It is though.
Your morals does not decide what is it or not a tool. I thought we, as society, had already go through this debate with Religion.
- 0 Posts
- 60 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: April 30th, 2024
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
I’m also not referring to resampling. I’m referring to full image generation.
How can something being stolen if no one took anything from you.
Same as piracy is not stealing. Training AI models is not stealing. Sharing is caring.
If you don’t get paid enough go ask your boss why he makes much more money than you.
Because mixed media does not exist.
Nothing forbid anyone to train an AI with its own drawings in its own style.
Once again, AI is a tool. Like many others used in digital art. It’s just a statistically driven generative algorithm. People can use a tool as they please to make art, same as they can use any other tool, and you have not the authority to gatekeep an artist of doing art just because you think their tool, their style, the object or anything about the artist does not fit with your morals.
And they also can, and will, mix it with other tools to produce the piece of art they want to create.
Also all this discussion about “the style™” could be just disproven given the fact that if you weight your variables and use a specific dataset you can generate consistent images in a determined style. And some AI artists does have a representative style due to this… So…
Intelectual property is a capitalist invention.
Human culture is to be shared.
Please, do not extend your lack of knowledge to me. Thanks.
Also, most traditional artists never develop a style of their own. If you believe that every single artist has its own unique style… You’d be much incorrect. That does not make it less of an artist.
I remember back in the day when lots of people followed the Bob Ross style to do some nice paintings. Luckily you are here to gatekeep them from doing art.
Spain. AEAT is out tax authority and has begun using AI in recent years, as an early adopter. The Spanish government in general seems very favorable towards AI and it’s funding a nationally trained model.
I did not believe in Intelectual Property before. I’m not going to start believing now.
The same I think that corporations having a hold on media is bad for humandkind I think that small artists should not have a "not usable by AI"hold on what they post. Sharing knowledge is good for humanity. Limitate who can have access or how they can use that knowledge or culture is bad.
The dead of internet have nothing to do with AI and all to do with leaving internet in hands of a couple big corporations.
As for emissions… are insignificant relative to other sources of CO2 emissions. Do you happen to eat meat, travel abroad for tourism, watch sports, take you car to work, buy products made overseas? Those are much bigger sources of CO2.
In my country this kind of AI is being used to more efficiently find tax fraud and to create chatbots for users to understand taxes, that due to the much more reliable and limited training set does not allucinate and can provide clear sources for the information given.
Not true though.
Current AI generative have its bases in# Frank Rosenblatt and other scientists working mostly in universities.
Big corporations had made an implementation but the science behind it already existed. It was not created by those corporations.
13·11 hours agoI do not know how regulations come into play. But I’m OK with regulating technology according to its potential (real, not imagined) risk.
What I’m not OK with is with primitivism.
If you know how to use an AI you also know how it’s working and what are you going to get, is not random. It’s a complex generative algorithm where you put in the initial variables, nothing more.
Someone needs to tell google that AI powered search is not working right now, and that they better wait a few years to try massively implementing that in a successful way.
Other AI fields are working really good. But search engine “instant AI answers” for general use are not in a phase when they should be as widely used as google (or microsoft) is trying to use them right now.
What kind of straw-man fallacy is that?
Please be rational.
Nuclear power keeps lots of people lights on. Same a AI technology is already making lots of people live better. For instance, in my country the IRS equivalent is already using it to successfully detect fiscal fraud.
Does that apply to any other type of technology, or are they just witch hunting?
19·15 hours agoBecause they are cool, that’s why.
No. I’m just not fear mongering things I do not understand.
Technology is technology. Most famously nuclear technology can be used both for bombs or giving people the basic need that electricity is.
Rockets can be used as weapons or to deliver spacecraft and do science in space.
Biotechnology can be used both to create and to cure diseases.
A technology is just an applied form of human knowledge. Wanting to ban human progress in any way is the true evilness from my point of view.
So do you not what generative art is. And you pretend to stablish catedra on art.
Generative art, that existed before even computers, is s form of art in which a algorithm created a form of art, and that algorithm can be repeated easily. Humans can replicate that algorithm, but computers can too, and generative art is mostly used with computers because obvious reasons. Those generative algorithms can be deterministic or non deterministic.
And all this before AI, way before.
AI on its essence is just a really complex and large generative algorithm, that some people do not understand and this are afraid of it, like people used to be afraid of eclipses.
Also, you seems not to know that photographs also take hundreds or thousands of pictures with just pressing a button and just select the good ones.
But not al users of AI are malignant or causing environment damage.
Saying the contrary would be a bad generalization.
I have LLM models running on a n100 chip that have less consumption that the lemmy servers we are writing on right now.
Google ghg emissions in 2023 are 14.3 million metric tons. Which are a ridiculous percentage of global emissions.
Commercial aviation emissions are 935.000 million metric tons by year.
So IDK about plastic straws or google. But really if people stopped flying around so much that would actually make a dent on global emissions.
Don’t get me wrong, google is a piece of shit. But they are not the ones causing climate change, neither is AI technology. Planes, cars, meat industry, offshore production… Those are some of the truly big culprits.