2 ms·

I struggle to understand how you can mark work as "not for AI training"? Might as well mark it as "do not get inspired by this". If I'm a painter and I look at

• tail_exchange 2y ago
  The first issue I have with AI art is that it is self-destructive. It outcompetes and devalues artists to a point where it is virtually impossible to survive by having art as a job, but learning from artists is the only reason why it can exist in the first place. It is a machine that destroys the very thing that gives it life. The second issue is that AI does not learn like humans do. Two different people looking at the same image will not be inspired the same way, because humans are inspired subjectively. There is a layer between what you see and what you learn, because everyone is wired differently, there is creativity involved in this process. AIs are not like this, they are not creative and there is no subjectiveness, it is built on plagiarism. So yes, I agree on not treating binary differently. When a human learns from other artists and applies it without any creative twist, we call it plagiarism. When an AI does it, we give it a pat on the back and say it's just learning from what it sees. Why should AI be treated any different?