|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Zero Talent
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 94
276
« on: February 03, 2023, 08:26 »
...
277
« on: February 01, 2023, 22:09 »
Following up on the arguments around the risks of AI plagiarism debated above, here is an interesting paper (check the pdf in the link): https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.13188
"In this work, we demonstrate that state-of-the-art diffusion models do memorize and regenerate individual training examples"
278
« on: February 01, 2023, 10:44 »
Average January for me. Also one of those few occasions when AS outshined (outshone  ?) SS.
279
« on: January 31, 2023, 23:32 »
1) Anyone receive their SS 1099 yet?
2) Will/does it include Pond5 earnings?
Thanks!
Only from Getty, DP, and a non-1099 statement from 123RF, so far.
280
« on: January 28, 2023, 11:02 »
From an email received yesterday:
...We wanted to let you know that complimentary access to Creative Cloud All Apps in your Personal Profile will expire in 7 days, so youll need to move any business content over to your corresponding Business Profiles in order to continue working without disruption. Personal content can remain in your Personal Profile for both paid and free memberships....
281
« on: January 24, 2023, 10:40 »
I dont think anyone has mentioned this site yet, I just saw it mentioned on Twitter and decided to check it out. https://www.stockai.com/ This is a stock site giving away free AI generated stock photos. I had a quick look through. You will find people with 5 arms here and there, or a dog with a human mouth. But other than some really obvious AI errors, theres so far a lot of beautiful photos on there.
This is a great source for understanding what NOT to shoot anymore.
282
« on: January 19, 2023, 11:29 »
Average, or even below average month for me.
283
« on: January 18, 2023, 16:36 »
Very stable over the last year, after a decline since 2021, the same pattern as Dreamstime and other small agencies.
My graph looks pretty similar to yours, but I'm not sure if we hit the 123RF peak at the same time. Anyway, steep decline for 123RF, since the best days of 2017.
284
« on: January 18, 2023, 10:46 »
Yes.
285
« on: January 17, 2023, 23:22 »
Been to Germany a few weeks ago, there are recycling machines at the super market, you insert one empty plastic bottle and out comes 25 cents, euro 25 cents.
Lucky. In the USA its 5 cents, and even then its only certain states. Except Michigan, where its 10 cents, but unless you can steal a large van loaded with cans to make the trip, its not worth it.
Lol, really? That's actually a Kramer/Newman idea in one of the Seinfeld episodes.  
286
« on: January 17, 2023, 15:23 »
A bit later than last year:
287
« on: January 15, 2023, 16:22 »
I didn't know this was possible: selling high-priced photos on P5!
My price was set at $5, but the photo was sold for $80, and my share was $40!
Not bad! I'll take it.
288
« on: January 13, 2023, 16:23 »
But requirements for 2021. were made in beginning of 2021. Requirements for 2022. were never made and 2022. has ended, so you know, it is not possible for AS to set rules for 2022. anymore and it is not possible for us to meet these rules because they don't exist.
Yes, AS people could theoretically be kind and give us codes because they like us (and not because they want us to upload, sell, earn money), but I don't think it is very likely.
of course it's still possible - all AS has to do is describe how they're going to select who gets the bonus. absolutely no reason they had to do it on 1/1/22
still waiting for any doom-prophets to make a $ bet on their 'knowledge'
Id put $20 down that its not coming back for this year, but what do I get if I win?
i'll take your bet - if AS doesnt give bonus codes this year i'll send you $20 by paypal
289
« on: January 12, 2023, 11:33 »
I also asked to be opted out of China + Russia sales, but I still got a bunch sales from China, in December last year. I complained, and Alamy told me that I will get the "full amount" instead of just the normal sales percentage. Yesterday, I got a couple of payments labeled "Other Income", around $40 each. Is this the "full amount" they were talking about? Because if it is, then the commission for these sales was less than 2% 
290
« on: January 11, 2023, 16:36 »
Level 5 with 5113 video downloads...
Impressive start! Prerequisite for a fantastic 2023. Congrats!
