stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to Technology@lemmy.world · 6 months agoArtists are making creative companies apologize for using AIwww.theverge.comexternal-linkmessage-square44fedilinkarrow-up1203arrow-down111file-text
arrow-up1192arrow-down1external-linkArtists are making creative companies apologize for using AIwww.theverge.comstopthatgirl7@kbin.social to Technology@lemmy.world · 6 months agomessage-square44fedilinkfile-text
minus-squaresoulfirethewolf@lemdro.idlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down24·6 months agoI feel like anymore, artists just look through companies work just to go point out AI art and whine about it
minus-squarebramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12arrow-down4·6 months agoIf artists aren’t producing work and just complaining about AI art, who is AI stealing the work of? Your argument literally defeats itself.
minus-squareEven_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down2·6 months agoYou should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. The EFF is a digital rights group who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
minus-squareShurimal@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up8arrow-down13·6 months agoNo-one. Training a neural network, natural or artificial, is not “stealing”. Or no artist would be able to study the works of other artists to become a better artist themself.
minus-squarebramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up11arrow-down3·6 months agoYour argument seems to be that we should consider the AI to itself be an artist and to grant it the rights of other artists. That’s fair. But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works. They also are compensated for their work. Is OpenAI putting money in a trust for when their product gains sentience?
minus-square520@kbin.sociallinkfedilinkarrow-up8arrow-down1·edit-26 months ago But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works. But we do allow them to take inspiration from other artists and emulate their styles. Much of the issue around AI art seems to be more about the prompter (IE: asking explicitly for copyrighted stuff or real people) than the AI itself.
minus-squarefoxbat@lemmings.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·6 months agowacom is a company that produces drawing tablets. you know, hardware tools for artists. it is their job to market specifically to artists.
I feel like anymore, artists just look through companies work just to go point out AI art and whine about it
If artists aren’t producing work and just complaining about AI art, who is AI stealing the work of?
Your argument literally defeats itself.
You should check out this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF. The EFF is a digital rights group who recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone.
No-one. Training a neural network, natural or artificial, is not “stealing”. Or no artist would be able to study the works of other artists to become a better artist themself.
Your argument seems to be that we should consider the AI to itself be an artist and to grant it the rights of other artists.
That’s fair.
But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works.
They also are compensated for their work.
Is OpenAI putting money in a trust for when their product gains sentience?
But we do allow them to take inspiration from other artists and emulate their styles.
Much of the issue around AI art seems to be more about the prompter (IE: asking explicitly for copyrighted stuff or real people) than the AI itself.
wacom is a company that produces drawing tablets. you know, hardware tools for artists. it is their job to market specifically to artists.