←back to thread

125 points akeck | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.252s | source
Show context
charcircuit ◴[] No.33579956[source]
Looking at the comment section it seems that people struggle to understand how it works and thinks it is literally copying parts of people's images.

Educating people about such a technical topic seems very difficult especially since people get emotional of their work being used.

replies(6): >>33580043 #>>33580089 #>>33580091 #>>33580110 #>>33580133 #>>33581243 #
asutekku ◴[] No.33580091[source]
The big problem here is that it trains the artists style and allows third parties to create art in their style without effort. This is especially bad for artists with really distinct style as now hundreds of copycats can come and steal the previously unique style.
replies(3): >>33580208 #>>33580267 #>>33580276 #
orbital-decay ◴[] No.33580276[source]
As opposed to copycats before the AI?.. Frankly, neither "stealing" nor "unique" make sense to me. Art styles aren't copyrightable for this exact reason - the entire culture is built on iterative variations, that's literally how it evolves.
replies(1): >>33580666 #
tehbeard ◴[] No.33580666[source]
Copycating before required some effort (or as the techbros pedalling ai art might better understand a more familiar term, "proof-of-work").
replies(1): >>33580967 #
1. orbital-decay ◴[] No.33580967[source]
It still does, and will require effort and actual artistic skill and vision, due to entirely fundamental reasons (not because of deficiencies of current models). A lot of people who cry foul about AI art haven't actually dived into it, or thought at least a bit about what works and what doesn't. Typically they think that you can just enter a prompt and magically produce "art". It doesn't work like that, it's much more complicated, and the complexity is only going to increase in future. Just like with any CGI. This panic is induced by social media, and is based on a wrong premise.