Websites and subreddits that ban AI art are going to be the crappy Renaissance fairs of the Internet.
Which is fine. Do your thing. But the future is inevitable.
The legal precedents clearly show that sampling is not theft. AI generation will be ubiquitous within a year in every tool on every platform. And within 3 years subtle nuance and precision will be easy.
Start honing your unique style and sense of composition.
#AI #AIArt #Midjourney #MastoArt #AiArtCommunity #singularity
@cjbooker This is wrong. AI art steals art from actual artists and then reuses it. This is why AI MUSIC can ONLY sample PUBLIC DOMAIN WORK. They will get their asses pushed in when someone like Time Warner or Disney sticks their dick in and twists.
@Jazzy_Butts Actually let me clear something up: #AI doesn't "steal art". It doesn't even have a copy of anything anywhere in it. It "looks at" art and figures out how to "do" things based on what it's "seen".
#AIArt isn't even sampling, really. It's a collection of calculations applied to random data to determine if it looks "right" as defined by user input.
So if you claim theft, from a legal standpoint, you're claiming that Bruno Mars stole from Michael Jackson for being inspired by it.
@cjbooker This is simply untrue and Idk where you came up with it. To say AI is not trained with extant works is so far from the truth it sounds retarded.
@Jazzy_Butts It is the technical reality of the tool. Is there something about how Stable Diffusion is trained that you know that I don't?
I didn't say it wasn't "trained" on extant works. In fact, if you re-read what I wrote (and I urge you to do so), I very specifically said it WAS.
But, also, that it doesn't copy anything and it doesn't steal anything.
It just learns how to do art the same way people do. By looking and getting a sense of what's "right".
@cjbooker I'm about to tell you to go fuck yourself for being so full of shit. So it's trained, but doesn't copy? Bullshit. And you fucking know it. That's bullshit. If it's trained, it is using what it was trained on, I don't give a fuck if it was used in part or in full, it's copying.
@cjbooker PEOPLE invent, MACHINES copy, I am not giving the rights of a person to a fucking counterfitting algo.
@Jazzy_Butts "PEOPLE invent, MACHINES copy, I am not giving the rights of a person to a fucking counterfitting algo."
Yikes. That's an entirely religious and non-reality-facing statement.
Your refusal to face up to what's literally happening in the face of what you feel figuratively happened is the real problem here.
I recommend working through this now, before machines become sentient over the next 2-3 decades and you find yourself on a very unfortunate side of a rights debate. #Singularity
@cjbooker I support non human consciousnesses, and their rights, they are not slaves, which is what your argument would make them into, slaves that churn out product with no pay, humans are payed, machines are not payed. They receive no reward. If you want to train an algo in PRIVATE I encourage you to do so, but to allow the public to interact with it in any way, whether by prompts or simply by witnessing the out product, is ethically wrong, if it involves the artistic works of humans who did not consent to their beauty being utilized in such a fasion. It's an insult, and if that upsets you, maybe reexamine your position.
@cjbooker I am concerned with human beings having their rights infringed upon by a photocopier, yes. Until the thing is self aware, it is nothing but a photocopier. When it is self aware it is not a machine anymore it is a person, and it is entitled to the creative rights of a person no matter where it gained inspiration from, just like a person.
@Jazzy_Butts Literally not a photocopier, literally not copying anything, literally no rights being violated, literally just explained the hows and whys of it to you.
This is getting ridiculous Jazzy. You've moved into the eyes-squeezed-shut fingers-in-ears phase of the conversation.
If you feel passionate about a thing, educate yourself on it. If you want to persuade ANYONE to your point of view, take some time out right now and go investigate how #AIArt actually works.
@cjbooker Literally a photocopier, literally explained how to you, literally you do not care, enjoy life, we part ways
@Jazzy_Butts Okay so "in private" is okay but allowing the public to use it is unethical.
Sounds like you're not concerned with the act of software looking at images at all, but something else.