Search results

Which seems completely irrelevant to the specific topic that was actually being discussed.

Creation does not equal ownership… How that keeps being conflated by so many is baffling.

Both? Asking the ai to change the picture is one of many ways I can change a picture.

That’s not what being the creator of a thing means. Society and the law could say you get no rights to your artistic works and you would still have been the creator.

Ironically that was precisely my original point and position before we got off on this tangent.

Why wouldn’t some variation of transformative fair use potentially apply?

Not clear why AI being trained matters in regards to using AI to make exactly what one envisions through a process of gradual refinement until the image perfectly matches the vision. AI can be used in more ways than - give me a single image I’m going to use whatever it spits out. Is your claim...

Seems like an odd definition of artistic intent that excludes an artist intentionally using DLSS5 because they like the results better.

And we have many carve outs allowing for using intellectual property you don't actually own or have permission to use.

I’m not asking about IP rights.

Which doesn’t answer the question. Every public domain image had some creator.

Legally they have rights. But that’s not the same as saying they were the creator of the derivative. That’s the AI is a tool camp. If AI is a tool like a word processor then the person using it is the creator, the artist, etc. or at least I don’t see a logical way around that. I’m not really...

Glad we can agree there. Well that’s not been the primary debate I’ve been involved in for this thread. But I’m also not convinced the arguments about major negative impacts from the technology are fundamentally any different than those against any other form of automation. Potentially more...

Agreed, well mostly. I don’t know for sure that I’d credit the creator of the original work as the creator of the derivative, even though there is clearly influence there. But I’m open to either interpretation. What about the programmers and engineers that created the LLM and algorithm it uses...

Okay, but I don’t think most people are deceiving themselves about whether they find their group to be good enough for them.

Sure, I don’t disagree with that distinction, but I specifically said ‘good enough group’. In both of those cases the group was ‘good enough’ for that person regardless of whether it was a really good group or just deciding it is good enough.

Kind of the same thing I thought?

Lizard person!

There’s a process that will work eventually given a large enough player pool and enough time, but achieving it quickly is mostly just luck. Most people just luck into a good enough group.

Fundamental question here. Who did create that novel? Unless AI is sentient, with intention and will then surely the creation must ultimately be attributable to a person or at least multiple people? That sounds very similar to letting the AI know what you want and developing the necessary...