Comment

Comment on Not everything needs to be Art

TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

Ah I see, you just sent me the wrong articles. I don’t see how I was supposed to just know you also wanted me to read the other blog post on the first article you linked. Feels very “do your own research” doesn’t it?

However, these also don’t seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can’t really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)

The second article seems to be about the copyright laws related to AI and how companies are avoiding infringing in copyright law. Again, I already wasn’t considering copyright, I already understand that copyright laws don’t protect artists and that ruling AI as copyright infringement wouldnt help anything.

I don’t think you are actually interested in making a point here, just trying to make me defend myself online. Fortunately I have had nothing better to do this morning so I have.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post.

However, these also don’t seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can’t really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)

This isn’t true either, see this guidance by the US Copyright office.

The second one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.

I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.

source
- TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  Could you explain how the last one goes against what I am saying? The author seems to be personally against AI art and wants to ensure that artists continue to be paid for their work, how does that go against what I am talking about? You haven’t made a single statement in your actual stance on this topic, just said I was off base and linked articles.
  
  source
  - Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    Can you specify with quotes what we’re talking about exactly? Just so we’re on the same page. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.
    
    source