AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[trappedslider]

in recent court cases, the courts have ruled that while training isn't illegal yet, they however have ruled that way the companies acquired the training materials was in fact illegal.

 

[neceros]

A claim without evidence that not even the Foundation model companies claim in court. Of note, they literally torrented movies without regard for ownership, as they admitted in court.

Another claim the model companies do not make.

Completely and utterly untrue

Which is why signatures show up in gen AI 'art'

This is again not the claim that the companies you support make.
They do not claim that LLMs are human because it is an absurd fantasy

nope everything I said is true. The signatures show up because it learns that pictures are signed, so it hallucinates signatures.

I'm not going to show proof. Studies have been done. papers are on it. search it up if you like. im out.

 

[neceros]

in recent court cases, the courts have ruled that while training isn't illegal yet, they however have ruled that way the companies acquired the training materials was in fact illegal.

because courts are reliable

 

[Brendan Byrd]

nope everything I said is true. The signatures show up because it learns that pictures are signed, so it hallucinates signatures.

I do not find this a convincing argument.

I'm not going to show proof. Studies have been done. papers are on it. search it up if you like. im out.

Well, at least cite the < naughty word > “papers” to back up your position.

The Do YoUrr oWn reeSeerCHe thing is tiring.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Damn, Morrus was right. This stuff is really repetitive. Circular, even.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

it's been proven over and over that it's not stealing. Training is not stealing.

Generative AI learn EXACTLY like people do. They see images and it changes their neural network. They aren't saving images anywhere. They don't copy the pixels. They see it and it changes their brain. exactly like humans do.

Do you get upset when a person draws something which is pulling from the history of them looking at artwork over their lifetime? Humans are looking at copywritten art as well. shouldn't you be upset when they draw something from scratch using those copywritten images as inspiration and technique?

No. You don't. Because it's absurd.

The LLM/AI is not a sentient person.

 

[Brendan Byrd]

Damn, Morrus was right. This stuff is really repetitive. Circular, even.

The traffic circle scene in National Lampoon’s European Vacation comes to mind.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The traffic circle scene in National Lampoon’s European Vacation comes to mind.

Look, kids, Parliament, Big Ben, Copyright Infringement....

 

[bedir than]

nope everything I said is true. The signatures show up because it learns that pictures are signed, so it hallucinates signatures.

It hallucinates the exact signature of specific artists accidentally?

I'm not going to show proof. Studies have been done. papers are on it. search it up if you like. im out.

I'm talking about the actual court cases where they have admitted to theft and burning books

because courts are reliable

Compared to the gen AI fanbois who think putting real creators out of work, yes

 

[Maxperson]

So which of your two, contradictory arguments should I believe?

There's nothing contradictory about them, so you pick I guess.

Is a program's output created by the programmer, because the program was created to produce all possible outputs based on all possible inputs? Or is a program's output created by the end user, because the end user produced the output they envisioned in their head by providing instructions chosen from the program's possible inputs?

False Dichotomies are false. Third option! The outputs are created by the programmer with the exception of bugs that are unintended and fixed when possible. Just because you can find the rare bug doesn't make the millions of intended outputs your creation and not the programmers.

Per your arguments, either gen AI is producing output created by the AI's creator, who programmed the AI to respond appropriately to any possibly input, or Baldur's Gate is just a tool an end user uses to create a visible game state of their own creation.

No. That's YOUR False Dichotomy, not anything I've said.