this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
67 points (89.4% liked)

Games

16722 readers
932 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] WeLoveCastingSpellz@lemmy.fmhy.net -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If AI art is stolen data, then every artists on earth are thieves too.

Do you think artists just spontaneously conjure up art? No. Through their entire life of looking at other people's works, they learned how to do stuff, they emulate and they improve. That's how human artists come to be. Do you think artists go around asking permission from millions of past artists if they can learn from their art? Do artists track down whoever made the fediverse logo if I want to make a similar shaped art with it? Hell no. Consent in general is impossible too because whole lot of them are likely too dead to give consent be honest. Its the exact same way AI is made.

Your argument holds no consistent logic.

Furthermore, you likely have a misunderstanding of how AI is trained and works. AI models do not store nor copy art that it's trained on. It studies shapes, concepts, styles, etc. It puts these concepts into matrix of vectors. Billions of images and words are turned into mere 2 gigabytes in something like SD fp16. 2GB is virtually nothing. There's no compression capable of anywhere near that. So unless you actually took very few images and made a 2GB model, it has no capability to store or copy another person's art. It has no knowledge of any existing copyrighted work anymore. It only knows the concepts and these concepts like a circle, square, etc. are not copyrightable.

If you think I'm just being pro-AI for the sake of it. Well, it doesn't matter. Because copyright offices all over the world have started releasing their views on AI art. And it's unanimously in agreement that it's not stolen. Furthermore, resulting AI artworks can be copyrighted (lot more complexity there, but that's for another day).

[–] WeLoveCastingSpellz@lemmy.fmhy.net -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

L take, AI is not a person and doesn't have the right to learn like a person. It is a tool and it can be used to replicate others art.

[–] Grumpy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What gives a human right to learn off of another person without credit? There is no such inherent right.

Even if such a right existed, I as a person who can make AI training, would then have the right to create a tool to assist me in learning, because I'm a person with same rights as anyone else. If it's just a tool, which it is, then it is not the AI which has the right to learn, I have the right to learn, which I used to make the tool.

I can use photoshop to replicate art a lot more easily than with AI. None of us are going around saying Photoshop is wrong. (Though we did say that before) The AI won't know any specific art unless it's an extremely repeated pattern like "mona lisa". It literally do not have the capacity to contain other people's art, and therefore it cannot replicate others art. I have already proven that mathematically.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yep, these ppl act like they get to choose who or what ingest their product when they make it available willingly on the internet...oftentimes for free.

This whole argument falls on its face once u realize they don't want AI to stop...they just want a cut.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago

That doesn't make it bad.

It's a tool that can be used to replicate other art except it doesn't replicate art does it.

It creates works based on other works which is exactly what humans do whether or not it's sapient is irrelevant. My work isn't valuable because it's copyrightable. On a sociopath things like that