• JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Ah, I got you. Look, I do not agree but get where you are coming from.

    My stance on this is mainly that this is not really a “inspiration” thing. It’s more of a mixer, as AI is nor capable of true creativity.

    As for the copyright rules already being tyrannical - I agree, but this is the fault on to the benefit of the publishers. We still need intelectual property to protect artists (granted, for mich shorter periods of time). However, with (mostly) large companies running Ai, they are basicly taking copyrighted material of those unable or unwilling to put on a fight (because they are small creators, not publishers) and using it foe their own profit.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      What about the fact that if such protection like they are trying for is put into place the actual effect will be that no one but corporations or those using their services will be able to work with AI art models? That’s the part that really bothers me about all this, it’s framed as taking down corporate power but ultimately increases it.

      • JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        It could happen, I agree, but I would still prefer such a result than anyone taking someone’s work (especialy if they put it out for free) and then profiting of it.