Recent content by Maxperson

It wouldn't be the first time the courts have gotten things wrong. Also, the courts tend to be more cautious with new technologies that are entering the legal space. Over time, as the technology progresses and is better understood, the rulings can and I think probably will change.

I think that once AI can track behind the image what the artists do to it and everyone can see how much time and design change there is, laws will shift to take that into account and there will be rulings that AI artists can control what they create.

And am not using. In my example the end result isn't at all like the starting picture. Yes, which is why if you simply enter a prompt and keep what it gives you, you haven't created anything.

I agree. My argument is that you can make AI if using AI as a tool, not that it's ethical to do so at this time.

See my above post. Plus, as I've said multiple times, now, things cannot create. Any new picture made by me and an AI tool must be my creation, because it cannot be the AI's.

Someone mentioned a bit earlier that what I'm suggesting is the same as directing a computer to do something. That's a fantastic analogy, but it doesn't accomplish what he thought it would. What am I talking about with a ton of direct written instructions to the AI to accomplish my vision is...

Sure, but there are other similar cases that could be ruled differently and/or appealed and a higher court rules differently. It's not truly settled yet.

Tools and things cannot create. I'm not a part of the creative process. I am the creative process. The tool is just a thing used to get me to my creative vision.

It's even worse than that. The AI is a tool.....a thing. Things cannot create, therefore if I and the tool make something new, there can be no creator other than me.

Wrong. I'm using it to build my creation. Not one order has been placed for fulfillment. Direction has been made to a tool. Not a person. Not a chef. Not a builder. A tool. Edit: You are even acknowledging my position with your response. You use the word "thing." Things cannot create.

Yeaaaaahh, so you don't have to own the house to have created it. It never had to be his in order for him to have created it.

I don't agree with you. If I use my hands and knowledge to make the first of something, I have created it regardless of legal rights or social acknowledgement. That's the reality. The reality can also be that the creation is stolen to me and someone else gets the credit and legal rights, but...

Neither. And there is a very real and significant distinction between building and creating. Just because the AI builds what I direct(not ask) it to, doesn't make it the creator. If it's my vision, it's my creation. When an architect designs a house, it's his creation, even though he doesn't...

Law and reality don't always align. I am the creator, even if the law doesn't recognize it. Training is irrelevant to creating via using AI as a tool like I am describing. The only difference is whether I'm using an AI whose training was moral or immoral, not whether the end result is my...

Wishes are 1 tenth of a point, not 10%. The distinction is important, because the 10th wish would make the strength 19, not 18/00. So the PC would go from 18 to 19, with no percentile improvement in-between. A 2nd wish would improve strength to 18.2, not 18/20.