this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2024
2018 points (97.3% liked)

Fuck AI

1210 readers
476 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 6 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If you weren't creating before "AI", you're not creating after.

It's like hiring a person to do art for you, but instead you took all their shit and used a machine to make a soup out of it.

Get fcked.

[–] Fungah@lemmy.world -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

So i had an idea for a thing. This thing did not exist. Parts of it may existed in some fashion, but the thing itself did not.

Now the thing exists. It hangs on my wall.

We may have different definitions of the term creation in mind here. Can you suggest a better word to use for using my input to make a thing that did not exist before? I can use that going forward.

And yes. Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.

I'm making an assumption here, and feel free to correct me if its incorrect, but I'm guessing that you feel its okay when a person blends artistic styles into something that is distinctly their own.

If this assumption is true: why is it legitimate when a person does it and not a machine? Or is it?

And another question: if the issue is with artists being compensated (maybe another assumption here, in apologize if I'm off base): would you support legislation to the effect that those that inspired or influenced another artist's work receive recompense for it?

Second to last question: if an ai is trained solely on works in the public domain do you still have an issue with it?

Final question: if existing artists styles can be replicated using a genealogy of sorts using only those public domain works, and they're combined in a manner that no one has thought to combine them: are there issues you have with that? What are they?

Honestly trying to get a better understanding of where the borders of right and wrong here for you are so I can better understand your position.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Based on your first comment, you're not a person I want to have a discussion with.

Maybe someone else values their time less then I do and will indulge in your quest to find the right and the wrong.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

you're correct and almost intelligent enough to spell so I obviously will lose if I continue this argument I started by shouting in my echo chamber of luddite artbros

My ROFLCopter goes woot woot woot woot.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You're having a conversation with yourself here? Are you ok?

[–] Fungah@lemmy.world -5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Cognitive dissonance at work.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

Lol, keep telling that to yourself.

[–] VerbFlow@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.

Dude, just use Photoshop. That's all you have to do. You just cut out the face of Lisa and put your own. You can also use blurring to make it look better. "Ai" isn't needed.