/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6858741
>If a human creates an artpiece the resembles the style or looks of another preexisting piece or a set of pieces, it will be called plagiarism. Then why is ok for an AI to do it?
it is not.
and that's the irony of your post.

even i think that when it is plagiarism, it should be called as such. and that's also how it is with humans. we are capable of copying and plagiarism. but we only call it such when it actually happens. and that's pretty much my stance with AI.
but you folks seem to believe that it is just that the AI does. that's the difference.
in reality the AI takes its training data and is influenced by so many things that it becomes something completely new.

and by THINGS i don't mean the full images, i mean the concepts and ideas hidden INSIDE the images. even down to their compositions.
the AI uses everything in order to come up with its own images.

to me it seems like all of you simply don't understand how the AI works, what it is capable of and you call it a copy machine out of pure ignorance.

>my point is that you don't know what are you talking about when it comes to how human intelligence works, therefore all your narrative about the AI is "learning" just like humans do is a terrible oversimplification to say AI is not "stealing", its "learning".
no, there is a very simple explanation for this anon. it's you that doesn't understand how AI works, so you don't see why i would equate it learning and such.
(even though i explained it so many times already. although not itt yet i think)

even more vague concepts like "rimlight", "backlight", if you really think about what it takes to implement any of these concepts you'd realize these are not things that can just be copy and pasted. all of these need to be applied in a wider way.