291
« on: January 11, 2023, 11:02 »
Here, closing in on level 3. Not that level 1 or 2 make much of a difference really. Most sales are for $0.10 either way.
I'm level 3 since a couple of days, but it's slower than last year...
292
« on: January 11, 2023, 10:04 »
I tried to cancel the all apps subscription I got from AS, but it doesn't say when the cancelation will be effective.
To make sure I can use it until it's due to expire, without forgeting to cancel it on that day, I just changed the payment to an expired credit card.
293
« on: January 05, 2023, 16:32 »
if your original file is using a 10bits codec, then you can do your customers a favor by converting and uploading ProRes, since (unfortunately) it's the only universally accepted codec able to preserve 10bits (I use Adobe Encoder, which is part of the free package offered by AS).
If your original file is 8 bits, it doesn't matter.
But I don't think that the vast majority of buyers will care too much about the codec. They will look for the right content first.
294
« on: January 04, 2023, 15:58 »
some final comments
This is most likely, why SS is planning to obtain the contributors' consent, before allowing further use of their images in AI training. They want to cover their a@@ and prevent plagiarism accusations, when those exceptions (you admit possible) will happen.
that's not what they said - they already trained on their existing dataset. they said they might give a way to opt out of FUTURE inclusion
PS. The output was garbage because you said that none of the results represented the unique image you tried to compare it against. So a customer attempting to create that unique image via AI will fail and will have no option but to buy it directly from you.
that's not what i said! since you refused to back up your claim, i did a quick test using a phrase that used mostly my images on SS, and highly placed images on google. according to your untested claims, that might result in i mages that clearly violated my copyright - as i reported - none of the results looked like mine, BUT they did show a shaman in India which was what was asked for - rather than garbage, the algorithm performed just as it should, not as you predicted
Everybody is learning, not just the AI!  If maybe SS was of your opinion initially (i.e. there is no legal risk in producing the plagiarism exceptions), now they realised that such possibilities do exist ( as you also admited), and they want to be covered legaly. So they switched from your opinion to mine ! As I said before, you don't know how the algorithm works, you don't know if all images, or only a subset was used for AI training, you don't know if there is any sample threshold required before the algo is responding to a query, etc, etc, etc. Your isolated experiment is proving nothing, hence " Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps". In theory, and probably also in practice, the more this algo will be used, the higher the chance for those plagiarism examples to pop-up. That's what SS realised (most probably), and they want to be ready for it. See? No "strawman argument", just you making unverified assumptions and jumping to conclusions!
295
« on: January 04, 2023, 07:03 »
Don't worry everybody, the next dashboard update is looking good...
296
« on: January 03, 2023, 14:56 »
you're making my case for me! i never claimed there was NO possibility, but it's extremely unlikely and you shouldn't skip those nice spring days! you're throwing out an entire new tool because of something that that's unlikely to happen in our lifetime - hence homme de paille
you're also distorting the argument - if your theory won't survive 1 odd result, then it is a poor theory - but that's never been the case here.
Then we are talking about the same thing and there is no strawman argument. The only difference is that while you belive that the plagiarism exceptions (you admit possible) are harmless, I believe that they have a real chance to lead to lawsuits. This is most likely, why SS is planning to obtain the contributors' consent, before allowing further use of their images in AI training. They want to cover their a@@ and prevent plagiarism accusations, when those exceptions (you admit possible) will happen. PS. The output was garbage because you said that none of the results represented the unique image you tried to compare it against. So a customer attempting to create that unique image via AI will fail and will have no option but to buy it directly from you.
297
« on: January 02, 2023, 22:54 »
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument".
I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at.
The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training.
When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
you obviously don't know what a strawman argument is...
you made a silly, irrelevant claim, so it IS your responsibility to at least give an example of a phrase that would only find one artist's images out of 300,000,000
i actually did do a search for 'shaman puri india' - on SS 26 of only 27 are mine; google images show mine as 22 of first 25. then i used that phrase in DALL-E and it gave 4 completely different images, none of which remotely resembled mine in sadhu or temple bkgd
and when i required Puri in the google search, it showed only 30 images total, 17 of mine. one of the images was a map of korea, one retail ad for a box of sp.ices and 2 others w no shaman at all
your turn!!!!!!!!!!!
