OpenAI's move to allow generating "Ghibly stlye" images isn't just a cute PR stunt. It is an expression of dominance and the will to reject and refuse democratic values. It is a display of power
-
yeah yeah you ai bros keep crying about how useless artists are but you keep gobbling up datasets full of them! Hypocrites everyone of you! You need them! You crave them to spit more and more useless derivative trash.
Try comprehending what he wrote instead of spewing insults, it might make you smarter. He’s clearly not an AI bro.
-
It is all part of the same topic, Talking about one aspect does not negate the other. Instead of dividing the issues it is nice to know a lot of us have a common foe.
No it isn't at all. Image to image "AI" is totally different from "AI" that denies insurance claims.
-
I say this as someone who frequently uses generative ai, and actively chooses to pay for the service.
Fuck openai.
This company has utterly failed to fulfill their mission statement, and they will be unable to make right by humanity until ALL software they have created is available to the public as FOSS (free and open source software). Openai claimed that this is exactly what they were going to do, and then they just didn't. So fuckem.
Have you heard of ollama? You can run deepseek and stuff locally super easy. I know it’s not a complete replacement, but it feels nice to use an LLM guilt free. I’ve compared the 14b distilled model from deepseek vs the paid version of ChatGPT and it made me cancel my account.
-
This post did not contain any content.
We already have AI yet people are still illiterate and misspell words in the title. Really makes you think
-
This post did not contain any content.
I wonder how Nintendo will react when it's their turn
-
you're a bad troll.
first of all, the entire thread was about AI IP theft. you threw in a red herring just to make personal attacks against me as being abelist.
in-fact, from what I've seen in your comment history, when you are challenged you claim abelism.
it's really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself, but we all know trolls feed off of the shame.
you’re a bad troll
Haters gonna hate.
the entire thread was about AI IP theft
Answered: that part you didn't read.
It's funny the largely anti-capitalist crowd doesn't care about intellectual property until their favorite bogeyman shows up.
Then they suddenly "care": whatever it takes to take down AI, right?
Even if it takes us down with it.I don't like weak arguments that try to manipulate our emotions with our favorite targets of animus, nebulous claims of threats to cherished values, misuse of the word fascism.
The person's liberty to express themselves (even in ways we dislike with technology we dislike) is more important than an argument that rings false.you threw in a red herring
Your moral hypocrisy?
The coherence of your "moral code"?just to make personal attacks against me
Does it suck to be judged for the actions you've demonstrated here?
I'm also not here contemplating killing someone over dubious theft (of expressions!): that was all you.
when you are challenged you claim abelism
Also, whenever I come across it & feel moved: the casual inconsiderateness of online images of text is noticeable & easy to call out.
Instead of distracting nonsense, turning that useless online outrage & public shame toward something concrete we ourselves can address today (like web accessibility) might do some tangible good for a change.
Sustained long enough, it might catch on & make us more considerate in that 1 small yet noticeable way.it’s really pathetic and gives differently-abled people a bad name. you should be ashamed of yourself
Does it?
Someone here should be ashamed.If we're done getting distracted with ourselves, the point remains that the article is a manipulative argument lacking substance.
-
This post did not contain any content.
If you need to use AI, be aware that there are MANY free models and training options. No reason to be locked into proprietary service.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Have you heard of ollama? You can run deepseek and stuff locally super easy. I know it’s not a complete replacement, but it feels nice to use an LLM guilt free. I’ve compared the 14b distilled model from deepseek vs the paid version of ChatGPT and it made me cancel my account.
-
If you don’t mind my asking, how do you not have a moral objection to using AI? With everything we know about it, the theft, the benefit to the technocrats, the environmental toll, I could not bring myself to wave away those issues. Not to mention the power imbalance of this tech being controlled by the ruling class, looking to eliminate people’s livelihoods for the sake of profit. What do you use it for? I feel like we should be boycotting them en masse.
I pick my battles.
If I took a hard stance of not engaging with any business that did things I morally object to, I'd be forced to be a self-sufficient hermit in the woods.
-
Have you heard of ollama? You can run deepseek and stuff locally super easy. I know it’s not a complete replacement, but it feels nice to use an LLM guilt free. I’ve compared the 14b distilled model from deepseek vs the paid version of ChatGPT and it made me cancel my account.
I would prefer to run my ais locally, but my brain glazes over if I see github. I found a a program called "gpt4all", but it's very limited in what models it can run, and what I could get just wasn't as good for my use case as openai's 4o model. Also, being able to generate images in the same conversation as text work is a feature that I'm fairly certain no other ai model can do (yet).
