• KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if AI companies were to pay the artists and had billions of dollars to do it, each individual artist would receive a tiny amount, because these datasets are so large.

    I don’t really think that’s a problem. If a company is generating $X.00 in revenue using AI generated work, some percentage of that revenue should probably be going to the artists whose work was used in training that model, even if it’s a fraction of a fraction of a cent per image generated.

    • infinitepcg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that it’s a fraction of a fraction of a cent per image used during training, over the lifetime of the model.

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But then you need to factor in that the rights holders would need to agree to that. AI companies don’t get to simply decide what peoples work is worth, they need a licensing agreement. (Otherwise they need to successfully argue that what they’re doing is fair use.)

      And when you add it up and realize that “AI” is a black box based off a training dataset of thousands (if not millions) of pieces of copyrighted artwork, all the sudden you start to see the profit margins on your magical art machine (POOF!) disappear. Oh, won’t someone think about the tech venture capitalists?!