A GAN-generated image has been auctioned for a high price tag. The people selling it might have reused a piece of code taken from GitHub, with limited changes. Should you be outraged? Well, no.
Show this thread
-
As someone who does open-source, on many occasions my work has been monetized with only thin packaging around it, & not credit. I don't actually have a problem with that -- it's right there in the license terms. It's part of what OSS means: you create more value than you capture.
Show this thread
Is it in bad taste to monetize open-source without giving back? Absolutely. Protesting it is just as bad, though. If you don't want people to reuse your code (and implicitly, profit from it), don't open-source it.
-
-
As for whether a generic, low-quality GAN-generated image is worth money -- obviously the content itself is worthless, but the act of putting it up for auction (with great success!) is a kind of a masterpiece of performance art, unironically.
Show this thread -
It's like Banksy's shredder -- I don't think the manufacturer of that shredder deserves much credit.
Show this thread -
Anyway, the author of that GAN piece of code used open-source packages to code an implementation of an algorithm they didn't invent, & train it on a dataset they didn't collect. In most cases, your work is a link in a long chain. You are rarely the center of the universe.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don’t think this is so clear-cut: open source is compatible with some restriction for reuse (typically, copyleft). If this kind of valuation becomes commonplace, the AI art community will certainly need to establish some form of reciprocity mechanism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.