And what about the theft and abuse of creators that was required to create the AI in the first place? If we’re just going to steal shit, we don’t even need the AI, we can just steal shit from each other.
Well, this image isn’t being used commercially so no one is making money off of it. I think that seems like a fair use of AI. Similar to how people make memes with images they stole from the Internet
Human artists train using other artists work. Every avenue of human endeavour is based on what came before.
My own default style shares similarities with Barbara Canepa and Rumiko Takahashi. Why? Because, as a teen, I used to copy their stuff, trying to “unlock” the parts of it that I like.
If I was to directly copy an image, and say it was my own, then that crosses over into stealing. But that’s not what has happened here. And unless you get very specific with the prompts, it’s not likely to happen.
Okay, but did you literally illegally download the material in the first place? Did you violate licenses that you obtained the material under? Do you intentionally imitate specific artists so that casual observers can’t tell the difference and then fill the entire space with more shitty art using that style than any human artist could ever product, such that the original artist who developed it no longer has control over that style and has their future income devastated?
It’s not the same thing and you’d have to be willfully ignorant by this point to think that it is. All the major LLMs are “fruit of the poisonous tree.” They were trained using stolen data that they were not entitled to use for those purposes. The artists SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID for their work training the AI.
What if I told you that I trained my brain on copyrighted materials that I pirated from the Internet? I make games and I have for sure downloaded games I didn’t pay for and played them. I know I have used some of the mechanics from those games on my own. Am I a bad person?
To say that an artist should have exclusive control over a style is dangerous.
Every time there is a big upheaval in an industry, it affects people’s jobs in that sector. Henry Ford’s investments in automation, put a lot of small car manufacturers in a tricky position. It also led to cars being affordable for most American households.
I’m not unsympathetic, in fact I’m more than a little aware that AI will be taking over my sector, the software development jobs, within a couple of years (and unlike art, I can’t see any market for “hand-crafted” code!).
But, the genie can’t be put back in the bottle. There’s no possible positive that comes from “calling out” AI art whenever you see it. It doesn’t help artists - if anything we’ve seen artists having to go out of their way proving their work isn’t AI.
And what about the theft and abuse of creators that was required to create the AI in the first place? If we’re just going to steal shit, we don’t even need the AI, we can just steal shit from each other.
Well, this image isn’t being used commercially so no one is making money off of it. I think that seems like a fair use of AI. Similar to how people make memes with images they stole from the Internet
Human artists train using other artists work. Every avenue of human endeavour is based on what came before.
My own default style shares similarities with Barbara Canepa and Rumiko Takahashi. Why? Because, as a teen, I used to copy their stuff, trying to “unlock” the parts of it that I like.
If I was to directly copy an image, and say it was my own, then that crosses over into stealing. But that’s not what has happened here. And unless you get very specific with the prompts, it’s not likely to happen.
Okay, but did you literally illegally download the material in the first place? Did you violate licenses that you obtained the material under? Do you intentionally imitate specific artists so that casual observers can’t tell the difference and then fill the entire space with more shitty art using that style than any human artist could ever product, such that the original artist who developed it no longer has control over that style and has their future income devastated?
It’s not the same thing and you’d have to be willfully ignorant by this point to think that it is. All the major LLMs are “fruit of the poisonous tree.” They were trained using stolen data that they were not entitled to use for those purposes. The artists SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID for their work training the AI.
I would download a car. Sorry bro.
What if I told you that I trained my brain on copyrighted materials that I pirated from the Internet? I make games and I have for sure downloaded games I didn’t pay for and played them. I know I have used some of the mechanics from those games on my own. Am I a bad person?
I don’t agree with your take, sorry.
To say that an artist should have exclusive control over a style is dangerous.
Every time there is a big upheaval in an industry, it affects people’s jobs in that sector. Henry Ford’s investments in automation, put a lot of small car manufacturers in a tricky position. It also led to cars being affordable for most American households.
I’m not unsympathetic, in fact I’m more than a little aware that AI will be taking over my sector, the software development jobs, within a couple of years (and unlike art, I can’t see any market for “hand-crafted” code!).
But, the genie can’t be put back in the bottle. There’s no possible positive that comes from “calling out” AI art whenever you see it. It doesn’t help artists - if anything we’ve seen artists having to go out of their way proving their work isn’t AI.
nobody fucking cares. find a different thread to bitch about your made up problem. GO AWAY.
You can’t make me.
i can. it would just take some work.
just STFU dude. nobody cares