California bill (AB 412) would effectively ban open-source generative AI

Jfdlsjfd said:
Why are you all assuming people are actually using paid online AI service? There is strong evidence they are a minority (albeit a large one) use in image generation compared to models one runs on his own computer for the price of electricity.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see a citation or two for this.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


That's a question that deserves a complicated, thought out answer but my immediate thought is since iirc there are very few degrees of separation between them and the for profit ones (they share employees or board members or both) I'd say yes to a lesser extent.
 

gnarlygninja said:
That's a question that deserves a complicated, thought out answer but my immediate thought is since iirc there are very few degrees of separation between them and the for profit ones (they share employees or board members or both) I'd say yes to a lesser extent.
Click to expand...
Reading on LAION, it seems they don't host themselves any copyrighted material but their own work. They might qualify for the same exception that allows that page to keep operating, or they might not if they have a considerable overlap of people involved. Either way, we need a lawsuit to mature fra enough to get there.
 

dbolack said:
I'd love to see a citation or two for this.
Click to expand...

Last year it was Stability AI that was presented as the leader in image generation, beating MJ, Dall-E and Adobe in various sources and this year BFL's Flux model is touted to hold 42% of generations alone. While I don't necessary trust these industry reports alone, I find rational that enthusiasts, like the people who're interested enough in the topic to argue on this board about it, would tend to use the cheapest solution, even if it involves more complexity (installing a computer program isn't exactly rocket science after all) than using a web service with a more expensive cost per generation, as they'd be generating a lot more images than average. At the very least, they'd use free models and just use website to rent GPU time to run them.
 
Last edited:

MoonSong said:
Reading on LAION, it seems they don't host themselves any copyrighted material but their own work. They might qualify for the same exception that allows that page to keep operating, or they might not if they have a considerable overlap of people involved. Either way, we need a lawsuit to mature fra enough to get there.
Click to expand...
www.deeplearning.ai

LAION Wins Legal Case in Germany

A German court dismissed a copyright lawsuit against LAION, the nonprofit responsible for large-scale image datasets used to train Midjourney...
www.deeplearning.ai www.deeplearning.ai
 

Jfdlsjfd said:
Last year it was Stability AI that was presented as the leader in image generation, beating MJ, Dall-E and Adobe in various sources and this year BFL's Flux model is touted to hold 42% of generations alone. While I don't necessary trust these industry reports alone, I find rational that enthusiasts, like the people who're interested enough in the topic to argue on this board about it, would tend to use the cheapest solution, even if it involves more complexity (installing a computer program isn't exactly rocket science after all) than using a web service with a more expensive cost per generation, as they'd be generating a lot more images than average. At the very least, they'd use free models and just use website to rent GPU time to run them.
Click to expand...
I was answering to @Bohandas in speciffic who claimed to easily be able to afford an artBreeder and a NovelAi subscription. Paying for both is about $50 to $60 a month, enough to pay a few art commissions.

Locally run AIs produce smaller images with more defects and artifacts, and they require monster PCs to work, so I'm less worried about them.
 

Remove ads

Top