/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>6567613
>"Just install this spyware to protect you from a threat that totally wasn't made up by "us""
And they just won't stop taking advantage of artists.
On the other hand, artists really are fucking retarded and the whole industry is based on taking advantage of them.

Remember, if you side with anyone on this, it's going to bite you in the ass.

>>6545761
>We'll have to wait and see
For what, the gofundme by the NFT grifter?
Going against not the commercial products, but the FOSS one?
Hahahaha.
The one that Disney of all people signed on to? (Gee I wonder why)

There's no waiting and seeing. Any lawsuit based upon whether it's ok to use the data is already settled. If human eyes can see it, bots can scrape it. That's settled, as much as tantrum about it, it's settled.
The other approach of being absolutely completely fucking wrong to the point of lying has to do with misrepresenting/misunderstanding how the technology works. I think they said something like "it can't create a good dog wearing a hat eating ice cream because there's no such image in the dataset" hahahahaha. Some shit like that.
As in, still insisting that it's just photobashing.

>you will never create anything now.
But I have been creating a lot of AI art

>>6540449
>ethical issues such as copyright infringement, authorship, and commercialization1
Artists copy other peoples artstyles as well, the commercialization of art has been a problem for a while now. There so much art being made without meaning beyond "anime girl cute" to be more palatable to the general audience that work is being sold to. Companies who want to make a profit don't care about ethical issues of underpaying their artists or trying to not pay contract artists at all. AI doesn't "copy" artwork when it trains on datasets, but even if you argued that AI can't use publicly available images anyway, people with money can contract artists to make art specifically to train AI, and the end result would be an AI that is proprietary, expensive and not available to the general public. Even then, nothing would stop big companies from using banned AI models anyway, unlike small artists, they can usually afford the fines. Commercialisation, profit oriented business and the fact that workers need to work so they can have money to live is always the issue with work being automated, never the work automation itself.
>AI models that can imitate their style23
Artists already imitate each others styles, no repercussions other than angry tumblr mobs.
>AI-generated art challenges the notion of human creativity and expression45
Commercialisation of art already does that.
>They wonder who should be credited as the author of an artwork that is co-created by a machine and a human.
I'd say it probably depends on intent. There already are artists who don't properly get credited on projects where many people are involved, but you can in theory try to find out via reaching out to whoever does get credited. You can't ask the AI who made which input when an artist was running the software on their computer, but you can ask an artist which AI model they used. If AI is just another tool, I'd say the human who used it and published the art should get credit.

>>6485388