cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/48482937
(Ocean3) (2025)
Image description: A girl with red eyes seen through dark sunglasses, blonde hair with bright red nest-like extension, two feathered beige wings, and a gentle smile on her face standing with two small, yellow chicks nestled in her hair. She is wearing a white blouse with puffy sleeves over an orange dress, with a reddish-brown neckerchief tied at her collar. In the background is a light blue sky filled with small white birds in flight, and in the upper left corner are the branches of a tree with pink blossoms.
Full Generation Parameters:
pastel painting, pastel colors, traditional media, faux traditional media, 8K, highres, absurdres, masterpiece, best quality, (dynamic angle:1.2), drastic angle, dramatic angle, sunglasses, deal_with_it_/(meme/), deal with it /(meme/), pixelated sunglasses, masterpiece, best quality,ultra-detailed,8k detail wallpaper,Utopia,Fantastic,, wallpaper,close up face,official art, 1girl, niwatari kutaka, happy, smile, looking at viewer, short hair, blonde hair, two tone hair, (red hair:0.1), (bird:1.5), (chick:1.5), on head, animal on head, bird on head, surrounded by birds, wings, bird wings, feathered wings, shirt, white shirt, short sleeves, blush, smile, parted lips, bird tail, Vintage, 1990s \(style\)
Negative prompt: bad quality, worst quality, lowres, jpeg artifacts, bad anatomy, bad hands, multiple views, signature, watermark, censored, ugly, messy
Steps: 28, CFG scale: 3, Sampler: Euler, Seed: 4084934348, Size: 896x1280, Model: Plant Milk-Almond 1, Version: f2.0.1v1.10.1-previous-640-g21c907ef, Module 1: sdxl_vae_fix, Model hash: 73216fa542, Schedule type: Automatic
Except you kinda do. Why do you put this part here?
I NEVER said that it's copyright infringement.
The rest of the quotes also don't really matter in this context. Sure you can analyse data. But how do you use the results of that analysis... Artists are against AI training only because of how those results are being used.
Nobody would give a shit if you'd train a model to convert drawings into text that can convey artstyle in a way even blind people can enjoy it. If anything people would probably just support it.
You also completely ignored the part where I compare different situations.
Just like that quote before says that it's fine because scrapers do the same. Except we're ignoring in this port how is this information used. Scrapers don't hurt artists as an end result.
Quick-read doesn't mean "didn't read" and yeah, I didn't really find an endorsement from a moral standpoint.
This doesn't look like an endorsement to me. And yes the author does say it's not copyright infringement at the beginning but still, the article ends on a rather negative note:
And those are just your own sources. \ Look up for artists profiles, their standpoint on this. Many are devastated that people are generating and uploading 10x of the art in their style.
I asked you to think about what copy write protects. It gives artists protection over specific expressions, not broad concepts like styles, and this fosters ethical self-expression and discourse. If we allow that type of overreach, we would be giving anyone a blank check to threaten the general populace with legal trouble off of just from the way you draw the eyes on a character. This is bad, and I shouldn't have to explain or spell it out to you.
What these people want unfairly restricts self-expression and speech. Art isn't a product, it is speech, and people are allowed to participate in conversations even when there are parties that rather they didn't. Wanting to bar others from iterating on your ideas or expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful. That's why the restrictions on art are so flexible and allow for so much to pulled from to make art.
It is spelled out in the links I've replied with how these short sided power grabs will consolidate power at the top and damage life for us all. While Cory Doctorow doesn't endorse AI art, he agrees that it should exist. He goes on to say that you can't fix a labor problem with copyright, the way some artists are trying to do. That just changes how and how much you end up paying the people at the top.
And I want to reiterate, I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about the effects the laws have. I feel for the artists here, but honoring a special monopoly on abstract ideas and general forms of expression is a recipe for disaster that will only make our situation ×10 worse.
Please explain how honoring artist's will can make the situation 10x worse?
I'm sorry but I don't believe you.
Let me be clear, we're not talking about whether AI "art" should be prohibited by law. We're talking about this specific community on lemmy. I'm not a lawyer and I'm most definitely not the right person to decide what should be banned and what should be allowed in the country. I know that copyright is broken and it was like that long before AI was a thing. I don't have a solution for that. Believe me I don't. I also know law is different depending on where you are. So if the matter is international the discourse is certain. However this lemmy community is not a country so it has no law. It has rules to keep this community healthy. Banning AI wouldn't really change your freedom to generate whatever you want, you only wouldn't be able to share it here. I think it's only fair to honor artists' will and it would keep this community healthy. But again I'm just starting my stance on this topic. If the community wants AI I'm just unsubscribing.
That's what I was talking about when I said:
And when I said:
And when I said:
You have spent so many hours dishonestly dodging the actual points I've made, it's not surprising you're lost this far in.
And we're discussing your assertion that AI art is unethical because of how it's trained. I've given examples and explanations on how your views on honoring artists' wills are not only unfair, but shortsighted, and harmful to all of us too. I do this not only in hopes of changing your mind, but also the minds of anyone who might be reading this thread.
I think you just don't understand what this conversation is even about.
You're actually thinking that banning AI here (or even in the world) is somehow going to cripple artistic expression XDD
Ah yes so the fact that I can't print and resell someone's work is also limiting artistic expression because my printer adds fine imperfections to the photo so it's ART!
Ridiculous, no? That's how you sound.
Looks like calling names is starting so I'm not willing to discuss this with you any further. Because you don't know what actually matters you think I'm somehow being dishonest and dodging the questions while I could say literally the same about you lol!
This conversation just made me realize that there are people who just don't care about others. Saying that yeah fuck the artists because otherwise it's limiting my freedom is just delusional.
On the last note let me just say: try grabbing a pencil and perhaps one day you will understand what art really is.
I didn't read the conversation between you two, but if you two were insulting each other or making fun of, I strongly recommend you to change your tone.
Just recently in the thread they asked me to define what I meant by public interest and I gave examples of what I meant. They say they don't care about the laws, so I ask them to not look at the laws, but rather what the laws protect. In their reply, they again turn the conversation to the fact that legal language was used in the material I linked, rather than thinking of the ramifications of what it would be like to not have those protections to the public interest. Going so far as to cherry-pick quotes from the blog post I linked to present them in a way that tries to completely misrepresent the point of the post.
In the message before the one you replied to, I clearly stated what I'm arguing and why, and in their reply they completely distort what I said into a straw man that they then mock.
Rather than making fun of each other it's just a complete lack of understanding.
I don't like being called dishonest just because someone completely misses my point. I'm done here anyway.
Unless there will be some misinformation spreading I don't plan to continue this discussion any further.
I think I've provided enough information on why I'm against AI "art" here.
Then again I think the best course of action would be to ask the community what they want.