/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6922873
my child will get through the whole book. he WILL reach the last hill!

>>6904443
>i adressed every point. not liking my counterpoint does not equate to dodging. don't kid yourself.
you weaseled out of the main points and leaned on "you don't understand sweaty", don't kid yourself.

>photobashing is common practice in certain parts of the art industry. but what, it's okay because they're using photos, not art?
With that you've proved you don't know shit. Those images are all licensed. Nobody uses unlicensed photos because they don't want to cause trouble for their employers.

>but for the AI it isn't, even though it's doing the same thing?
>again, do you actually understand that it is the same thing? or do you believe this is some disingenuous trickery i'm using?
It's not OK for AI to do it. I said that, you keep dodging it, why is it ok? because humans do the same thing is not a correct answer. that does not make it ok.

>do you understand that those are not what-ifs, but just plain truths?
They are not truths. see
>what if the in-data and out-data are fundamentally different
1s and 0s representing color and position(and a million other parameters), not fundamentally different.

>i think it comes down to this. in the end your point is ultimately also just about protecting artists, isn't it?
I mean, that's part of it sure.
It's not ok to use data in certain ways without consent. AI image generation was more or less sprung upon us without any warning(though not to me, as I said ages ago, I have been on this since google deep dream). if an AI was wholly trained on liscenced work, that's ok. why can't there be consent for how data is used, in an AI? in an AI is the whole point. you keep deflecting back to "durr humans do it" like I should give a crap.

AI using data, absolutely no, unless there was explicit consent.
Humans using data, yes with some caveats(law etc).
What is so god damned hard to grasp? it's right there! grasp it! reach out! go on!