/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6547140
>writing shitty code
>code runs program
>"Program make no mistakes because human hand made shitty code"
You made a shitty program and the mistake was due to your inability.
A program isn't a conscious being, nor can it be attributed the privilege of a mistake.

Your premise is wrong by default that you're fucking retarded and try to personify a machine thus detaching the machine from its creator.

I doubt you're even literate and high IQ enough to get any of this so just close your eyes and go perform obscene acts in public toilets of run down neighborhoods.

I really do not give a shit what you think.
>lol lmao wall of text im good lol
That you need to go out of your way to post this snark that has absolutely no inherent or contextual value, shows that you're just a stupid faggot.

I am the one who can give (you) value by presenting your post as an example of peak low iq tranny behavior. Which proves the point i already made.

You could have simply not replied, but you had to waste your time to post absolutely nothing of value because you're used to social media and retards like yourself circlejerking and dropping likes on inane shit like yours.

I give them the fucking blueprint of what not to do and they still do it, then they call me a troll because they're uppity.
It's fucking beautiful how i'm always right.

>>6420488
Good morning, sirs.
>"any creative content produced through the use of artificial intelligence, isn't protected by trademark or copyright in any way. And cannot be sold for profit."
>"People have to hire artists... because they just have to, ok?"
And this is why artists get ridiculed for being fucking retarded and companies are eager to replace them.

How does it prevent people or companies from using AI and passing it as real manual work with a sock puppet artist? It doesn't, because laws don't magically make anything illegal impossible to make.
How can you prove a piece of art was made through AI?
>inb4 bb-b-but it will have obvious mistakes such as crippled hands and watermarks
Easily avoidable if you know what you're doing.

If you want to actually apply laws to art, you must do so across all of it, not just a section.
If you think companies will just let you get away with it and not lobby for more regulations such as
>"any artists that draws any of our IPs without our explicit, written and legal consent, can be sued to hell and back"
>inb4 but how will they police all the art, etc
Internet filter.

Such a law can be expanded and misused against all creative freedom and free market.
And you clearly don't even know how copyright/trademark laws actually work.

>inb4 just ban AI
And you've given people who don't give a shit about laws even more power.

You're advocating for the absolute market restriction of any creative work done through and with AI, but at the same time advocating that any of that creative work should be public domain;
Any lawfag worth their salt would strangle you for being this ignorant about the consequenceS that shit will have, and any company will see more reason as to lobby to get artists completely replaced.

Do not attempt to introduce or advocate for laws to justify your bias and emotions.