this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
88 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43898 readers
902 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Hey I got no problem with referencing art, but one should at least give credit for works referenced. Also, the AI isn't actually sentient, so it's just a generative algorithm; it's not actually creatively making derivative works.
So piracy isn't I feel a 1:1 comparison. At least in most forms of software piracy, the pirates still leave in the credits/splashscreen/whatever.
AI as a tool is not what I object to; what I object to is merely using AI to lazily slap together content without actually having creativity be the onus behind it, and then calling it art on the same level of art that does.
In short, there has to be an artist for something to be art; and for there to be an artist, there must be creativity, which requires sentience. Whether that sentience is from a true AI or a human is irrelevant, as long as it is there. If there is no creativity behind the "art", then generative AI in this case is not a paintbrush, but an assembly box pumping out bobbles.
The human actually has to have an idea of what they want? It's not just pressing a button, wait a bit, and there we go?
Is that what you're saying?
Am I understanding you correctly?
So you didn't just say "Draw Stalin as Captain Ahab on the deck of the Pequod"? You actually had to utilize some creativity for how it would actually look?
Credits?
Ooh, you shouldn't have done that. Now I get to have fun. >:3
Okay... Draw me Garras from Mass Effect 2 playing Marco Polo with Goku from Dragonball Z, with Princess Peach from Mario & Samus Aran from Metroid doing fisticuffs in the background. Do it in an ukiyo-e style.
Ready? Go!!!
I do indeed see what you mean.
Fair enough. I can admit when I'm wrong. :)
...except when a person is doing it, they're doing their own thing to it. They take an idea or two and filter it through their own lens and stylise it
Think about it like this - when you do data scraping, you're still interpreting the results. You're looking at the data and going 'ok from this I can draw X and Y conclusions based on this and that'. AI art is like if we removed you from the process - we just shoved all the data into a black box and it goes ding "X is Y". If you asked it why that's so, it wouldn't be able to tell you. You can't see how it works so you have no idea if it's reasoning makes scientific sense. It would not be admissible in a paper.
...don't most people kinda agree you don't pirate from small artists where piracy is actually hurting them? There's like, honour along thieves when it comes to piracy, and this is stepping all over the little guy who's actually hurt by this just to get your grubby little hands on something you think you're entitled to