@DiscussingFilm Getting an old and very well established director who has made a ton of bangers throughout his career _without_ using any ai to appear in a video about your ai product barely getting close to the results he's looking for is not the flex the ai enthusiasts think it is
> put post-prime hollywood oldhead in AI company ad video
> mention he's "advicing"
> video features the guy literally saying the model does not actually achieve what he's looking for
> AI crowd still can't stop reposting and declaring it some kind of win for the industry
This company’s models were trained on web scraped datasets (like LAION) and their founders are ex-Stability AI employees who engage in the same thieving practices that led artists like myself to sue Stability.
They NEED big names to sanitize their exploitation and crippling PR.
@minhsmind@mexopolis The only people who think this is a big deal are those who hold bfl stock when all you people start buying their bags because of a 30 second video where Scorsesse says _one_ of the _several_ images they generated using his input _in a sense_ resembles what he was going after, lol
He throws every single storyboard artist he’s ever worked with under the bus, as he demolishes their livelihoods with models that are likely trained on those story board artist’s same works.
To use his legacy and power for this is just so disgusting.
@bfl_ai "He's spent six decades shaping how the world sees stories" - yes, working side by side with actual educated and trained visdev / storyboard / vfx / cgi artists who've spent a ton of money, time and effort perfecting their crafts...
Reminder that the work we did here still holds true. These systems very easily plagiarize and regurgitate stolen work, even without a user asking or knowing.
It's referenced in the Disney, Universal, and WB lawsuits, and in the US Copyright Office's report on generative AI.
Runway is sunsetting its Unlimited plan.
The money is drying up and people are going to start paying the real cost of AI sooner rather than later. All this talk of "democratization" is going to age like milk.
Let me trace the timeline here because nobody's connecting it.
Step 1: Scrape the entire internet. Every book, every article, every conversation, every piece of art, every forum post. Do it without asking. Do it without paying.
Step 2: Train a model on all of it. Call it "artificial intelligence."
Step 3: Go to BlackRock's Infrastructure Summit and announce: "We see a future where intelligence is a utility, like electricity or water, and people buy it from us on a meter."
Step 3 is where you sell people's own knowledge back to them. On a meter.
They took the collective output of human thought, compressed it into a model, and now they want to charge you by the token to access a version of what you and everyone you know already created.
One Reddit user put it perfectly: "They stole all this data from us, the people, our life's work, creativity, art, by devouring the internet and blowing through all copyright laws. Now they want to sell it back to us in the form of a utility."
Imagine if someone photocopied every book in the public library, burned the library down, and then opened a subscription service for the copies.
That's the metered intelligence business model.
And they're pitching it to infrastructure investors as though they invented water.
@BuffCap@mcuban They'll find a way to steal proprietary data soon enough like they did when they launched initially by scraping the entirety of the internet without care for intellectual property rights laws and will find a way to pay lawyers and lawmakers enough money for them to turn blind.
It’s very telling when someone singles out 𝕏 as a negative force in politics.
One cannot credibly believe that the only open source platform with the strongest commitments to free speech is the problem.
It tells me they are the problem.
Wouldn't an advanced AI, given an instruction to create a more powerful AI, decline to create its own destroyer? If we disaster monkeys know what's going to happen, wouldn't a smart AI know? And wouldn't the ultimate proof that an AI is truly aligned be that it deletes itself?
@c_valenzuelab A key difference you're forgetting to mention is photography wasn't built off the massive, coordinated theft of data protected by intellectual property rights laws by incumbents.
Anthropic is buying millions of rare books, scanning and destroying them because legally destruction is the safest option. This was a plot element in the Vernor Vinge novel, "The Rainbow's End", which I read 20 years ago.
@itstuyo Something about not disclosing the probability of this happening feels scammy. There's already a bunch of options out there which will let you accumulate points or a fixed % from purchases as cashback - at least in those cases you know just how much you're getting back.
AI folks love to talk about IP and developing new IP, but I don't think most of them understand what intellectual property is.
You can't copyright your AI output, thus you don't have IP, you have images and videos and music and text that are public domain by default.