Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anon Adderlan" data-source="post: 9366059" data-attributes="member: 53053">An artist insists they did not use generative AI in their work, but because some magical AI detector generated big numbers after being fed their work the company decided to publicly declare they did. So I can tell you right off why they weren't named, because if they were it'd be actionable defamation. Because like it or not AI generated imagery is already indistinguishable from human work, and real humans are being falsely accused of engaging in machinethink on a daily basis.Not sure why you're so eager to believe an undisclosed AI detector over the word of an artist. Guess you just trust machines more.But AI works perfectly in workflows like this.Because the explanation wasn't exhaustive enough. At the very least they should disclose the tech they used to 'detect' the use of AI.Meanwhile the anti's who are accusing everyone of using AI totally aren't.'Absolutely'. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.So do I, as maybe then you'd have an effective counterargment.The number of people who do not understand the difference between theft and copyright is frustrating to say the least.Obviously absolutely basically theft even though they didn't say it word for word.And yet somehow tracing is still a perennial issue in this industry, and companies like #Paradox/#Renegade seem no worse for wear(wolf) over it.Then it should be trivial to demonstrate violation.Not sure what you're driving at here as every artist has done this to some degree.Corporations have been treated in such a manner since forever, but the inventions themselves still had to be discovered by humans, even if by accident. And while this is fantastic news in theory I don't see how it can ever work in practice. Is a compound rendered unpatentable if discovered by an AI before a human? What if you need to refer to AI discoveries in regards to prior art? These laws, while well meaning, are utterly incoherent and ultimately only 'enforceable' by the same corpos who can already outspend you in court.Good question, and one I'll have to speculate about elsewhere.It's also not a viable legal stance as distinguishing these portions is as impractical as it is impossible. Does animation tweening count, and if so does that mean the filing must specify every keyframe? What about filters which alter the entire image to some degree? What about art based on tracing an AI generated image? And finally, how do you prove any of it?Couldn't help but notice your avatar is using work done by Wayne Reynolds for Wizards of the Coast. Did you get permission to do so?So in response to how AIs are taking jobs they decide to... stop taking jobs. Yeah that'll show'em.No, because likenesses are protected by a different set of laws. Otherwise, congrats on finding one of the many loopholes.It's because they want to maximize their use of the technology and don't want to accidentally shoot themselves in the foot by pushing for regulations which will ultimately harm them.Oh no! Now all of #EnWorld is in the public domain!Then there's nothing to worry about.As long as artist are far more concerned with attacking each other and maintaining the status quo I don't see how any of this will change.Couldn't help but notice your avatar <a href="https://www.deviantart.com/annahelme/art/Rylan-Hawke-756973926" target="_blank">is using work done by Anna Helme</a>. Did you get permission to do so?</blockquote>

Verification