On being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney (catandgirl.com)

Article summary

The article discusses the author's experience of being listed as an artist whose work was used to train Midjourney, an AI model. The author reflects on the implications of their work being used in this way, and the potential consequences for artists. The article also touches on the idea that artists may be forced to choose between sharing their work and potentially having it used to train AI models. The author's tone is contemplative and concerned about the impact of AI on artistic creation.

Main themes

• AI and art
• copyright and fair use
• artist compensation
• creative ownership
• economic models
• technological impact on society

What commenters say

• Using art to train AI models without permission or compensation is a form of copyright infringement and unfair to artists.
• The current economic model of AI development prioritizes profit over fair compensation for artists.
• Training AI models on existing art is not a copyright violation, but rather a form of inspiration or reference.
• The use of AI-generated art could potentially replace human artists, leading to significant economic and cultural consequences.
• Fair use doctrine may not apply to commercial use of AI-trained models, especially if they generate significant revenue.
• The value of a company using AI-trained models does not affect the determination of copyright infringement.
• Artists should be able to opt-out of having their work used to train AI models, or receive fair compensation for its use.
• The development of AI models raises complex questions about authorship, ownership, and the value of creative work.