You do realise that the models stole the art from people all over the world, yes? It’s not like someone in Indonesia drawing fan art can simply profit off their own work the way people like you now can.
I also think this attitude (“just get a job to support your hobby while I get to profit of your work”) shows an overall lack of respect for artists.
“Soul” is the word we use for something we don’t scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.
You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to “it’s a probability machine” definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.
Current models aren’t intelligent. Not even by the flimsy and unprecise definition of intelligence we currently have.
Wanted to post a whole rant but then saw vexikron already did so I spare you xD
deleted by creator
As an artist you draw with an understanding of the human body, though. An understanding current models don’t have because they aren’t actually intelligent.
Maybe when a human is an absolute beginner in drawing they will think about the different lines and replicate even how other people draw stuff that then looks like a hand.
But eventually they will realise (hopefully, otherwise they may get frustrated and stop drawing) that you need to understand the hand to draw one. It’s mass, it’s concept or the idea of what a hand is.
This may sound very abstract and strange but creative expression is more complex than replicating what we have seen a million times. It’s a complex function unique to the human brain, an organ we don’t even scientifically understand yet.
In general I agree with you, but AI doesn’t learn the concept of what a circle is. AI reproduces the most fitting representation of what we call a circle. But there is no understanding of the concept of a circle. This may sound nit picking, but I think it’s important to make the distinction.
That is why current models aren’t regarded as actual intelligence, although people already call them that…
I think the difference in artistic expression between modern humans and humans in the past comes down to the material available (like the actual material to draw with).
Humans can draw without seeing any image ever. Blind people can create art and draw things because we have a different understanding of the world around us than AI has. No human artist needs to look at a thousand or even at 1 picture of a banana to draw one.
The way AI sees and “understands” the world and how it generates an image is fundamentally different from how the human brain conveys the object banana into an image of a banana.
$20/mo
good value for people without much money
The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.
AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won’t be able to benefit from it.
Sure, because every white elderly woman can only be a racist asshole. Makes you look like a Karen.
If you use that approach there is no way left to claim that current AI models aren’t a huge copyright infringement on the data they were trained on. Because the biggest argument for why AI is supposedly not copyright infringing it’s training data, is because it’s generated images aren’t direct copies of the works if was trained upon.
But if you start arguing the idea behind a image or the vision is somehow copyrightable than all AI models are illegal. Since they definitely work by using the ideas and visions of artists.
It is not the exact same.thing though. Unless you want to claim that you have figured out how human creativity works?
As an artist you do not look at how 300 other artists have drawn a banana, you look at a banana and try to understand how you can use different techniques to capture the form, texture, etc. of a banana.
An AI calculates from hundreds of images the probability of lines and colours being arranged in a certain way and still being interpreted as a banana. It never sees a banana or understands what it is.
Tell me, where do you see a similarity in these two processes.
I don’t see why it is complicated. It should not be copyrightable because ideas aren’t copyrightable.
Otherwise you definitely have to start fresh with AI and build new ones which somehow aren’t trained on the pictures produced by artists.
Because if you copyright the idea behind an image, than definitely all AI produced images are infringing on the copyright of the art they used for training.
I have no idea about podcasts. But since no one mentioned it yet, perhaps take a look at Funkwhale. It’s a decentralised platform, like Lemmy, for music and podcasts.
What a fucked up and disgusting post.
So true! I still remember when people heavily disliked DS9. I was a huge fan, but dare me saying it was perhaps my favourite Star Trek. Today there are more people open about liking DS9. (✿´꒳`)ﾉ
At least she avoided the typical end of most side characters who got a name and speaking role for ~1 episode: dieing as a casualty between some special effects.
existing CSAM and providing it under controlled conditions
This would go directly against the needs of the victims.
I was able to find an organisation which helps pedophiles and also conducts anonymous surveys. The pedophiles themselves reported they feel addicted to CSAM, most have come first in contact when they were minors themselves and nearly half want to seek contact to children after watching CSAM.
You are already making assumptions about whether or not producing artificial CP is harmful. But in truth nobody knows. And studies have shown that media indeed does influence us. It’s quite naive to assume that somehow just porn doesn’t.
How could they forget Pascal :/