|
|
|
|
|
|
by exodust
722 days ago
|
|
|
I didn't mention selling the picture I made of a Disney character. I mentioned only drawing it. Likewise, AI can draw the Disney character. You as prompt author may have no desire to sell or share the drawing. It's your karma if you choose to cheat, deceive or steal in any areas of life. I am not a fan of AI-gen "art". But I object to pitchfork policy, banning and crippling AI from training on actual things in the world - IP protected or otherwise. I think AI should see everything we humans publish, so it knows us better than if we limited its learning. |
|
|
If you are paying for an AI service to produce art based on your prompts, then they are selling the art to you, rergardless of what you do with the image afterward. It's no different than going to an artist, describing an image you want, and paying them for what they produce. Generating images with propmts doesn't make you the artist, it makes you the commissioner. And if that commission involves a copyrighted character, then you have a legal issue.
> I think AI should see everything we humans publish, so it knows us better than if we limited its learning.
In an ideal world, I would agree. Unfortunately, the pressures of capitalism change the circumstances somewhat. As evidenced by the board shakeup, OpenAI doesn't care about lofty goals of bettering humanity, they want to make money. They built a plagiarism engine that will steal and sell the work of millions of artists, putting them out of business. In a better world where art production was not tied to their ability to feed themselves, then fine. But in this one, we're destroying the livlihood of millions to make some tech bro theives richer and flood the world with shitty "art". We have to consider the impact that technologies like this will have on society, given the way society is currently organized.