• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I repeatedly agreed that AI models can be used as a tool by creative people. All I’m saying is that it can’t be creative by itself.

    When I say they’re “plagiarism machines”, I’m claiming that they’re currently mostly used to plagiarise by people without a creative bone in their body who directly use the output of an AI, mistaking it for artwork.

    • ReCursing@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      That is not what you have said. Of course it can’t be creative by itself, not can a paint brush or a camera. That’s a non-argument. You keep using the word plagiarism as if it’s in any way relevant. It’s not. A camera or a paint brush can be used to plagiarise as well so drop that

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        That is not what you have said.

        I beg to differ. Care to show me an example?

        A camera or a paint brush can be used to plagiarise as well so drop that

        Unlike cameras or paint brushes, the overwhelming majority of generative AI is trying to cut out the artist in an artistic process (the rest is used for deepfake porn). Since the training data for the AI was taken without consent and the original authors aren’t credited, IMHO, it counts as plagiarism.

        • ReCursing@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. What you have just said is bullshit and you know it. I’m done because I have had this stupid fucking argument too fucking many times and you lost it generations ago so please, just shut up and fuck off!