LadyAutumn

I never made any comment on my opinion towards the application of the term. I only pointed out that it's used differently, for reasons determined by social factors, and that more specific language eliminates confusion.

What you're describing sounds like verbal and emotional abuse. You can call it that. It's okay to say that you have been verbally abused before. I don't know you, nor can I make any kind of sweeping declarative statements based on 2 sentences a random person has sent me. But I assume that you feel you were abused and I am in no way invalidating that.

I think a significant part of this is rooted in how those two sentences are usually used socially to denote different things. Men routinely describe their wife being upset at them in any capacity as yelling at them. When a woman says her husband is yelling at her she usually doesn't mean that he got upset that she said something insensitive about him, she usually means that her husband had a bad day and came home to hurl misogynistic slurs and vague threats at his wife. Or that she didn't want to have sex and he became enraged at her.

Verbal abuse is a serious issue that also happens to men but would usually come with some kind of clarification from the speaker. As it is socially less common for men to feel comfortable enough to talk about their experiences with physical and emotional abuse. Women by and large suffer on an almost entire class basis from these things, and our language reflects that. Nobody decided it is that way, it's a byproduct of violence against women. The most accurate application of the language would be "my spouse is verbally/mentally/emotionally abusing me" and it does yield pretty consistent results for husband/wife.

I do think it's important that people know what it is they're celebrating, but yeah like my local Chinese community always does a lunar new year celebration that is open to everyone. I think a lot of Chinese people (and other communities that celebrate the lunar new year, like Okinawan Korean Vietnamese and many others) see open celebration as creating more appreciation for and understanding of their culture.

Results vary wildly. Some images are near pixel perfect. Others, it clearly knows what image it is intended to be replicating. Like it gets all the conceptual pieces in the right places but fails to render an exact copy.

Not a very good compression ratio if the image you get back isn't the one you wanted, but merely an image that is conceptually similar.

Can you explain why you think that requiring people to use public domain or ask for permission to use non-public domain content to train image or text generators would benefit corporations? How does that benefit OpenAI, making them ask before using someones content?

Yes, an-caps lol famous for standing up for small time by commission digital artists trying to avoid exploitation of their creations. Totally yup you got me. All my criticism of corporations and pointing how AI art specifically benefits corporations at the detriment of actual human beings is very ancap of me.

Your whole bit about a new owner class is just, so far out there I don't even know what you're on. I don't have time to try and work through the justifications for why you think that you're entitled to make a mimic program for other peoples stuff. Not just to do it, but to claim that it makes you an artist.

Sorry but nah you're in the minority here. In this specific community in this specific space your voice is overrepresented. I've never met another person who agrees that our prototypical Charlotte and others like her are demonic overlords of the new ruling class who are seeking to subvert creativity and lock it in their hands. God, most of the artists I know willingly train others and a lot of them make content to train others. Now you're essentially complaining that you can't draw lmao like it's just ridiculous. I can't draw either, that's fine I don't want to put in the work to be able to create real visual art. I can live with that. I wouldn't use an ethically sourced AI image generator anyway, as it's literally an elaborate RNG function with a mimicry algorithm attached to it. It has no meaning and is empty.

Like typing "a cool painting" into bing image generator, which then tries its best to copy other real paintings made by real people, makes you an artist somehow. It doesn't. And you're not going to convince me of that, of all people. Let alone the majority of society who definitely do not agree that that makes you an artist, or that it makes it right to scrape images from artists like that.

Also the bit about me deeming people to have talent is just stupid. I'm not judging their artistic ability, I'm saying they're literally not making art they're not showcasing any artistic ability whether I think it's good or not.

I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I've described what I think is right pretty fully. I don't need you to tell me where I stand.

You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I'm not mistaking you for someone else. I'm just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I'm fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That's it fam I'm out

'Charlotte' draws for people. She's good at it, and it's her livelihood. People like her are hurting literally no one by drawing things. She enriches the lives of all the people who enjoy her work. She should have a choice in whether or not her works are used to make image generators. That's it. It's not complicated. You shouldn't get to decide this for her, she never posted her images to the internet with the knowledge that someone would use them to figuratively build a machine with the expressive purpose of rendering what she does useless (even if it's very bad at doing so).

AI art stands against everything that every artist had ever taught me. It's spit on the face of art as a concept. It's art devoid of creation. Art made out of very long, very complicated algorithms weighing weights adjusted by billions of pictures passed through it. It's no more expressive or inspirational than an RNG function attached to a midi keyboard. It's mimicry, mimicry that really only stands to benefit corporations. I'm not about it.

AI in pretty well any other case? I'm on board. Let's automate human labor, all the things that we are forced to do for work. No more physical labor, no more 9 to 5, no more retail or fast food or corporate jobs. Do away with it all. I'm totally with you there. Doing away with human art? I mean, I've got no interest in that. If you like staring at what amounts essentially to nothing, then be my guest. I'm very open minded with art in general, totally down with avant guarde pieces, performance art, noise music, all the stuff at the fringe that offends the delicate sensibilities of those who seek to gatekeep what is or isn't genuine human expression.

Pretty big difference there is all those things are made by people. People with talent. Artists. We are enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their rights should be respected. They should have a say in whether specifically AI is allowed to copy their works.

Yeah, I'm not too concerned with janky AI generators having to ask before training a model on someone's art. Sucks for them I guess.

I don't agree with copyright. I'm an anarchist. I'm openly in favor of piracy, derivative, whatever else a human being might do with something. I don't agree with judicial systems, let alone market economies or even currency as a concept. And that's all fine and dandy, but there are people alive right now under capitalism. Unlike piracy, which pretty much exclusively takes from corporations like the overwhelming majority of things that are pirated are produced by corporate studios and studio funded artists, this one very specific thing takes the most specifically from artists the overwhelming majority of whom are already very poorly compensated many of them literally barely get by at all. AI models should have to ask them to copy and repurpose their works.

That's my only statement. You can assume I effectively don't agree with any other thing. I'm not here to have a long winded nuanced debate about a legal system I don't agree with and am not supporting in literally any capacity. I'm pointing at pixiv the website and saying "hey can you guys like actually ask before you start using these people's shit to make AI that is purposefully built to make sure that they are run out of jobs"

Unless you're going to somehow explain why artists aren't worth existing or something then don't even bother answering. I'm genuinely not interested in what you have to say and am tired of repeating myself in this thread.

Those are corporations. I'm concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.

I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You're essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren't hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You're refusing to even ask her if she's okay with her creations being used in this way.

You're wrong. What you're describing is immoral. I don't care about corporations. They're not who I'm interested in protecting. Its artists themselves. You're also wrong that AI art is some boon for humanity. It's cheap, barely passable noise. Literally, that is what it is. A beefed up toy that mostly exists to generate shitty articles and images that corporations can churn out en mass to manipulate people. That's its best use case at the moment. It's gonna be a very long time, if ever, that human creativity and wit can be engineered.

I'm just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I'm suggesting is:

"Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist."