>ai will take our jobs

>ai will take our jobs

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    literal rape

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI will replace politicians
    >AI will replace the police
    >AI will replace the court

    So careful what you wish for.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Worked in the 80's Transformers movie.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      they're already trying that, they have AI that are suppose to tell the judge your sentence (in an attempt to reduce discrimination)

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    getty's entire business is selling images with very clear licensing terms so their customers can use them without legal worries, so of course they can't mix in something of dubious legality

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah until the licensing of these images is sorted, corpos have to be careful.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >dubious legality
      >can still generate random noise using photoshop and post it
      What's the difference?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >What's the difference?
        One isn't based of potentially licensed images.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There are no licensed images in stable diffusion unless you train it to. they're public domain. and even if there was, there would be no proof unless the copyright had access to the persons computer and saw them actually use it, which they won't. there have ALWAYS been artists who copied off others, this is nothing new. It's just leftists fearful of this new technology and seething over how complete novices can draw better than they can despite having 2 degrees in art and spending decades drawing. there is 0 chance this holds up in court and even if some leftist judge "feels" like it's against the law, the supreme court will strike it down. even if they make it illegal, that would render 90% of art illegal.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            can you use it for commercial purposes legally though?

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, YES you can. If they ban this they have to ban paintings of Mickey Mouse, which exist everywhere and are protected because they are still original works.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                Unlicensed paintings of mickey mouse are already banned lol

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Those dishes aren't that well st-ACK

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't the anime model a bunch of people are using trained on a booru?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          You do realize anything you create is based on potentially licensed images, right? The AI is strikingly similar to your ability to synthesize the the images you've seen before and integrate their ideas and styles into your own artwork.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Getty Images

      The stock image middle men are very angry that you can generate stock images for free on your own computer instead of paying $99 each to license them.

      Getty aren't actually worried about legal claims from others. Well, they might be, but that's not the main reason for this move. They intend to BE the ones making those claims in the near future. This is a stepping stone, a step intended to help sow doubt about the question of using copyrighted data to train ML models.
      I haven't really decided where I stand yet. It feels like more of a philosophical question than a technical one.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No different than software replacing operators, farming equipment replacing farm hands, type writers replacing writers. as long as this is controlled by the people, you get what you want.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >controlled by the people
      What does this buzzphrase mean?

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    AI Art is a direct competitor to Getty Images.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not a direct competitor, Getty would have no problem selling AI art.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        AI art should not be possible to copyright

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Getty Images

    The stock image middle men are very angry that you can generate stock images for free on your own computer instead of paying $99 each to license them.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      yep

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >only $99

      Nah, you're gonna need a little bit more than that, familia.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yup, but this is for actually putting this on your product and then selling it. They really are garden gnomes and can suck a dick but it's going to be over for them.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        damn thats unfortunate. I started cleaning my screen before I realized.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          lmfao

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        damn thats unfortunate. I started cleaning my screen before I realized.

        That's severe case of skin cancer in development, BTW. Sheded soon (if not already).

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      abolish copy right law

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. The issue isn't some bullshit about AI art learning from copyright material. It's that the results can't be copyrighted and monetized by the getty garden gnomes.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ah the luddites are busy breaking the looms
    let's see how it works out for them in a couple years

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >artcuck seethe

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >digital art

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wonder what furry artists will do if they can't bring food the table. hopefully nothing drastic

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Good? Most humans are shit at their jobs no matter how much "experience" they have.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    based anti-AI cucks making sure new training data keeps flowing in

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    It begins. Tick tock AI cucks.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >implying the AI wants to work
    >implying the AI would ever do the shitty jobs
    Many of the AIs which have taken over the planet are intelligent enough to self-determine.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine the copyright suits' response if someone made a music generation AI from Spotify's dataset.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    1) I assume AI generated images are free of copyright, no?
    2) how do they know for sure something is created by AI? What if I just claim I designed something myself? How would anyone prove otherwise?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >1) I assume AI generated images are free of copyright, no?
      an incorrect assumption
      right now, nobody knows anything

      >"I got copyright from the Copyright Office of the USA on my Ai-generated graphic novel. I was open how it was made and put Midjourney on the cover page. It wasn't altered in any other way. Just the way you saw it here," Kashtanova said.

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wait I don't get it, surely Stable Diffusion and all the others people are using weren't trained on furry porn, which is the content of "Fur Affinity", so what are they upset about?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you have to ask then I'm afraid you're already an npc

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Okay I'm an NPC, can you explain now?

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    "You can't do that, it's just copying what has come before!"
    >Pays $120k to go to art school and learn how to art like everyone who came before them

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Right now you are witnessing the future. AI has gotten better at creating art than humans. It's causing mass panic from humans as they realize they cannot feasibly compete with AI generations.
    There's a possibility of a future where art, music, writing, vidya, and even movies are created almost entirely by AI with maybe a little human fine tuning. This future could happen in your very lifetime. It's over.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      as long as it doesn't suck worse than what hollywood shits out now, I think we'll be OK.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      art is only interesting because someone made it. once a computer can make any entertainment from a prompt it'll get boring.stage plays will probably see a major boom.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I'd rather have skynet overlords than continue being under the gnomish boot

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Just like camera made painting obsolete.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        False equivalence

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Define "better" art. AI has no meaning in its art.
          We already use various AI methods to create media. Nothing new under the sun. Nobody animates with the traditional Disney tricks. AI has no self and as such, all art it creates is meaningless or coincidental and its works are at best sufficient for people with surface level understanding of art, such as people who think art is pictures of plump naked ladies on seashells or guys on horseback. AI can't create art movements. It can't analyze meaning. It can't create something within a cultural context. It can't join discourse. It has the understanding of an animal.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >AI copying images is copyright infringement
    >Github copilot copying code is not
    really makes you think

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    is an AI learning based off copyrighted images is copyright infringement, then it's also copyright infringement when an artist paints his own art piece but was inspired by various works he's viewed throughout his entire lifetime.

    But the real answer to this "problem" is that copyright as a whole is fake and gay and shouldn't exist in the first place.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like a lot of modern musicians owe a huge apology to Pachelbel.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Except it's not because "learning" off of copyrighted images isn't a violation. No "true AI/Neural Net" contains any copywritable information within its parameters.

      This is not a new thing and has been shot down time and time again in court. No matter how much chud artists bitch, you CANNOT copyright ot patent ideas, methods or styles.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's my point. Saying it's a copyright violation to learn from previous works is like saying it's copyright violation for an artist to hear/see the work of someone else and be influenced by it.

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    How would FurAffinity prove that it's generated by AI?

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >ai like stable diffusion can create entire realistic images out of "nothing"
    >there's still no ai that can remove getty watermarks
    seems like the most trivial thing to make

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >all that skin cancer
      UV "tanning" imbeciles will never learn. RIP, nothing of value was lost. Darwin wins again.

Your email address will not be published.