-
It is all part of the same topic, Talking about one aspect does not negate the other. Instead of dividing the issues it is nice to know a lot of us have a common foe.
Nah its like people critiquing the trump admin and their biggest issue not being the concentration camps, or the imperialism, or betraying allies to support Russia, general fascist behaviour etc. They make a big fuss about him being rude in his tweets.
Like criticising that doesn't negate the other stuff, but bring attention to the smaller mostly inconsequential stuff only serves to distract from the bigger problems.
-
They're trying to make some type of argument that a private studio should have exlusive rights to a specific style of art and that by openai allowing users to generate art in that style, we are slipping into anti-democratic authoritarianism.
My opinion is that you can't own "styles" of art and that there's nothing wrong here. Legally speaking I can copy any art style I want.
-
They're trying to make some type of argument that a private studio should have exlusive rights to a specific style of art and that by openai allowing users to generate art in that style, we are slipping into anti-democratic authoritarianism.
My opinion is that you can't own "styles" of art and that there's nothing wrong here. Legally speaking I can copy any art style I want.
-
Worse, it's cruel indifference.
-
What do you use to run it locally? If there was something that could use speech to text reliably to be able to use a open source option, I consider switching.
FWIW speech to text works really well on Apple stuff.
I’m not exactly sure what info you’re looking but: my gaming PC is headless and sits in a closet. I run ollama on that and I connect to it using a client called “ChatBox”. It’s got a gtx 3060 which fits the whole model, so it’s reasonably fast. I’ve tried the 32b model and it does work but slowly.
Honestly, ollama was so easy to setup, if you have any experience with computers I recommend giving it a shot. (Could be a great excuse to get a new gpu
) -
I would prefer to run my ais locally, but my brain glazes over if I see github. I found a a program called "gpt4all", but it's very limited in what models it can run, and what I could get just wasn't as good for my use case as openai's 4o model. Also, being able to generate images in the same conversation as text work is a feature that I'm fairly certain no other ai model can do (yet).
I think whats really happening behind the scenes is that the model you’re talking to makes a function call to another model that generates the image.
I haven’t seen it either so if you want that and don’t want to code it might be best to stick with paid, but something like that could easily exist somewhere else.
-
I think whats really happening behind the scenes is that the model you’re talking to makes a function call to another model that generates the image.
I haven’t seen it either so if you want that and don’t want to code it might be best to stick with paid, but something like that could easily exist somewhere else.
I bet you're right, but the fact that I never see it is a feature worth paying for, especially for a smooth-brain like myself.
-
Yeah they want corporations to own styles so the rich can be more powerful, the rich push this sort of propaganda out endlessly
This is just like china, copying stuff, or rather called steeling.
the original companies need to build their brand and style for decades and spend 100s of millions to improving to perfection.
then we have AI just copying it in matter of minutes.and you think 1 person should be able to steel all this work and legacy from 1000s of employees because its "protecting the rich"?
-
They're trying to make some type of argument that a private studio should have exlusive rights to a specific style of art and that by openai allowing users to generate art in that style, we are slipping into anti-democratic authoritarianism.
My opinion is that you can't own "styles" of art and that there's nothing wrong here. Legally speaking I can copy any art style I want.
Thanks for that explainer. I thought the verbiage in the article was a little over the top.
However there is a point at which the "style" of the art is the thing that is copyrightable, sort of by implication.
The standard for proving a copyright violation where a defendant claims a transformative use or a derivative work is "substantial similar."
For as long as I can remember that includes the overall presentation of the work, and it's hard to describe that as anything other than a "style."
The article draws a comparison that allowing copyright protection for styles would be like allowing copyrights for entire genres. I don't think that's right. Nobody could copyright all "landscape paintings" as a genre, but look at landscape works by Katsushika Hokusai, and that style, to me, is creative enough to warrant protection, if it were made originally in America today and not already in the public domain. And he didn't invent woodblock prints or even woodblock prints of landscapes, but the way he did it is so unique as to be insperable from the copyrighted work itself and arguably deserving of protection simply for its advancement of the art.
If you made a woodblock print in the same style but used it to portray a scene typical in anime, rather than a landscape, that's clearly transformative and derivative, but not substantially similar. If you use the style to make prints of waves breaking around Mt. Fuji, that's substantially similar. So like, as to dude's anime style, if you use the same style to make landscapes, certainly that's not infringing, as it's not substantially similar.
I also don't see the threatening outcome the author suggests as worrisome. There are still exceptions for blatant copying that apply, mainly parody and fair use.
