using it to train their plagiarism machines
That’s simply not how AI works, if you look inside the models after training, you will not see a shred of the original training data. Just a bunch of numbers and weights.
Comment on Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago“Just don’t make a living with your art if you aren’t okay with AI venture capitalists using it to train their plagiarism machines without getting permission from you or compensating you in any way!”
If y’all hate artists so much then only interact with AI content and see how much you enjoy it. 🤷♂️
cm0002@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
If the individual images are so unimportant then it won’t be a problem to only train it on images you have the rights to.
Astarii_Tyler@lemmy.world 10 months ago
They do have the rights because this falls under fair use, It doesn’t matter if a picture is copyrighted as long as the outcome is transformative.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
I’m sure you know something the Valve lawyers don’t.
teichflamme@lemm.ee 10 months ago
It has literally nothing to do with plagiarism.
Every artist has looked at other art for inspiration. It’s the most common thing in the world. Literally what you do in art school.
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
It’s not an artist any more than a xerox machine is. It hasn’t gone to art school. It doesn’t have thoughts, ideas, or the ability to create. It can only take and reuse what has already been created.
teichflamme@lemm.ee 10 months ago
The ideas are what the prompts and fine tuning is for. If you think it’s literally copying an existing piece of art you just lack understanding because that’s not how it works at all.
drmoose@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It has nothing to do with AI venture capitalists. Also not every profession is entitled to income, some are fine to remain as primarily hobbies.
AI art is replacing corporate art which is not something we should be worried about. Less people working on that drivel is a net good for humanity. If can get billions of hours wasted on designing ads towards real meaningful contributions we should added billions extra hours to our actual productivity. That is good.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yes it is. Otherwise it is not a profession. People go to school for years to become professional artists. They are absolutely entitled to income.
But hey, you want your murals painted by robots and your wall art printed out, have fun. I’m not interested in your brave new world.
drmoose@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m literally a professional artist lol
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 months ago
So you think you’re not entitled to income from your work? That doesn’t sound like something a professional would say. “I’m obsolete, don’t pay me.”
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 months ago
The ratio of using AI to replace ad art:fraud/plagiarism has to be somewhere around 1:1000.
“Actual productivity” is a nonsense term when it comes to art. Why is this Image less “meaningful” than this? Image
Without checking the source, can you even tell which one is art for an ad and which isn’t?
drmoose@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I’m not sure what’s your point here? Majority of art is drivel. Most art is produced for marketing. Literally. If that can be automated away what are we losing here? McDonald’s logos? Not everything needs to be a career.
TrickDacy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What a shitty shitty shitty take
sukhmel@programming.dev 10 months ago
I would assume the first to be an ad, because most of depicted people look happy