Also wanna add that in theory I’m not against AI art generation, only the way it’s usually implemented. All creativity is derivative, and as long as the user is remixing free and public domain content, I think the gained accessibility for far more people to bring their expressions to life where they otherwise would not have been able to, is worth far more than the perceived threats felt by a stagnant copy monopolist industry.
But the key thing here is proper implementation. It’s like every time we get a new toy, we forget all over again that software freedom is a moral imperative in all forms of software.
I haven’t looked into it too much, because I don’t bother to use these things myself. But if I remember, there are some systems that are open-source, can be run locally, and then a person could train those systems on only public domain and freely licensed works. That is the kind I’m talking about, so bringing up the systems I’m not talking about is just a strawman.
I understand what you’re saying the point to me that sticks out was the usage of “hypothetical”, which to me would mean things that don’t exist, which wouldn’t be a strawman as i understand it. With that being said I’m genuinely not trying to be an ass, just explaining the way I perceived the comments, I hope it’s not needed to say, but I meant no offense in my reply of your comment.
No offense taken. It is still a strawman though, because regardless of the realness of what I’m talking about, they’re still referring to something different and then attacking that as if it is the thing I’m talking about.
When you say, “However what you’re hypothesizing cannot exist, due to the nature of a diffusion model. The source that the images are generated from, all of that was stolen in 2021. It was illegally scraped.”, are you referring to Laion-5B?
Also wanna add that in theory I’m not against AI art generation, only the way it’s usually implemented. All creativity is derivative, and as long as the user is remixing free and public domain content, I think the gained accessibility for far more people to bring their expressions to life where they otherwise would not have been able to, is worth far more than the perceived threats felt by a stagnant copy monopolist industry.
But the key thing here is proper implementation. It’s like every time we get a new toy, we forget all over again that software freedom is a moral imperative in all forms of software.
deleted by creator
None of the hypothetical methods I described would do that.
deleted by creator
No, it’s not. Why are you like this?
The present models are, is the point i think the other person is making.
I haven’t looked into it too much, because I don’t bother to use these things myself. But if I remember, there are some systems that are open-source, can be run locally, and then a person could train those systems on only public domain and freely licensed works. That is the kind I’m talking about, so bringing up the systems I’m not talking about is just a strawman.
I understand what you’re saying the point to me that sticks out was the usage of “hypothetical”, which to me would mean things that don’t exist, which wouldn’t be a strawman as i understand it. With that being said I’m genuinely not trying to be an ass, just explaining the way I perceived the comments, I hope it’s not needed to say, but I meant no offense in my reply of your comment.
deleted by creator
No offense taken. It is still a strawman though, because regardless of the realness of what I’m talking about, they’re still referring to something different and then attacking that as if it is the thing I’m talking about.
deleted by creator
When you say, “However what you’re hypothesizing cannot exist, due to the nature of a diffusion model. The source that the images are generated from, all of that was stolen in 2021. It was illegally scraped.”, are you referring to Laion-5B?