You're viewing part of a thread.
Computers do not get "inspiration" or "influence", and that's quite literally not what I'm arguing. Maybe I'm just talking to an AI lol
Your argument is that you can get a request for a commission perhaps for a mascot ( create a new comic hero in the style of Jack Kirby) and it's perfectly fine for you Google examples of Kirby's style to create the picture.
But if a computer does the same it's a copyright violation.
Because an AI does not create unique art/concepts/ideas, what's hard to understand about that? You are putting the human mind on the same level as AI and that's wild
The fact that you can't pin down most AI photos to a combination of existing art is proof that's untrue. A random number generator can create unique numbers just like a human asked to write a list of random numbers.
A random AI photo generator will create a unique work of art. Your claim was that it is a copyright violation to copy an art style.
That a human can add meaning, and emotion to art is a question of quality. I never questioned that human art is higher quality.
I wish you understood how AI worked lol. People who don't know how an AI works on a technical scale should not have opinions on whether or not it's copywritten
You don't know how it works at a technical level. Neural net training on data isn't copying images into a database for retrieval like you imagine.
35 years ago I was messing around with neural net models for optical character recognition. What have you done?
And a random number generator is not random lol. And I never claimed copying an art style is a copyright violation, stop putting words in my mouth. God you people are so fucking annoying to argue with, making shit up, ignoring any points, you don't even understand how the thing works
Humans can't generate random numbers either. For example people won't repeat digits if asked to give a random sample despite that being possible.