It’s only wrong when done for profit.
Otherwise you’re just having their material as data for an algorithm and a personal use case.
Get your head out of your ass. Their voices are their art and to replicate that is not only disturbing it’s morally wrong. Especially if you do so for profit.
It’s only wrong when done for profit.
Otherwise you’re just having their material as data for an algorithm and a personal use case.
I don’t know what someone would use AI art for “personal use” aside from trying to make some sort of porn or something for themselves
Use the voices for a film project or machinima if you want, use the picture generation models to create wallpapers, it’s not my fault you insist on being obtuse about this by pretending you can’t figure out a use case that isn’t based around making money.
A film project or a machinima that I won’t be posting online or sharing with anyone? AI art generally doesn’t look very good, so I wouldn’t want to stare at it all day only to notice the imperfections all over it. Idk about you but it seems like these models are designed specifically to avoid paying talented people for their work. Simple as that. If we didn’t have capitalism they would simply not exist
nxfsi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Nobody complained about copyright when Microsoft had the only image ai in the game, only when the open source stable diffusion came out did they start screeching about how ai was “stealing their jobs”.
GunnarRunnar@kbin.social 1 year ago
Fuck off. The tech got popular and public got educated on what makes it work.
nxfsi@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So years of Microsoft’s advertising dalle did nothing to educate the public about how ai works but they’re suddenly all experts the week after stable diffusion comes out?
Enigma@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
No, they didn’t because I’ve literally never heard of it until your comment. And I understand that my experience is anecdotal, but I guarantee I’m not the only one, or even one of only a couple thousand. You severely overestimate how knowledgeable the general public is on AI. Most haven’t even heard of Chat GPT, and that’s in the news, let alone expecting everyone to be interested in it enough to actually educate themselves on it.
Like you’re the only person in this thread that’s even mentioned Microsoft’s version, yet you think “the public” knows about it?
Sekoia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Uh no people definitely did. Mostly the people that actually knew how this shit worked. But even laypeople complained when it was just Dall-E and Midjourney.
ShadowRam@kbin.social 1 year ago
What are you talking about? When MS had the only image AI in the game, it was garbage and couldn't do anything useful. Of course no one was threatened.
But after researchers got their hands on nVidia 3000 series cards, and finally had access to hardware.
More advanced research papers started spilling out, which has caused this crazy leap in AI tech.
Now the image/audio AI is advanced enough to be useful, hence now the threats..
FaceDeer@kbin.social 1 year ago
And yet it was still doing exactly the same thing that people are now going on about how "unethical" it is.
Just goes to show that they don't actually care how "unethical" it is until it actually poses a threat to their income. It's about money, not about principle.
Sneptaur@pawb.social 1 year ago
This is such a ridiculous argument it’s not even funny. You have absolutely no evidence to back up your deranged claim. Take your victim complex somewhere else.
Sneptaur@pawb.social 1 year ago
I saw people complain about it from 8:00 day one but go off I guess.