(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
So? There is a lot that goes into copyright law that I don't know about. But it doesn't change the fact that if you are creating a new piece of art that isn't a close dupe of a copyrighted piece or you're not profiting off someone else's name - you're fine. It also doesn't change the fact that people can't own tropes, chords, musical notes, and ideas. There have been multiple lawsuits in recent years that basically say the same thing.
Once again, the gen ai machines are using copyrighted material without compensating the copyright owners. That's what their models are built on. It's not inspired, not a single chord progression, the whole damn track lists of whole swats of musicians fed into the slob grinder.
When another musician uses a sample, as in a piece of copyrighted material, as in an actual piece of a music track made by another musician, to make a new song, they pay royalties to that musician.
When an ai prompter uses a gen ai, which essentially samples the whole entire damn thing, there is no compensation to the musician whose work has been literally used in the making of the ai-slob.
This is again, not the same as being inspired or making a cover or using a similar chord progression.
I'm wondering what the point of this argument is? We've established that we all disagree on one point or another. It seems to me like we should cut our losses and go home before anything gets uncivilized...
I'll let you know my opinion on AI art if any is ever created. Right now there are only AI generated images.
Personally, I love drawing. Having a computer draw for me is like having a computer play Smash Bros for me. Kinda takes the point out of it. Because of this, I’ve never used AI for art. I’ve used it for research and advice on marketing my work, but not for artistic composition.
That being said, it’s not going anywhere. If you want to use AI, have at it. Just keep in mind your work might be frowned upon by your potential readers as it’s a very controversial practice. You’ll need some very good writing skills to back it up.
Today's "Breaking Cat News" comic by Georgia Dunn (You can follow her on GoComics. I highly recommend her comic!) is on point:
In my mind, it depends on how it's used. It should only help generate concept ideas, which you can make your art from those ideas without using the AI slop. Though, it most definitely shouldn't be used all the time.
But, people are lazy, and they will just use an AI image and then try to make money from it. In both the writing and art communities, it's downright dumb and pretty shameful to use AI as a crutch for everything without trying to at most put creative effort into anything.
I absolutely hate it, it is immoral. Most artists didn't consent to having their work used for training.
I keep seeing this use and while I can see the utility, I wouldn't use it for concept work directly - that's a good way to make sure your work looks like everyone else's and doesn't stand out. There's lots of other sources for good pose or costume ideas that won't seem as generic.
Yeah the training part really is an issue. The problem is that technology moves fast while government moves slow. AI will already be leaps and bounds ahead of where it is today by the time congress has a debate about how it trains.
9 days later
It's an absolute abomination and as someone who has been working in 2d animation for the past 6 years, I've actually seen it cause people to freak out and switch careers - giving up their dreams. I hate it more than I can describe. It's an electronic thief with zero artistic merit. It's soulless garbage and anything it creates that resembles soul - it stole.
Never liked the generative AI in art and culture. AI should really only be used in the medical field, that is where it is most useful and impressive. That is just one example, and I will not be listing a whole note, you know what I mean. And yes, I know there is AI tools for art programs. Not talking about those either, I am only talking about generative AI.
It is also a conflict with me, I think all of us having these computers, phones, and tablets and TVs, are more enough screen powered entertainment for our earth to take. These generative AIs takes a lot of space and dries out water. Basically a bit more global warming. I don't see the point of sitting down and doing keyboard smashing for 10 minutes or 6 hours be a worth hobby, when there is better stuff you can do on your devices such as games.
But I also believe in human labor or power, whatever we call it. There is a job everyone can do, and there is jobs some people just can't do. Some people enjoy being a cashier, some people can't cause of something stopping them. Such as anxiety, that can be something you just can't come over completely. Some can code and do engineer work, some can't. We shouldn't be taking job opportunities away from people.
And I am not one to generalize, everyone I see who supports generative AI believes some jobs shouldn't exist cause it isn't real in their perspective:skull:
