You're viewing a single thread.
AI art is stolen art
Fuck copyright
It's not about copyright, that's a burgeois invention. It's about attribution and alienation, with AI the act of working (creating the images that feed the neural network) is completely decoupled from the product (whatever the giant heap of linear algebra cobbles together). That's the issue, not some capitalist's loss of rent-seeking opportunities.
Stolen how? What specific works are being infringed upon?
I couldn't name you the specific works this particular piece has blended together, but all AI "art" is made by mashing together actual human work.
As a (bad) hobby level artist, I'm well aware my art is probably best described as mashing together other's actual human work. But I kind of think that's true for everyone. You always see influences and borrowed concepts from other's past works in new art. If your work is posted publicly, you can't be surprised when another artist sees it and is inspired by it.
In my opinion, we already have copyright protection against AI art, it's the same you would use against anyone else. If you can show that the generated artwork is a derivative work, it's a problem and they've violated your copyright.
This is not accurate. AI art is not "mashed together" but rather inherits techniques and creates new images.
K. You just dogmatically believe that this piece was mashed together but can't name the pieces or which parts are from different works.
But that is how ai image generators work. I don't know every piece of art or every photograph ever taken, but I know that ai image generators work by mashing them together.
Any work used to train the AI without first acquiring the proper license from the license holder.
Prove it.
Here for more accurate results there's a field on that website where you can specify particular AIs.
Just because you didn't personally steal the goods someone else passed on to you, it doesn't suddenly make them not stolen goods.
Calling things stolen without evidence does not make them stolen. That's just kindergarten level finger pointing.
You're being obtuse. The evidence is the AI itself. It is trained on existing pictures and doesn't just "dream up some art". Its all copied and pasted from somewhere. If you actually knew how the tech worked you would know this. But I suspect you actually do and are arguing in bad faith.
Spoken like someone with no grasp of what AI is and is capable of.
as a comp-sci major: Spoken like someone with no grasp of how AI is and is capable of.