4 ms·

>This implies art is by definition a physical thing It doesn't, you're reading something that isn't there. It defines "theft", not "art". Regardless of what yo

>This implies art is by definition a physical thing It doesn't, you're reading something that isn't there. It defines "theft", not "art". Regardless of what you think, theft has a pretty clear definition, and intellectual property cannot be stolen. It can be "damaged" by other means - call it plagiarism, data laundering, copyright infringement, commoditization, losing distinctiveness (trademarks can be lost that way), impersonation, but whatever you call it, it's specifically not theft, neither legally nor logically. It was discussed a million times and trying to retrofit theft onto intellectual property is manipulation.

__loam 3y ago
I truly hate how people try to worm their way out of these discussions with their "um actuallys". I'm extremely confident a majority of artists did not consent to this use of their work. You can define whatever you want or make whatever shitty legal argument you want, the AI companies knew what they were doing was unethical or they would have released some provenance with respect to their training set. This is very new and a legal grey area. I don't think we need to mince a lot of words to state that clearly the work of artists is being exploited here without credit, consent, or compensation. These models simply would not exist without alienated labor. These products are clearly intended to be a substitute for artists work. If it's determined to be legal, fine, but society doesn't have to pretend you're not a piece of shit for doing this stuff.
- orbital-decay 3y ago
  The OP is about physical museum heists. Any actuallys belong to those who are trying to bring the %current_event%-related snark into the discussion in the first place, especially while ignoring a pretty important distinction which hurts those discussions and tends to turn them into emotional shamefests with little substance.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I agree, people arguing in favor of these models deserve to feel shame. And you're right, I am emotional. In fact I'm outraged. If you have a scrap of empathy, you should be too.

__loam 3y ago

I truly hate how people try to worm their way out of these discussions with their "um actuallys". I'm extremely confident a majority of artists did not consent to this use of their work. You can define whatever you want or make whatever shitty legal argument you want, the AI companies knew what they were doing was unethical or they would have released some provenance with respect to their training set. This is very new and a legal grey area. I don't think we need to mince a lot of words to state that clearly the work of artists is being exploited here without credit, consent, or compensation. These models simply would not exist without alienated labor. These products are clearly intended to be a substitute for artists work. If it's determined to be legal, fine, but society doesn't have to pretend you're not a piece of shit for doing this stuff.

orbital-decay 3y ago
The OP is about physical museum heists. Any actuallys belong to those who are trying to bring the %current_event%-related snark into the discussion in the first place, especially while ignoring a pretty important distinction which hurts those discussions and tends to turn them into emotional shamefests with little substance.
- __loam 3y ago
  I agree, people arguing in favor of these models deserve to feel shame. And you're right, I am emotional. In fact I'm outraged. If you have a scrap of empathy, you should be too.