Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ECMO3" data-source="post: 9518396" data-attributes="member: 7030563">Sure that exact image could not be made without their labor, but another one could be and for the value of their labor another 100 or more could be made and some of them WILL be better than the one they produce.That is what I am doing with AI.I mean when I cook a burger I am using modern appliances to do it, I am not rubbing 2 sticks together to get fire.&nbsp; I am relying on training built apon millenia of civilization.&nbsp;&nbsp; My mother taught me how to cook and I am pretty good at it, but I would not say I &quot;stole&quot; that knowlege from her and she did not &quot;steal&quot; it either, even though neither of us were the first people to cook, or use a stove, or eat meat or any of that.When I am using AI I am a great artist, and I feel I am great at being creative in other ways without AI.That is nonsense and the artists I hired are doing the same thing by using a computer and the internet.No artist is forced to provide their art to LLMs.&nbsp; They can make their art and keep in their home and never sell it and then the LLMs could not use it.I am not stealing anything.&nbsp; None of the images I use in my paid games are copyrighted.&nbsp; I own them, not the artists who's art trained the LLM and not the software I use to make them.&nbsp; They are mine.Some products cost more and other products don't.&nbsp; Digital art costs almost nothing in terms of raw materials (absent the investment in memory) and the value of it is generally not appreciably more due to the labor put into it.There are exceptions.&nbsp; Any art made by Gerhard Richter, for example is going to be valuable, and it is going to be valuable even if it is not good. Artists can't make digital art without machines.They should not have to pay royalties if their art is available on the open domain, to include if it was sold.Unless they sold it with a disclaimer, in which case they artists affected should take legal action against the person they sold it to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ECMO3, post: 9518396, member: 7030563"] Sure that exact image could not be made without their labor, but another one could be and for the value of their labor another 100 or more could be made and some of them WILL be better than the one they produce. That is what I am doing with AI. I mean when I cook a burger I am using modern appliances to do it, I am not rubbing 2 sticks together to get fire. I am relying on [I]training [/I] built apon millenia of civilization. My mother taught me how to cook and I am pretty good at it, but I would not say I "stole" that knowlege from her and she did not "steal" it either, even though neither of us were the first people to cook, or use a stove, or eat meat or any of that. When I am using AI I am a great artist, and I feel I am great at being creative in other ways without AI. That is nonsense and the artists I hired are doing the same thing by using a computer and the internet. No artist is forced to provide their art to LLMs. They can make their art and keep in their home and never sell it and then the LLMs could not use it. I am not stealing anything. None of the images I use in my paid games are copyrighted. I own them, not the artists who's art trained the LLM and not the software I use to make them. They are mine. Some products cost more and other products don't. Digital art costs almost nothing in terms of raw materials (absent the investment in memory) and the value of it is generally not appreciably more due to the labor put into it. There are exceptions. Any art made by Gerhard Richter, for example is going to be valuable, and it is going to be valuable even if it is not good. Artists can't make digital art without machines. They should not have to pay royalties if their art is available on the open domain, to include if it was sold. Unless they sold it with a disclaimer, in which case they artists affected should take legal action against the person they sold it to. [/QUOTE]

Verification