Burnedin
Burnedin
Burnedin

Sure would suck for the artists if most copyright laws had some kind of carve-outs and exemptions for transformative works, which AI art undoubtedly is (You may not like how it transforms things, but it does).

No, no, no you don’t understand. Here, I’ll break it down for you: You see, Human Beings are magical vessels for shiny clumps of ghost goo called “souls” and machines don’t have those so clearly what humans do is unique and there are no parallels whatsoever to draw between human brains and neural networks, algorithms,

What does every single person who learned guitar try to do? Play copyrighted songs that they like. They all want to play because they want to sound like their favorite guitarist.
Should we sue every single person who creates music that emulates someone else’s playing style? Should every guitarist who does fret-tapping

Now playing

If a human made an exact copy of another human’s drawing, or if they made a “new” drawing by cutting apart other drawings and reassembling them in a different arrangement, those things would be blatant cases of copyright infringement (*excluding certain specific situations that are covered under the fair use clause,

This! Blatantly mimicking other people’s style is pretty much the entire history of art. Jhonen Vasquez was inspired by Tim Burton, Vincent van Gogh was inspired by Japanese ukiyo-e, while Picasso was influenced by African art. No artist in history can claim their style is 100% their own, and they certainly didn’t

I think this a big stretch as far as the lawsuit having merit. I would like to support their argument. But can't. 

This is factually incorrect and doesn’t even pass a basic logic test: if AI is just storing and ‘collaging’ existing art, why is the offline (offline remember, once training is done, you dont need internet to run one of these) training data from hundreds of gigabytes to terabytes of art data, only a few gigs or even

And not only that but it will not even replace artist. It still takes a trained artist to discern what is good wand what is not. Just like Digital canvases did not replace artist but make them more proliferate. AI art will not replace Artist only change there jobs.

Hell, Technical Artist is already a fucking job! And

Glad someone in this comment section has their head screwed on right.

And to those people, I say: “Come on, really? Come on.”

Takes a cunt to know a cunt. Thank you for your invaluable and pointless prattle. It made the hot Cheetos I was snacking on taste a little zing-ier. Alas, you served a purpose in your life for the first and last time. Rejoice.

Yep. Confused you with someone else. Still enjoyed dunking on you for being a whiney ludite though.

Yes it was put out in the public. It is publicly viewable. It’s legally no different than me going to deviant art, looking at a bunch of images for reference and then drawing my own based on them. You really don’t seem to understand the underlying technology here, and your continuing to present it as if it just went

Was that work taken without permission? It was put up for public view on the internet. Where anyone can view it as they like. To me that doesn't sound like theft anymore than it is for someone to use that piece as a reference to create a new piece.

Incredible self-own, thank you

You could probably put together a rather long list of “professional artists” that have been openly caught being more than somewhat reliant on tracing, and that’s just those getting caught.

Either AI-generated art doesn’t fill the same need as human-made, “real” art or is a threat to artists. Both things cannot be true for a given area of art.

As someone who has been a professional artist for close to 15 years now I can say that I am not worried at all over AI replacing me anytime soon.
This is gonna be a repeat of when automation became a thing. The way we work will change and new skills and jobs are being created in the process.

Yes there is a lot of

“Machines don’t make art. They’re machines”

Machines don’t make art. They’re machines!”