3 ms·
It's just not that different from people seeing works and learning or being inspired, so how do you "ban AI" without adding more crazy DRM/DMCA stuff for legiti
by gedy 3y ago
It's just not that different from people seeing works and learning or being inspired, so how do you "ban AI" without adding more crazy DRM/DMCA stuff for legitimate use?
- bakugo 3y ago[flagged]
- PierceJoy 3y agoI agree that the scale is different, but even the way you’ve phrased it sounds pretty comparable to how humans learn and produce art. Besides scale, how is it different?
- kaibee 3y agoThe colour of the bits is different. https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
- csallen 3y agoUm, it's extremely comparable. You basically just described the human process, but used bigger numbers lol. Go on any art site, whether it's drawings or writing, and a massive amount of the human learning and inspiration you see is just copying from others, too. People drawing their favorite characters, writing fan fiction that copies from their favorite books, etc. This is so extremely comparable to AI it's weird to me that you don't see it.
- pitaj 3y agoThey're not amalgamations. They're not collages. The algorithm isn't memorizing the training data.
- gedy 3y agoLook I consider myself an artist, and am very creative. But the vast majority of art and artists are following after other's previous work. It's really not that unique, and frankly why AI can generate some things so well - because everybody's doing it! Artists who focus on truly new art aren't "in some AI" because it's unique or not easily reduced to some model weights. The economics of all this are challenging for graphic artists and illustrators for sure!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tomjen3 3y agoSource that they are not?