4 ms·
> I’d say it’s the closest thing to when Napster got everyone used to theft that’s a bit dramatic, I’d argue the way AI has been used, I.E. scraping up people’
by yapyap 2y ago
> I’d say it’s the closest thing to when Napster got everyone used to theft
that’s a bit dramatic, I’d argue the way AI has been used, I.E. scraping up people’s work without consent and then using it to train models that will recreate said work to the best of their abilities so you won’t even need the artist anymore (in the ideal vision of the people running AI companies) is a much more heinous thing.
You’re downloading and using the artist’s work without their consent to train a tool to replace them. Whereas Napster is downloading their work and you might buy their work in the future cause you love it so much.
- bloomingkales 2y agoFor the training part. Generating art off someone’s art is nuanced. Let’s say you generate art off Darwin’s kid’s art. - First off most people won’t ever know, so you don’t even have to hide the theft. - If you copied a well known style, then you would have to hide that you did so by layering another style on top - You don’t have to worry about the first two points if you are not stealing and just commission an artist. - Or you are oblivious and uncaring about all of this, and all is sound in your mind because you bought the fake gem currency fair and square to generate your image. So, we are talking about taking. Some people have issue with the word stealing.