0
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
PC Master Race
14905 readers
2 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: even with ‘stupid’ questions. The world won’t be made better or worse by snarky comments schooling naive newcomers on Lemmy.
Notes:
- PCMR Community Name - Our Response and the Survey
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then neither is the result of any digital tool. Fools fail to adapt to new tools and efficiencies. If you are using publicly available instances hosted by others, you've played with baby food and adolescent nonsense. This is the same foolish insanity as all those that claimed digital media was ruining traditional art media. Specialization is always the constant with technology. When the rules change, those that fail to adapt go extinct.
Have yet to hear a valid argument against this sentiment that I also share.
How is giving an LLM the necessary prompts to generate a piece of art any different than giving modern CNC machines with their retard-proof graphic user interfacesthe necessary parameters to make a finished product.
Before either advancement in technology the tradesmen/women of their respective industries spent hours painting/writing their art or hours writing fucking g-code long hand on shitty machining analog interfaces (idk if that's the correct jargon but you know what I mean, interfaces with no actual interface, just menus and a big blank command line to type in 20-100 lines of code into.
Both technologies have or will lower the need and compensation amount for anything to be made the antiquated ways when the end product is the same but for 1/100th the price and time?
For some reason these butchy cunts whining about AI have been all but oblivious to the long history that shows: 100% of the time a tool invented to improve the way a task/product is completed/made, that tool will continuously be improved on until anyone can come in with minimal training and use the tool to make the same quality of product that was being made the long way.
The only reason people are throwing bitch fits over AI/LLM's is because it's the first time the "art" industry is experiencing their own futility.
I think the argument is that the LLM essentially scrapbooks its result from paper pieces it cut out of existing artworks. And that in turn makes it a derivative work so in some jurisdictions the law would say that the LLM-generated image is copyrighted by those artists whose scraps were used to create it, anyways.
That is not how generative AI works. You have described collage, which is legal in any case because it's not derivative but transformative.