Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not to be an ass but they're the most inflammatory sources of news I know, I won't even open an article from "Independent" for my own mental health. omg, then don't click on the link, there's OTHER links I posted too. Relax bro. I just googled the term and found a bunch of links and posted them because it's literally everywhere. You don't have to follow ANY of the links if you don't want to. The point is to show you…
I just did a bit more research, artists AND corporations, including Getty images are in lawsuits against companies stealing their work to train AI models. There's a big, big, big difference between copyright based lawsuits and you claiming "artists launching the first resistance against AI". I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a di…
>I think they're against people scraping their work and on selling it ? I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but there is a difference to what you're claiming.
I already told you that's an excuse. Google and thousands of AIs and other megacorps have been scraping artists work for decades. The backlash wasn't a big deal then. Why suddenly is it a huge problem when AI art hits an inflection point and can produce art that's equal in quality to the artist?
Because the copyright isn't the real problem. It's the AI. Heck when the AI looks at the art it scrambles the art and encodes it into Memory the same way YOU encode the art into your memory. Does that mean by looking at art you are copying it? Why don't other artists have a problem with you looking at art and copying it into your memory?
Because you can't use that memory to produce original works of art in the same style as the artists. That's why the artist doesn't give a shit about you copying the art into your brain. They do give a shit about DALL-E copying the art into it's neural net because these AI's can potentially replace them.