'An Insult To Life Itself': Hayao Miyazaki’s AI Criticism Resurfaces As OpenAI’s Ghibli-Style Image Trend Takes Over Social Media
-
Pretty sure you don't understand the difference between copywrite and freedom of speech. But that's ok.
"You have the right to say and do any art! Except any art based off of anything from the last 100 years. You also can't share any of the art that is the basis for your culture from the last 100 years either. Including the shit no one cares about but is owned by a company that doesn't want to sell it, just sue anyone who cares about it more than they do."
Yes, very freedom, much liberty.
-
Idk, AI generated boilerplate code via Copilot and similar utilities have been useful. I wouldn't trust it to build an entire system, but it does alright at automating mundane shit.
AI in creative fields might be a different story.
AI code has singlehandedly increased vulnerabilities across every industry because the shit code is pushed by people who don't know what they're doing.
Net Negative.
-
no, i definitely do.
copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?
how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.
Yes. Thank you. You definitely don't not only understand the difference between copyright and the freedom of speech you also fail to grasp simple concepts like freedom, commodity, and owned.
Not only that you invented a definition of your own to suit your needs to further your argument which you don't even understand in its most fundamental state.
So you can be simply dismissed without any further adu.
-
"You have the right to say and do any art! Except any art based off of anything from the last 100 years. You also can't share any of the art that is the basis for your culture from the last 100 years either. Including the shit no one cares about but is owned by a company that doesn't want to sell it, just sue anyone who cares about it more than they do."
Yes, very freedom, much liberty.
So you make an art music/picture/story and your friend comes around and makes the same art line I for line, word for word, color for color and makes a killing.
Too bad there wasn't some kind of system in place that could have protected your art from intellectual theaft. But you're right it course the company is hording it.
-
So you make an art music/picture/story and your friend comes around and makes the same art line I for line, word for word, color for color and makes a killing.
Too bad there wasn't some kind of system in place that could have protected your art from intellectual theaft. But you're right it course the company is hording it.
Yep! I'm okay with that, intellectual property is theft, and is even more so when copying is nothing but flipping a 0 into a 1. Everyone online has the right to "steal" the words on the screen I "made".
Copyright is theft of the public. The companies owning your favorite media isn't going to fuck you, let alone give you anything but the privilege to charge you for the licence to borrow media until its inconvenient to them.
-
An artist using references doesn't just copy and paste, there's a whole process of understanding what they're looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do. And the "romantic" part is essential because that's what art is about. You make art to transmit a message, an emotion, it isn't just about making something "pretty", that's something contemplated only by naive people who never made art or who don't understand it.
Who said that AI art doesn't carry a message or emotions? With AI you can create much easily photorealistic faces that carries twice the emotion than a sketch with frog eyes.
An artist using references doesn’t just copy and paste, there’s a whole process of understanding what they’re looking at, their interpretation of it, of why it is like that and of how they can learn something new from it, things that AI generators cannot do.
Why are you assuming there's no artistic process behind using image generators? Have you ever play around with graphic softwares?
There are a thousand ways you can make art. In the japanese industry they use may techniques that one could consider gimmicks, for example even famous mangaka have assistants who draw for them or they use 3d models or real pictures as backgrounds.
-
AI code has singlehandedly increased vulnerabilities across every industry because the shit code is pushed by people who don't know what they're doing.
Net Negative.
You said ANY productivity. It sounds like you mean amateur productivity.
-
Most open source devs make good money as software engineers and devlop FOSS in their free time.
You are conflating having basic needs met with needing compensation. People dont need to be compensated finacially if their needs are already met.
So I think you really might mean "People with unmet needs can't work for free"
People aren't satisfied with only their basic needs met though.
-
You said ANY productivity. It sounds like you mean amateur productivity.
I think it is you who forgot what I said. AI is useless.
-
Nah. Humans are "garbo" in general.
Skill Issue
-
Skill Issue
It's an insight and integrity issue.
-
Idk, AI generated boilerplate code via Copilot and similar utilities have been useful. I wouldn't trust it to build an entire system, but it does alright at automating mundane shit.
AI in creative fields might be a different story.
Exactly! It's all about knowing its limitations and how to use it. If one believes AI responses over their own judgment, they lose, if one uses it to "do all the work for them", they lose, if one uses it to steal artwork from others, well, we all lose. But it tells much more about humans than AI itself.
-
It's an insight and integrity issue.
Lmao you really came back after that ratio?
-
I think it is you who forgot what I said. AI is useless.
Two people have told you that AI can be useful, but not if used by people who don't know what they're doing. It boosts the productivity of people who know the field they're working in, and know the strengths and weaknesses of AI.
You ignore it and say that because some people don't know how to use it, it's completely useless.
-
Two people have told you that AI can be useful, but not if used by people who don't know what they're doing. It boosts the productivity of people who know the field they're working in, and know the strengths and weaknesses of AI.
You ignore it and say that because some people don't know how to use it, it's completely useless.
I said any productivity gains are offset by loss of quality and capability, and I actually think that's especially true in your coding example due to large measurable increase in security flaws.
-
I said any productivity gains are offset by loss of quality and capability, and I actually think that's especially true in your coding example due to large measurable increase in security flaws.
Any productivity it gives has a noticible drop in quality and capabilities that result in net loss.
The productivity that skillful users get from it does not have a drop in quality or capabilities.
Word it better if you want people to understand that you mean another thing entirely.
Also love how you're downvoting my comments just because you disagree with me, whereas I've yet to downvote any of your comments. Really puts it into perspective with what kind of a person I'm arguing with. Bye.
-
Lmao you really came back after that ratio?
Only children think that discussions are settled by "internet approval points", and it's a very nice demonstration of my take above, so thanks!:)
-
Yep! I'm okay with that, intellectual property is theft, and is even more so when copying is nothing but flipping a 0 into a 1. Everyone online has the right to "steal" the words on the screen I "made".
Copyright is theft of the public. The companies owning your favorite media isn't going to fuck you, let alone give you anything but the privilege to charge you for the licence to borrow media until its inconvenient to them.
Right. So you also don't understand what copyright is. Jesus. What is with you people.
"Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive control over its use and distribution for a limited time. This includes the rights to reproduce, distribute, display, and adapt the work. It protects literary, artistic, musical, and other creative works, preventing unauthorized use."
I don't understand what's so confusing about this.
-
No one is. That's exactly the point.
Llms aren't recreating copyrighted works. They're drawing inspiration if you will. No copyright is being infringed.
And how is an LLM trained to "draw inspiration" from an author without reading their books?
-
Right. So you also don't understand what copyright is. Jesus. What is with you people.
"Copyright is a legal right that grants the creator of an original work exclusive control over its use and distribution for a limited time. This includes the rights to reproduce, distribute, display, and adapt the work. It protects literary, artistic, musical, and other creative works, preventing unauthorized use."
I don't understand what's so confusing about this.
I don't understand what's so confusing about wanting to make art of anything you want, including based off of Disney or whatever you want.
Sorry that me pirating something doesn't hurt their bottom dollar but they lobby to arrest people like it does.
