The artists were compensated by pintrest & the other sites in the form of free hostingI don't know how you could miss that by now without actively making an effort. Coincidentally that same effort was displayed when you were presented an example of humans doing the exact thing you faulted an AI for only to dismiss it as a meme to avoid the logic conflict. As an archive, Common Crawl doesn't do anything that requires compensation because "The Common Crawl dataset includes copyrighted work and is distributed from the US under fair use claims. Researchers in other countries have made use of techniques such as shuffling sentences or referencing the common crawl dataset to work around copyright law in other legal jurisdictions" but it also follows robots.txt directives
For someone who doesn't "care to speculate on how the courts will rule", you've shown no hesitancy in declaring theft stealing unethical behavior & so on while taking stances as if that speculation was both done as well as decided in the manner most supportive of your position throughout the thread
They were compensated for allowing specific use of their content. The question is not whether there was any compensation. The question is were they compensated for their content being used to train an AI.
I imagine that common crawls doesn’t train AIs to create art. The commons crawls use seems to be very specific, e.g., archiving and indexing, uses which are non-controversial.
Hmm, this is more an “are computers making actual” question than an “is training ai fair use” question. I think you are dodging the question by eliding from the second to the first.
If and when a trained AI could produce art, would using art to train the AI be fair use?
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with the bold section but will make an effort. The post you quoted was talking about two very different uses of AI image manipulation/generation software & the context of that post being in response to a comment about "downright manipulating the image in question" was critical to the topic of "substantially similar".
The two uses in question are as dissimilar as an image editor & the process of a user manually using the tools within it to make a new image from a given source image. Since Adobe doesn't seem likely to be going under with photoshop any time soon. Here is an example of someone using it to
The only time an existing image is directly or "downright manipulated" is when a user takes steps to load the image in & manually directs the software to modify that image, that process is similar to loading an existing image in photoshop to manually use photoshop's tools to manipulate the image
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with the bold section but will make an effort. The post you quoted was talking about two very different uses of AI image manipulation/generation software & the context of that post being in response to a comment about "downright manipulating the image in question" was critical to the topic of "substantially similar".
The two uses in question are as dissimilar as an image editor & the process of a user manually using the tools within it to make a new image from a given source image. Since Adobe doesn't seem likely to be going under with photoshop any time soon. Here is an example of someone using it to
The only time an existing image is directly or "downright manipulated" is when a user takes steps to load the image in & manually directs the software to modify that image, that process is similar to loading an existing image in photoshop to manually use photoshop's tools to manipulate the image
Mod Note:
I was just reviewing this thread, and noting how it really wasn't about gaming any more.
I have no idea why you are making this about the speakers, personally. But it has convinced me that this is far enough away from gaming content that the discussion should be closed at this point.
