First off, stop calling him an AI artist.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
139 points (100.0% liked)
Furry Technologists
64 readers
1 users here now
Science, Technology, and pawbs
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Calling someone a prompt "engineer" should be punishable by law.
In general it's not used for AI artists but rather for developers doing advanced stuff with LLMs such as RAG etc...
It's literally what they are !
Fun Fact: PE is actually a legally protected title (the P in a real engineer's title stands for professional)
You can make art using AI. I've seen artists use it to clean up line art, color, shade, fill in backgrounds, and more. AI is just a tool. Lots of people only use text prompts, which I agree is hardly controlling, but that is only a single way to interact with AI. You can do a lot with these models.
All this is true, but none of it is relevant to a guy who's demanding copyright protections and royalties for something Midjourney spat out.
I agree, but I wasn't sure if this comment was generally anti-AI or understanding of the nuance. For the record, AI scares me.
I'm in the same boat. Every time someone reads one of my comments and doesn't pay me for it, that's money out of my pocket. It's a hard life being an internet commenter these days.
You laugh but I seriously think people should be getting a cut if they are building a non-open LLM by commenting.
Member how people defended free price of gmail? I member.
load more comments
(1 replies)
One of the reasons I like AI art is that it's pretty settled law that something produced by purely "mechanical" means can't itself have copyright, since copyright requires both originality and a human author.
It seems like a reasonably compromise, the AI was created by hoovering up the commons, so anything it creates should belong to the commons. I expect a lot of lobbying in the future to try and change it though.
Oh no, the consequences of your own actions! That art competition should just add a rule "only copyrightable works"
Apparently, the competition was a year before that ruling.
And he's still crying about it?
This is actually the art bit, right? He’s doing conceptual art, like that Banksy that shredded itself upon sale.
If he is considered "Artist" I am too.
How is he losing millions of dollars? If you're just trying to get into the art fraud money laundering scheme thing then make an NFT and find an idiot. But just the creation of a piece (be it traditional, digital, or "ai") doesn't entitle you to a payout. And if you're just complaining about the dissemination of the piece you asked someone else's computer to generate for you without a kick back link tax, well--that's not how copyright, the internet, or normal human correspondence works.
[Nelson Laugh]
Lol, lmao even
I'm collecting all his tears to cook a big pot of pasta. Not sure how anyone would make "millions of dollars" from a single artwork anyway.
its probably fictionally calculated like sales are to piracy. just because someone pirated a game/software doesnt mean they would have bought said thing at asking price had the piracy option not existed.
Money laundering.
How much did the real artists lose out on in order to train the AI?
Read headline, ok. Look for Onion source... fuck.
He is not being the neighborly neighbor Mr Rogers wanted him to be.
Fuck him.
I can generate Mandelbrot pictures that no one else has ever seen. That doesn't make me an artist.
Oh I sure hope he sets a bad legal precedent for AI "art".
Waah.