"Une hirondelle ne fait pas le printemps". This is very much applicable in science when you want to validate a hypothesis. The fact that you found 1, 2, 10, or 1,000 examples matching it, is not sufficient to make it a theory. One single counter-example is enough to disprove it. You have no idea if your images were even used by the algorithm when you did your isolated "experiments" (which is rather likely to be true, since its output was garbage) My advice for those who have niche images (maybe even for you with your rather unique temple) is to opt out of the AI training deal, as soon as it will become possible, so the customers have no other option but to buy from you and delay as long as possible the competition from AI on your unique topics.
298
« on: January 01, 2023, 23:49 »
...
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
bold added
that's a strawman argument - no training set contains only a 'few' images, and no 'elements' of any image is copied. that's just not how ML works
I know how ML works (using several variants in my daily job).
So how can you tell the number of elements used to train a specific request, without being involved in the algorithm development? What you say may be true only if there a minimum threshold for the training set, a threshold beyond which individual image characteristics are fading away.
You have to know it, before making such statements.
If such threshold doesn't exist, some requests may simply plagiarize the few images used to respond to that query.
If there is only one image describing, let's say a clown, in the training set, then it's very likely that all queries requesting clowns will plagiarize that unique clown image, because that's the only thing the algorithm has learned about clowns.
still setting up strawmen for your arguments - how about a real-life example of a request that won't have hundreds if not many thousands of images it's been trained on? simple way would be to find any search on SS that has < 100 images & then ask dall-e et al for that.
SS has 200,000,000 images for their training set - web scrapers can have many more (one recent example claimed 2 billion) so the chances of your scenario are pretty small and no one has been able to demonstrate this sort of result.
I only pointed out that this scenario is possible and you seem to agree with me, even if you call it a "strawman argument". I'm not going to spend time looking for an example. It will take too long for me, but it may pop-up, eventually. This is what crowd-sourcing is good at. The world is not stuck in it the present. There will always be some new things, for which only a limited set of photos will be available for training. When such case will be found, then the case and maybe even the system might be challenged by lawyers, the same way plagiarism is normally challenged.
299
« on: January 01, 2023, 19:51 »
...
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created.
There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content.
This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content.
This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
bold added
that's a strawman argument - no training set contains only a 'few' images, and no 'elements' of any image is copied. that's just not how ML works
I know how ML works (using several variants in my daily job). So how can you tell the number of elements used to train a specific request, without being involved in the algorithm development? What you say may be true only if there a minimum threshold for the training set, a threshold beyond which individual image characteristics are fading away. You have to know it, before making such statements. If such threshold doesn't exist, some requests may simply plagiarize the few images used to respond to that query. If there is only one image describing, let's say a clown, in the training set, then it's very likely that all queries requesting clowns will plagiarize that unique clown image, because that's the only thing the algorithm has learned about clowns.
300
« on: January 01, 2023, 14:15 »
Original content is NOT modified or used, so I'd say, that's not important or relevant. Images and descriptions are only used to train the AI.
Exactly, in the same way your brain changes when you read a book and you learn about globalization (for example) being able to talk about it, or write about it, but without this meaning that you are infringing the copyright of the original book. You learn about something, and now you are able to create something new by using the new learning.
This is how machine learning works, and law now understand that new creations by AI based on machine learning, owe nothing to the elements they have used to learn.
All this is true, however one must be aware about plagiarism when something "new" is created. There is a level beyond which plagiarism fades away, but I can imagine that when someone is trying to create some niche images, with few training samples, elements from the images used for training may appear with little or no modification in the "newly" created content. This is no different than copying entire paragraphs from a book and then claiming that you are the author of the "newly" created content. This will most likely continue to be something for the lawyers to argue about.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... 94
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
