/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6421402
Have you ever used this thing? And I mean actually used it, not just using the webshit versions on huggingface or wherever else. There are so many variables and so many moving parts that all affect the final product. Saying that the machine is 100% in control of what it spits out is legitimately just ignorance. So much of the final result depends on the inputs the human using the machine puts in.

>>6421418
I think the intellectual property being used against your will aspect is probably your best bet in pushing legislation. The problem with this is that artists essentially freely give out their artwork on twitter, pixiv, deviantart, etc. None of these sites actually protect your work using DRM or anything like the big boys at Netflix and Amazon do to make the files they provide to end users harder to steal.

It's hard to argue that an artist didn't want their work to be used in a certain way when they basically gave away infinite copies of it on the twitter street corner. What's to stop another traditional artist from heavily using their style, given that the artwork was given away for free with no strings attached?

I guess I think that you don't have a warranty for anything you release to the public on twitter. So you can't really have a say in how your art gets used if you give it away like that. If the art used to train these things is something you've privately given to friends, or something you've charged money for (on fanbox, etc) that isn't public, then yes I think you would have the right to tell the model trainers to fuck off.