• Kerfuffle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    As a general statement: No, I am not.

    You didn’t qualify what you said originally. It either has the capability or not: you said it didn’t, it actually does.

    You’re making an over specific scenario to make it true.

    Not really. It isn’t that far-fetched that a company would see an artist they’d like to use but also not want to pay that artist’s fees so they train an AI on the artist’s portfolio and can churn out very similar artwork. Training it on one or two images is obviously contrived, but a situation like what I just mentioned is very plausible.

    This entire counter argument is nothing more than being pedantic.

    So this isn’t true. What you said isn’t accurate with the literal interpretation and it doesn’t work with the more general interpretation either. The person higher in the thread called it stealing: in that case it wasn’t, but AI models do have the capability to do what most people would probably call “stealing” or infringing on the artist’s rights. I think recognizing that distinction is important.

    Furthermore, if I’m making such specific instructions to the AI, then I am the one who’s replicating the art.

    Yes, that’s kind of the point. A lot of people (me included) would be comfortable calling doing that sort of thing stealing or plagiarism. That’s why the company in OP took pains to say they weren’t doing that.