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

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.
Novel AI is $10 per month and Artbreeder is $7.49 per month, which totaled together is less than the price of one commission, which from what I've seen seem to start at around $20 for a single image. And there's no world where I'm paying $20 for a single image even if AI goes away. I could get multiple books or computer games for that $20
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
I'd love to do this but I don't have the technical expertise nor a good enough computer to run anything more advanced than GPT-2.

I can run GPT-2 locally thanks to some scripts that one of the guys on GitP helped me put together,, but even that just chugs along and I have to run the smallest version of the model otherwise my computer crashes as often as not.
 

That's a different discussion, and a bit of a whataboutism. Copyright laws aren't perfect but at least they protect small creators from being crushed by big media conglomerates.
My experience is the reverse. I've seen multiple small time artists get persecuted for drawing art of things like pokemon. Cultural touchstones like that really ought to be open to everyone, but alas our shared culture is owned - in a legally binding sense - by large corporations. People should be allowed to own their own culture.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top