…care to contribute a link to their favorite site for an AI activity? I’d be really interested in seeing what’s out there, but the field is moving and growing so fast and search engines suck so hard that I know I’m missing out.

Cure my FOMO please!

    • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
      15·
      1 year ago

      Hey I got no problem with referencing art, but one should at least give credit for works referenced. Also, the AI isn’t actually sentient, so it’s just a generative algorithm; it’s not actually creatively making derivative works.

      So piracy isn’t I feel a 1:1 comparison. At least in most forms of software piracy, the pirates still leave in the credits/splashscreen/whatever.

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted
          1·
          1 year ago

          AI as a tool is not what I object to; what I object to is merely using AI to lazily slap together content without actually having creativity be the onus behind it, and then calling it art on the same level of art that does.

          In short, there has to be an artist for something to be art; and for there to be an artist, there must be creativity, which requires sentience. Whether that sentience is from a true AI or a human is irrelevant, as long as it is there. If there is no creativity behind the “art”, then generative AI in this case is not a paintbrush, but an assembly box pumping out bobbles.

    • Squids@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      When you put something out there, you allow for the possibility that people will see your work and incorporate it into their mental catalog of art and artistic process

      …except when a person is doing it, they’re doing their own thing to it. They take an idea or two and filter it through their own lens and stylise it

      Think about it like this - when you do data scraping, you’re still interpreting the results. You’re looking at the data and going ‘ok from this I can draw X and Y conclusions based on this and that’. AI art is like if we removed you from the process - we just shoved all the data into a black box and it goes ding “X is Y”. If you asked it why that’s so, it wouldn’t be able to tell you. You can’t see how it works so you have no idea if it’s reasoning makes scientific sense. It would not be admissible in a paper.

      If you pirate shit then you have no ground to stand on for complaining about AI training.

      …don’t most people kinda agree you don’t pirate from small artists where piracy is actually hurting them? There’s like, honour along thieves when it comes to piracy, and this is stepping all over the little guy who’s actually hurt by this just to get your grubby little hands on something you think you’re entitled to