• Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of those the artist knew what they were doing and how their art could be used to inspire new people.

    Artists has no way of consenting to thos before it was done. Their art wasn’t taken and used as inspiration for one person, it was taken and is now being mass produced for the masses in some cases.

    You’re not sitting in a lecture absorbing what a professor is telling you and filling out an essay question. Your copying someone else’s homework and changing it a little to come off as okay. In private and for private use I’m okay with that, but these big studios and content creators have no right to do that to artists. There’s no way they could have consented to that.

    • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      How you don’t see that in principle AI data training and human learning is the same process, is fascinating to me.

      • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People like that surely do see it, they just deny it publicly because they feel threatened by the technology.

        No person with even a basic education can legitimately come to another conclusion and be honest. The only way I can see this happening legitimately is to not understand even the basics of how AI art works. Like, not even the first thing about it.