AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Sacrosanct]

If you're trying to convince others there's no point minds have been made up

The reason they aren't convincing isn't because "our minds are already made up". They aren't convincing because they are factually wrong about how AI works and are making untrue claims. It's not shocking why people aren't buying it. If you (general you) want to be convincing, then come with a strong argument rooted in fact.

So, which of the two images is AI, what model, prompts etc did you use? If you ran it local did you use automatic111 or comfyui?

The fact you had to ask disproves the claim they made I was responding to. They said, "Training an AI on an image is not rebroadcasying the image or reprinting the image in any meaningful sense. "

If you can't tell the difference, then....

 

[lynnfredricks]

Hell, I have a hard enough time recognizing images that I took myself, with my own cameras, based on the tens of thousands that I've shot over the years. I have to rely on a trained eye to spot the "signature" of my style and, even then, I mistake others' work for my own on occasion in the relatively small community of photographers, in which I work. Trying to pick out elements of artistic expression, in text or digitally produced image, would be a nightmare if not using a computer to do so.

Digital photography is sort of its own creative space with its own foibles. It is something I think of when applying creative filters.

But consider also, the styles of various digital artists just in the RPG market, such as Erol Otus or Tony DiTerlizzi. As it is now, you can request certain AI art generators to generate art of <insert description> in the style of artist X.

 

[Justice and Rule]

But consider also, the styles of various digital artists just in the RPG market, such as Erol Otus or Tony DiTerlizzi. As it is now, you can request certain AI art generators to generate art of <insert description> in the style of artist X.

Yeah, using artists as part of the prompts kind of gives away the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Relevant article that came out two days ago.

Money quote:
Meta has acknowledged using parts of the Books3 dataset but argued that its use of copyrighted works to train LLMs did not require "consent, credit, or compensation." The company refutes claims of infringing the plaintiffs' "alleged" copyrights, contending that any unauthorized copies of copyrighted works in Books3 should be considered fair use.


So the chief of Meta is outright saying it out loud "Creators shouldn't be compensated, and if we have to, we'll just pirate it anyway and claim Fair Use."

 

[Scribe]

Relevant article that came out two days ago.

Money quote:
Meta has acknowledged using parts of the Books3 dataset but argued that its use of copyrighted works to train LLMs did not require "consent, credit, or compensation." The company refutes claims of infringing the plaintiffs' "alleged" copyrights, contending that any unauthorized copies of copyrighted works in Books3 should be considered fair use.


So the chief of Meta is outright saying it out loud "Creators shouldn't be compensated, and if we have to, we'll just pirate it anyway and claim Fair Use."

"Meta" (what a dumb ass name, right up there with "X"), Microsoft, Amazon, and the billions being dumped into companies like openAI.

People need to remove the wool from their eyes if they think this tech is going to be 'for the people'.

 

[Sacrosanct]

"Meta" (what a dumb ass name, right up there with "X"), Microsoft, Amazon, and the billions being dumped into companies like openAI.

People need to remove the wool from their eyes if they think this tech is going to be 'for the people'.

Yep. The creators don't need to be compensated, but we'll sure charge you for it...shareholders you know.

 

[lynnfredricks]

Relevant article that came out two days ago.

Money quote:
Meta has acknowledged using parts of the Books3 dataset but argued that its use of copyrighted works to train LLMs did not require "consent, credit, or compensation." The company refutes claims of infringing the plaintiffs' "alleged" copyrights, contending that any unauthorized copies of copyrighted works in Books3 should be considered fair use.


So the chief of Meta is outright saying it out loud "Creators shouldn't be compensated, and if we have to, we'll just pirate it anyway and claim Fair Use."

Not surprising though. Social media companies make money off of other people's effort.

 

[trappedslider]

If you can't tell the difference, then....

Then it could be for any number of reasons bad eye sight ,not trained to know the difference, not that good at details...so yeah i wish to know what TOOLS you used.

EDIT: I'm aware of the differences but a thought did accrue to me about companies and actual folks who make the publicly available models not paying for content that they use in making the models and the hay day of Napster/lime wire and sites like pirate bay, I feel that and i'm pretty sure there's actual hypocrisy overlap there.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Then it could be for any number of reasons bad eye sight ,not trained to know the difference, not that good at details...so yeah i wish to know what TOOLS you used.

I didn't create it. It was a post by an artist that found the image on the left online by someone who claimed it was their art. The original art was on the right. Point being, despite the claim, AI does in fact "rebroadcasying the image or reprinting the image in any meaningful sense", which is counter the claim that was made. You keep getting hung up on what tools were used when that has nothing to do with my post or the post I was replying to.

 

[trappedslider]

You keep getting hung up on what tools were used when that has nothing to do with my post or the post I was replying to.

That's because I asking a different question that was unrelated to the conversation you were having.