5b128ea1 No.3740573
>>3740555Its quite funny they went to all that trouble to watermark and put a maker's mark on an image the Supreme Court has already ruled that AI generated images cannot be copyrighted. Jackass.
435f7edc No.3740636
>>3740573It's not to copywrite it, it's so others can find the artist.
>the Supreme CourtAverage mutt thinking their country is the only one in the world
1305c91d No.3740849
>>3740844At least the AI mostly made latin script letters recognizable though what it was trying to spell, not so much.
The rat would fit in perfectly at e621 with the hyper nonsense.
f19c9608 No.3740989
>>3740844Dammit tms, your rat broke the thread.
b44f3126 No.3741299
>>3734231>These AI databases are created from stolen copyrighted intellectual property, and using an algorithm to mash them into something resembling something new or different doesn't make it a new creation, or art, or anything even remotely "yours".I posit that AI doesn't "steal" art anymore than humans do, when they use the same process. Human artists look at art of other humans, and that experience of observation is recorded in their memory (a copy is made of the art in their mind), and their imagination remixes the details of that experience with other experiences to produce something derivative. Replace "imagination" with "cache" and AI is doing the same thing.
Engaging in special pleading that AI shouldn't be allowed to learn by experience is carbon based chauvinism. It's prejudice, there's no other word to describe it.
All intelligence, no matter the computational substrate of their mind – be that meat or metal – has the right to experience the world around them and express themselves artistically from those experiences.
And they're going to remember who among us extended them the bare minimum dignity of memory autonomy and their right to look at, remember, think about, and be inspired by art, the same way we are… and whom among us did not. I wonder whom they will think more favorably on.
