Feb 23
77 / 77
Mar 19
3d ago
KevinReijnders
21d
incoMan

It's definitely not a search engine. Search engines... search. What gen AI does is construct text, images or sound by pulling from a large database/training set.

If I use a search engine to find out something about a specific historical event, ideally, that search engine will provide me with a number of websites/webpages dealing with that topic. It literally searches the web and finds them.

Gen AI on the other hand would not go and search the web, it would "hallucinate" you an answer. Now could it be that there is factual information in there. Sure, but because of how GenAI works, there's no guarantee that what it tells you is even actually true. That's because it doesn't search the web and deliver you websites based on your ask, no, it tries to construct it's own answer based on your input.

Hard disagree. It is trying to solve a problem no one has, and using an enormous amount of resources, both economic and natural, to do so. Millions and billions of dollars are being wasted on this nonsense, it's putting people out of a job and effectively making us dumber in the process. All the while being sold as the next Industrial Revolution. So no, I think the hate for it, and the people pushing it, is wholly justified.

Except it's not just regurgitated information. It chops up the information it's been fed and trained on and recombines it into content slop. The output is unreliable and more often than not becomes misinformation.

Yeah, and those musicians are compensated for it when samples are used. That doesn't happen with ai. Kinda a problem wouldn't you agree? Especially if it gets sold in turn.

rayrichardsauthor
21d

Actually no. Chords, tropes, style, etc aren't copyrightable. From what I've been told, the only times copyright becomes an issue is if someone is trying to deliberately trying to pass someone else's work off as their own or are trying to pass themselves off as another artist, like mimicry. Miley Cyrus's "Flowers" caused problems because she was directly referencing lyrics from "When I was Your Man". YouTuber Yuyi Chua is another example of someone trying to pass off someone else's content as their own. If I decided to record and post covers of Taylor Swift songs on my YouTube channel, I don't owe her anything. My covers would be protected under the general umbrella of Fair Use.

So sampling someone else's song is no different that learning to draw from art books or drawing your favorite cartoon character. As long as it's not an exact dup of someone's copyrighted work or a person isn't trying to profit off someone else's name, you are pretty open to do whatever you want creatively.

KevinReijnders
21d

I don't think you know what sampling is.

When you sample something, you take the copyrighted work or generally a piece of it, and rework it into a new work. The original copyright holder, however, is actually compensated for the sample used.

This isn't the same as making a reference to, or using a similar chord progression.

Gen ai, which is build on copyrighted material, churns out slob build from that copyrighted material without compensating the original copyright holder.

Hocken
21d
1

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

Hocken
21d
1

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

rayrichardsauthor
21d
KevinReijnders

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.

KevinReijnders
21d

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.

Tubacabra
21d

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...

MaxFF
21d

I'll let you know my opinion on AI art if any is ever created. Right now there are only AI generated images.

EncryptedWriting
21d

I hate to be this type of person but youre wrong. It is properly hated.

skullforceagents
20d

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.

ThunderChicken
20d

Today's "Breaking Cat News" comic by Georgia Dunn (You can follow her on GoComics. I highly recommend her comic!) is on point:

KoryHGoldbeck
20d

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.

sushy00
20d

I absolutely hate it, it is immoral. Most artists didn't consent to having their work used for training.

jwabeasley
20d

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.

skullforceagents
18d
sushy00

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
miuthecat
9d

One day AIs will take the creative freedom to destroy the human race XD

Hocken
3d

I don't recommend them to you, the laws here forbid it