|
I'm unhappy that AI gets allowed outside of its containment zone, but hopefully the idea of "low effort" will be brutally policed.
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
ravenkult posted:You offering to post AI supporter opinions in the thread anonymously as if they're some kind of vulnerable group that are in danger of some sort is probably the funniest poo poo to happen in TG in years. To be fair to Leperflesh, if one of us wanted to anonymously post that AI supporters were dorks and weenies, they would have probably helped with that, too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:When I say this next paragraph, I need you to understand I am not saying this as someone who has gone on record against you. This is simply as a goon. I would say this to any mod who made similar arguments. While I'm not Leperflesh, I think the imagined problem is that it's going to come up as a subject from time to time, likely because another dorkass company has to be shouted down after airing it as a way to gently caress over workers, and they're imagining a hard time policing when someone's being ghoulish enough to dunk on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 00:30
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:I think "don't say when you use AI" interacts very weirdly with the encouragement to credit the source when you post an image. Will it also be discouraged to ask people for a source if they don't label an image? What about if someone asks and the poster replies "I used AI"? Then we call them dorks and weenies.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Oh, okay, so it's a total containment thread, good. That's about the best that I hoped for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
"hey cool law mind telling me how I can violate the spirit of it without violating the word of it"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 01:27
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:e to add: There's definitely AI content that isn't low-effort or low-content; which is perhaps part of the cause of the misread or misinterpretation happening here. I think the disagreement is fundamentally about whether this is true or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
Antivehicular posted:Okay, now that I'm not at work and have a little bit of brain: what I was trying to describe by acceptable "high-effort" is stuff that is clearly mostly human creative effort with small AI elements, like the example posted in the previous thread of mostly human-made Blood Bowl maps that contained an AI-generated team logo. This is more or less "if you're trying in good faith and not being obnoxious, we're not going to check if every pixel was artisanally rendered." If the content is all or primarily AI-generated, it shouldn't leave the AI thread even if it's high-effort or high-quality. My personal approach would be: If it's human-created stuff that has been given "AI" touch-ups(i.e. interpolation programs or the like), where the "AI" isn't stealing the basic work from anywhere else but only working with the artist's own basic template for raw materials. That's fine and what I would consider "high-effort," though also not really "AI" stuff. What upsets me, and what I feel also upsets other people as "trash AI posting," is any time the "AI"(and yes I'm insisting on the quotation marks whenever I remember them, because it's important to remember that nothing about this technology is what we'd traditionally call AI and calling it AI is part of a marketing push to make it sound bigger, cooler and more momentous) generates the base, especially if its arsenal for said generation is built on stolen work(I consider the idea of someone using an "ethical" neural net for their generation to be a whimsical fantasy and will not bother to reply to comments invoking that), and then I don't really think most of us give a drat whether someone's poked and prodded the results a bit with human hands, it's the origin that pisses us off. For your example, I think that permitting "oh but I only made X percent of it with Stable Diffusion!" is going to start invoking ruleslawyering about just how much of something needs to be created before you can set the neural net to finish it off or vice versa. If any part of it is outsourced to a "generative" AI, it goes in the containment thread, that is in my opinion the only workable solution that doesn't just put off the eventual next confrontation where I call a pro-"AI" poster a dork and a weenie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 08:58
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:So I'm still unsure, would the outcome be I can't post my bloodbowl board because I generated my own logo instead of just directly stealing one from Google images, which would be allowed? I see you're still not engaging with why one of the two is theft and the other is not. Copying a .jpeg is not theft, copying a .jpeg and then using it for raw materials in a commercial product without consent or attribution, is. So yes, I think everyone here would be happier if you copied a .jpeg you googled up and sourced it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 11:13
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:You even said in your post you wouldn't want it even with a completely ethical consensual model, so you just don't like it it has nothing to do with ethics A completely ethical consensual model doesn't exist for this, and isn't what most people use. Let's engage with reality to start with.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 11:20
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:copying a jpg is in fact copyright infringement lol Copyright infringement can hoover my nuts, but theft I do actually care about, and conflating the two is something that only people who care about copyright infringement want you to do. Raenir Salazar posted:Thank you this is what I wanted to confirm. I'll still call you a dork, though. There's no safety from that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
kas posted:A huge lol at a bunch of people who gluttonously mass consume products by Hasbro of all companies trying to take the high road on ethical consumption of products. Yes, tell me about all the Hasbro products I consume and have happily paid for. I think you'll find a grand total of... zero.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:Someone might commission an artist from that, there is zero chance of someone commissioning an artist from an AI output. I've absolutely discovered every artist I've ever commissioned from someone posting or retweeting or sharing their art somewhere(of course with attribution or sourcing it). They haven't just entered into my perception ex nihilo in a flash of light.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
kas posted:If you want to use this logic to justify your actions based on something that 'might' happen in your hypothetical scenario, then you have to account for the fact that it is also a possibility that someone sees an AI output they like the general idea of, and takes it to an artist to commission a similar work in that artist's style or interpretation. lmao AI dorks still with the wild hypotheticals and ignoring what people actually post. Go on, post the one where you're a "new kind of artist" for typing a prompt into a bar and having something else do all the work, that one's my favourite for a laugh.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
kas posted:
It's funny that you're ignoring the other artist who posted about how it had literally cost him commissions and paying work. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I simply cannot see this fever pitch of emotion sustaining itself in the face of reality for 5 years. I think that if y'all keep talking in this patronizing way for five years, then it might well manage it. I think a lot of folks might be willing to be slightly more civil about the topic if, once again, we didn't get the scornful, crypto-bro adjacent mutterings about "luddites!" and "in a few years everything will change! we'll disrupt the art industry!"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 06:26 |
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:I'm not patronizing you at all. I don't think you're a luddite, I think you're self-interested. About 15 years ago the Internet granted a whole bunch of artists a revenue stream and now it's going to pair it down for a lot of them just as quickly. It does, in fact, suck. I'm not self-interested, I don't create anything I'd call art(or that anyone would want more of enough to train a neural net on it, anyway), but I know enough artists who make a living off of their work and who have it rough enough as it is, and I'm concerned for them and pissed that people are callously happy to take away their livelihood.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 17:01
|
|