Oh but it does. Until you understand the practical and real world usage and application of the technology, and it's limitations, you're talking out your ass. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and most are full of shit. I prefer objective reality over the imaginings of perpetually offended but wilfully ignorant people.
So I challenge you to recreate a traditional masterpiece with AI that is of the quality that traditional artists would respect in a style so accurate to be indiscernable for the real thing. I'll see you in undefined years, then congratulate you on accomplishing your task and respect the amount of knowledge and skill it would take to accomplish such a feat.
What the fuck are you on about. Do you have some sort of superiority complex?
I don't need to prove my knowledge to you just because I haven't generated any images myself. I can be aware of all the other applications and limitations of such a tool. I'm not arguing that it isn't useful.
I'm arguing artists should have a say in whether their work gets absorbed into the black box or not. And if they don't get that choice, fair on them for trying to poison the system. Shouldn't have taken without asking if you didn't want that to happen.
And I'm saying you're wrong. Terrorists don't get to blow up social infrastructure because they don't get what they want. And you seem to miss the part where I'm one of those artists.
You're the sort to tear down babylon or burn the library of alexandria because they stored a copy of your work for the posterity and benefit of humanity.
I didn't miss that part. You're free to do with your art whatever you want.
But just because you are okay with your art getting repurposed for whatever doesn't mean others have to be.
And if the library were to store a copy of my book it'd come with royalties and credit, unlike whatever is going on with image generators.
Now if libraries were to stock an illegal copy of my book, I'd get pretty pissed about that. If they did that to all of the other writers as well I wouldn't even have to burn it down because the lawyers would do it for me.
But lone artists on the internet don't have a massive publisher to back them up.
I know how to get my hands on things. Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I can't form an opinion on the ethics behind it.
Oh but it does. Until you understand the practical and real world usage and application of the technology, and it's limitations, you're talking out your ass. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and most are full of shit. I prefer objective reality over the imaginings of perpetually offended but wilfully ignorant people.
So I challenge you to recreate a traditional masterpiece with AI that is of the quality that traditional artists would respect in a style so accurate to be indiscernable for the real thing. I'll see you in undefined years, then congratulate you on accomplishing your task and respect the amount of knowledge and skill it would take to accomplish such a feat.
What the fuck are you on about. Do you have some sort of superiority complex?
I don't need to prove my knowledge to you just because I haven't generated any images myself. I can be aware of all the other applications and limitations of such a tool. I'm not arguing that it isn't useful.
I'm arguing artists should have a say in whether their work gets absorbed into the black box or not. And if they don't get that choice, fair on them for trying to poison the system. Shouldn't have taken without asking if you didn't want that to happen.
And I'm saying you're wrong. Terrorists don't get to blow up social infrastructure because they don't get what they want. And you seem to miss the part where I'm one of those artists.
You're the sort to tear down babylon or burn the library of alexandria because they stored a copy of your work for the posterity and benefit of humanity.
I didn't miss that part. You're free to do with your art whatever you want.
But just because you are okay with your art getting repurposed for whatever doesn't mean others have to be.
And if the library were to store a copy of my book it'd come with royalties and credit, unlike whatever is going on with image generators.
Now if libraries were to stock an illegal copy of my book, I'd get pretty pissed about that. If they did that to all of the other writers as well I wouldn't even have to burn it down because the lawyers would do it for me.
But lone artists on the internet don't have a massive publisher to back them up.
Why do you hate libraries? Does DaVinci get royalties when I replicate his engineering work?
Please quote me the part where I said or implied I hate libraries.
You've been defending people's right to burn them down all thread.
I have, at no point, implied legitimate businesses/organizations should be burned down.
And no, DaVinci doesn't. That's why copyright expires and items go into the public domain after a set amount of years.
A "set" amount of years massive corporations have been all too happy to push back, but that's another conversation.
So you're OK with burning down libraries as long as it's for Capitalism, makes more sense…
I'm OK with libraries getting sued for ripping off writers/artists.