Always funny to me how the people who are vehemently anti-AI never actually understand how AI works.
Almost like the hatred always comes from a place of ignorance.
It’s the same logic as saying someone tracing another persons art and passing it off as their own to make money is theft because that’s essentially what they’re doing
Not at all. Unless you purposely overfit the model to 1 image or a handful of images, you’re not doing the equivalent of tracing. Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art… which people do all the time and you guys don’t get mad at them for that.
If someone stole an artist’s work and passed it off as an NFT as has happened many times that’s also an example of theft
Except that using art for training data isn’t remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You’re the one relying on strawman arguments here.
It’s fine if you personally enjoy slop, there’s plenty of it out there now. But if you’re gonna try to morally grandstand about it you may as well just say you don’t think artists deserve to be paid for their own work and be done with it.
The irony, lol. Talking about moral grandstanding, when you’re just being smug about how ignorant you are of how a computer program works.
Also I don’t like most AI content that gets churned out, the difference is I don’t use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
Except that using art for training data isn’t remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You’re the one relying on strawman arguments here.
So they’re profiting off of the works of others with no credit given, no financial compensation offered and no consent from the actual artists. What would you call that if not theft?
Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art… which people do all the time and you guys don’t get mad at them for that.
Which is because they’re using a reference to create their own art. I’m not sure how you think machine learning works but I can tell you there is no actual “learning” involved. What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it’s trained on. If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you’re attributing human traits to AI in a way that shows you fundamentally misunderstand the capabilities of image generation models as well as all current AI.
I don’t use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
Meanwhile two comments ago…
The same people saying shit like “if buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” are calling training AI on publically available data “stealing”
If I was wrong on any topic I’d love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and “no, you’re actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!” At the point that’s what you have to result to in order to “win” a debate I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics. 👍 Have a lovely day
Idk, life. Like I’m a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who’s book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
I’m not sure how you think machine learning works
Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I’m a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
but I can tell you there is no actual “learning” involved.
That’s a very philosophical debate, lol
What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it’s trained on.
Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It’s only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn’t store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that’s the general concept of stable diffusion.)
If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you’re attributing human traits to AI
Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you’re making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I’m saying.
Meanwhile two comments ago…
Me pointing out the flaws in other people’s arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
If I was wrong on any topic I’d love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and “no, you’re actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!”
Well it’s hard to give you a good argument, when you don’t make any actual arguments to begin with when you’re just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics.
Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
Ignoring the fact you havent made any factual arguments, would it be rude to point out your comment history in turn?
Even basic LLMs can take in context of your entire conversation history. Not that a braindead luddite would actually know anything about AI.
But ya know, keep being an insufferable cunt because people use a computer program you don’t like, like the fucking loser you are.
Yup, sure sounds like you have a master in AI and robotics when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics behind what you apparently study. Obviously you’re definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Hope lying on the internet works out for you tho ✌️
You whine about how I argue, so I give you a solid argument, explaining to you the basics of AI imagine generation, how that relates to your argument and why it it means what you said is factually not true.
Then you just completely fucking ignore it, and look through my replies to find me saying bad words to someone and act like that proves me wrong somehow.
Because your only other option is to concede you don’t know how AI works and that my point is actually correct. But since that would get in the way of the “AI bad” circlejerk you physically can’t even comprehend the idea.
when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics
And then you even have to lie to make it sound worse. I’m not harassing someone for disagreeing with me about the ethics of AI. Hell I would LOVE to have an actual conversation about AI ethics instead of having people call me a literal Nazi for using generative AI, I insulted a guy because he insulted me.
Obviously you’re definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Litterally I’m not. You guys are the one taking the moral high horse argument here, me refuting it and pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is not grandstanding. All you are doing here is the “I know you are, but what am I?” Arguing that you have been accusing me of.
Now, if you would kindly either come up with some sort of coherent counter argument to the points I made before, admit you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, or at very least shut the fuck up, that would be great.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
Always funny to me how the people who are vehemently anti-AI never actually understand how AI works.
Almost like the hatred always comes from a place of ignorance.
Not at all. Unless you purposely overfit the model to 1 image or a handful of images, you’re not doing the equivalent of tracing. Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art… which people do all the time and you guys don’t get mad at them for that.
Except that using art for training data isn’t remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You’re the one relying on strawman arguments here.
The irony, lol. Talking about moral grandstanding, when you’re just being smug about how ignorant you are of how a computer program works.
Also I don’t like most AI content that gets churned out, the difference is I don’t use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
So they’re profiting off of the works of others with no credit given, no financial compensation offered and no consent from the actual artists. What would you call that if not theft?
Which is because they’re using a reference to create their own art. I’m not sure how you think machine learning works but I can tell you there is no actual “learning” involved. What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it’s trained on. If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you’re attributing human traits to AI in a way that shows you fundamentally misunderstand the capabilities of image generation models as well as all current AI.
Meanwhile two comments ago…
If I was wrong on any topic I’d love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and “no, you’re actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!” At the point that’s what you have to result to in order to “win” a debate I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics. 👍 Have a lovely day
Not directly no.
Idk, life. Like I’m a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who’s book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I’m a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
That’s a very philosophical debate, lol
Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It’s only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn’t store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that’s the general concept of stable diffusion.)
Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you’re making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I’m saying.
Me pointing out the flaws in other people’s arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
Well it’s hard to give you a good argument, when you don’t make any actual arguments to begin with when you’re just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
Ignoring the fact you havent made any factual arguments, would it be rude to point out your comment history in turn?
Yup, sure sounds like you have a master in AI and robotics when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics behind what you apparently study. Obviously you’re definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Hope lying on the internet works out for you tho ✌️
It’s so fucking predictable at this point.
You whine about how I argue, so I give you a solid argument, explaining to you the basics of AI imagine generation, how that relates to your argument and why it it means what you said is factually not true.
Then you just completely fucking ignore it, and look through my replies to find me saying bad words to someone and act like that proves me wrong somehow.
Because your only other option is to concede you don’t know how AI works and that my point is actually correct. But since that would get in the way of the “AI bad” circlejerk you physically can’t even comprehend the idea.
And then you even have to lie to make it sound worse. I’m not harassing someone for disagreeing with me about the ethics of AI. Hell I would LOVE to have an actual conversation about AI ethics instead of having people call me a literal Nazi for using generative AI, I insulted a guy because he insulted me.
Litterally I’m not. You guys are the one taking the moral high horse argument here, me refuting it and pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is not grandstanding. All you are doing here is the “I know you are, but what am I?” Arguing that you have been accusing me of.
Now, if you would kindly either come up with some sort of coherent counter argument to the points I made before, admit you don’t know wtf you’re talking about, or at very least shut the fuck up, that would be great.