Search results

For that particular question sure. But it does bring up a foundational consideration. Artistic intent of the original artists in video games has never been sacrosanct. Since thats true, how can the justification for disliking DLSS5 be that it impacts artistic intent? It just doesn’t make...

Just wanted to highlight… All of this is irrelevant as whether its use by an artist changes artistic intent or becomes the artistic intent.

Besides a ton of pc gamers use mods to modify and/or enhance graphics. They literally are changing the artists intent and no one has ever given a damn.

Assuming they were to begin with why not? If I take a photo I took and apply a filter to change how it looks, I’m still the photographer. That ruling is not in all contexts.

Okay. The person using it can though.

This seems like it’s meant for a different thread?

Right. I’m with you on the particular artistic intent argument. My understanding is the developer is responsible for even enabling the feature as an option.

I think technically you are correct. But I also think that while the line isn’t clear and agreed upon, it seems DLSS5 crosses the line for alot of people, though how much of that is due to ‘AI Bad’ reactions, compared to the actual output of the technology I’m not actually sure.

Yes. In those examples there is an actual different creator, another person, an artist creating the art. Though this can quickly approach partnership and colloborative work depending on how involved the patron/benefactor is. Are you fully ready to accept all the consequences of claiming the ai...

I don’t know where to draw the lines but mental creation and physical creation are somewhat different things. Agreed. The same can be said for paintbrush design, though the impact on the final product is likely much much less. Which seems to be exactly what happens with human art creation as...

Agreed though unlike theft of physical goods, theft of intellectual property is often much less clear cut on what constitutes theft vs acceptable use. 1. Depends on your application. 2. That uncertainty itself depends on yet to be settled legal precedents and possibly future laws.

And beyond that there’s also the possibility the court expands fair use by judicial powers to cover what ai did with scraping copyrighted works.

Sure, but we don’t see him crediting Microsoft or Dell when all he did was tell the computer to copy the numbers from his excel file to his personally created PowerPoint.

Honestly I think the notion that the ai is creator of the image is probably the worst long term take for artists. The implications seem fairly damning if ai is the creator of the images produced with it. I’m glad I can have abstract thoughts without needing every detail explicitly concrete.

Nice dodge. But really who created the image the ai outputs?

So who did create the image that the ai spit out?

So are we back to the part of the loop where it’s claimed you are not the creator because the one doing the actual image creation is the creator. But you are part of what’s creating that image, as previously discussed with fairly wide agreement, philosophically creation for that image gets...

I looked and it was not. Thus why I pushed back. It came across as you making a completely irrelevant negative observation.

Please quote from your previous post where that was ever the context, because I looked and it’s not there.

I already answered all the chef criticisms. So I’ll as you to loop back through my answers, since you must have missed them. There’s at least 2 ways to use AI. One is chef give me X dish. I agree that’s not you creating anything. The other is chef I have a vision for a dish I want to make...