AI techbro chuds will defend this

AI techbro chuds will defend this

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >trained an AI on his art 93,000 times
    >then he was cyber bullied

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    good

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine devoting your life to learning something a machine can do faster and better than any human can.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this
      programmers are deprecated

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Cope

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      AI cant paint.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    based as frick, i pray for the downfall of all "artists" and i wish the whole industry gets wiped out asap, the delicious seethe will be phenomenal

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    this is the equivalent of NFTgays reeing over people copying their .jpgs.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Was his art available on a free use license? If so, then he has no right to anything. If it wasn't then yeah, pay the dude or delete the model. Why is this even a debate?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, because if a human trained his skills looking at those painting that is fair use, AI is doing the same thing

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    seethe inkcel

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Saying an AI isn't allowed to train off your art is the same as saying someone isn't allowed to see your art. It's ridiculous.
    If you put your artwork out there publicly, then too bad.

  9. 1 year ago
    The Falcon

    >cyber bullied

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So what? He's not going to lose any work. He's now more famous than ever.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I mean, if a human trained to copy his paintings and sold them for profit it still doesn't count as fair use unless it's sufficiently "transformative".

    Diffusion models are certainly not sufficiently transformative.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >authors guild vs Google
      Supreme Court says it's OK to use copyrighted material in training a machine learning algorithm
      >Blanche vs Kooms
      Supreme Court says that cutting out part of a picture and pasting it into a collage meets the minimum requirements for being a transformative work and is fair use

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Fair enough I suppose. I'd personally hold the transformative threshold higher but hey it does sound legal.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes they are. They never produce any of the work he's ever made. It's far more transformative than what artists do "in the style of"-like in general.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >I mean, if a human trained to copy his paintings and sold them for profit it still doesn't count as fair use unless it's sufficiently "transformative".
      Yeah, except that paintings replicas have been sold since like forever

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Okay, but he can still paint. AI cant paint. Digital "artists" cant paint either.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Berlin-based artists Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst are working on tools to help artists opt out of being in training data sets. They launched a site called Have I Been Trained, which lets artists search to see whether their work is among the 5.8 billion images in the data set that was used to train Stable Diffusion and Midjourney.
    >https://haveibeentrained.com/
    >mfw

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Again...anons just launch a page for artists where they can put their blood or signature or inspiration or someone else will get that money

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    noice

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *