for these models might be prompts that recreate existing work.
Given a prompt like “a black and white photo of Yosemite Valley in the style of Ansel Adams”, if the model is too good, then it seems like copyright infringement.
But as far as training data goes, as long as it’s acquired legally, I don’t think it can (or should) be regulated.
Difference being that the AI doesn't take inspiration, it takes raw data.
Yes, "anybody" could just spin up a Stable Diffusion server and do the same, but plenty of companies would be perfectly happy to outsource this to Shutterstock and, quite importantly, also have them take all the heat for any legal complications behind reuse, copyright, etc etc.
The problem is that with the amount of prompt tweaking one needs to do, it doesn't scale
That may very well change in the next X years, but right now it doesn't really work as a business
Once that changes why would you go to Shutterstock anymore?
Their whole thing is being a marketplace, when the supply side of the market gets eaten by someone else they have a major problem.
It seems like a pretty unlikely bet that we won't get something like SD which can do realistic "women laughing with salad" images within a few years.
depressed office worker sitting on toilet, bright lighting site:shutterstock.com kangaroo riding a skateboard site:shutterstock.com
https://openai.com/blog/dall-e-now-available-without-waitlis...
But I think a lot just moved on to Stable Diffusion
> "The data we licensed from Shutterstock was critical to the training of DALL-E,” said Sam Altman
So there was legitimate Shutterstock data used to train DALL-E. I don't think I've read this before. The images with Shutterstock copyright watermarks were presumably scraped accidentally from the web.
The contributor fund is also setting a precedent that data used to train a model has a claim for payment.
> Shutterstock is launching a “Contributor Fund” that will reimburse creators when the company sells work to train text-to-image AI models. This follows widespread criticism from artists whose output has been scraped from the web without their consent to create these systems. Notably, Shutterstock is also banning the sale of AI-generated art on its site that is not made using its DALL-E integration.
"DALL·E 2 is trained on hundreds of millions of captioned images from the internet."
But no worries, an unknown part is shared with creators.
Two revenue streams without consent but they still present themselves as the ethical AI company.
And it's not even clear what a customer is buying. As far as I know, AI art can't be copyrighted.
Why do you think that?
There is a common article that gets passed around where a person tried to get copyright assigned to a machine and that keeps getting denied. That is very different from "AI generated images cannot be copyrighted".
If I write a program to randomly generate an image of squares of different colors:
- I, a human, can have copyright over the program text itself as a literary work
- I, a human, can have copyright over the image output of the program
I can't claim copyright on a work by an AI, because I'm not the author.
AI created works, like animal-created works [2], lack authorship, and are thus not eligible for copyright at all.
It's being litigated, and might change, but this is the current position of the US Copyright Office [1].
The only AI generated copyrighted work at the moment is a graphic novel, Zarya of the Dawn, and was granted a copyright as 'visual material', not 'visual arts work'. The most likely legal interpretation of which is that the author has added copyrightable material to non-copyrightable material, and obtained a copyright on the addition [3].
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/08/15/dude-who-keeps-suing-to-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...
There's a recurring theme in neural networks. You can go from nothing to 90% in a year. And it's amazing. That naturally leads you to believe that perfection is little more than a bit more compute and a bit more massaging the data.
Then over the next year you manage to get to 95%, further affirming your beliefs. But from then on every single fraction of a percent becomes exponentially more difficult. And it soon becomes clear that there's an apparently insurmountable asymptote long before you get anywhere near 100%.
There are more trucking jobs than ever today.
AI art is not - jobs are already being lost in real time, users can create stock photos, logos, bespoke art right now. And more and more jobs will be lost as the AI improves.
What is to prevent someone from generating that same image with a prompt?
What would prevent them from simplu resharing that image freely with everyone, or undercutting shutterstock? If Shutterstock tries to sue, the courts may say AI generated images do not enjoy copyright protection !
I hope so.
I haven't figured out how to compensate the artists that trained the artists that trained the artists that trained the AI. This gets 'meta' pretty fast.
I wonder if they or someone else wants to buy it?