818
Generated "art" does not rule.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
818 points (100.0% liked)
196
17029 readers
1081 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
AI generated art doesn't meet the definition of plagiarism though?
plagiarize: : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source.
Since almost no one actually consented to having their images used as training data for generative art, and since it never credits the training data that was referenced to train the nodes used for any given generation; it is using another persons production without crediting the source, and thus is text book plagiarism.
Every living artist uses other people's art as training data without their consent. That's the way art works and it's ok. Please let's not consider every artist has to pay for every piece of art they ever layed their eyes on to be allowed to create art themselves.
The problem is that the machines are not learning. They are taking a statistical amalgamation of the input images and outputting a selected part of each relevant input (not how people learn or make inferences BTW)
It’s more like a complex selective compression and decompression method than generation of a new image.