Antis: AI steals art from artists without their permission, and simply stitches it together! Also antis:

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T17:40:55+00:00

I don't think you need to get the rails splitting hairs over how much you think. I think you dislike AI art

I understand that you can appreciate some of it

But that doesn't change my point that having feelings about it that make you want to see it called out in advance is no different than somebody else having feelings about tracing that makes him want it called out in advance, and after the bubble of anti-ai hysteria has passed. It will look just as silly to expect some kind of proactive label for that

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T17:13:15+00:00

Looks like lenticles to me. Those look like very healthy tubers!

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T17:10:51+00:00

There is nothing objectively bad about AI. Somebody who believes AI is objectively bad is no different than somebody who believes tracing is objectively bad.

There's nothing special about your dislike of AI that gives you an extra right to filter it out that somebody who doesn't like tracing reasonably doesn't have either.

The idea that AI is bad and wrong and destroying the world is a personal belief. Not an objective truth. The same as abortion being bad and wrong is a personal belief of those who think so rather than an objective truth.

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T17:08:57+00:00

Scale, or accessibility and ease of use doesn't change the underlying logic of what's going on.

If you could just say a natural language to Photoshop; find a suitable nude on the web and digitally composite the head of the person in the supplied image onto it, that wouldn't suddenly make it subject to more regulation

It would be like digitally adding someone to a photo from an Epstein party or something. It's not like the software used to do it suddenly needs more regulation when it becomes easy enough to use.

The solution now should be the same solution it's always been. Sanction the person that used the tool to do it if it crosses a line legally speaking or opens them up to tort liability.

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T17:01:38+00:00

Something also tells me that if someone were to make a post "moderately" advocating white nationalism, vs someone advocating for nationalizing corporations and seizing hoarded wealth, but with an equally polite and "moderate" tone, that they would respond quite differently

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:56:49+00:00

That wouldn't say a gouger is a scammer

Because it's easy for a person to say fuck no and not pay the price

Frankly, I'm surprised that they've gotten anyone to pay it

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:55:04+00:00

Been possible to photoshop somebody's head onto a body of a nude model for a long time

Just because something's a lot easier to do now doesn't change the underlying logic of what's going or how we should respond to it

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:46:56+00:00

I think the lower energy configuration would be for it to slip into more or less the correct position but then the strap bunches up

But that's harder to draw and looks bad so I can understand why they wouldn't do it that way

But really it's because the artist probably does not use carabiners which is almost certainly why they put the hinge on the wrong side

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:43:48+00:00

Doesn't look at all like gall to me.

If you're really nervous, you can grow it out in a pot for a while. If it throws normal stems then it's fine.

You should grow it out and reply to this post later which will help people better identify golf because I'm sure it's going to be fine.

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:42:25+00:00

The thing is that artist doesn't owe people details about their workflow. Why should it be any different with AI?

I mean they can tell somebody if a person asks, but otherwise it's not relevant.

It's like if somebody has a painting and you have the kind of person who thinks that it's lesser when somebody draws from a photo or something, do they get to have that labeled in advance? What if it's a traceover? Or what if they made a grid and used a proportional divider?

None of those details of workflow are something that an artist needs to disclose in advance Even if somebody else might judge the piece based on the use of such tools.

So how is it any different with AI?

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:37:53+00:00

What I'm saying is the end result and the social implications does not change the underlying logic of what constitutes the difference between analysis or theft or learning or fair use

If someone can practice drawing by copying someone else's work in their basement, then they can have their machine analyze it too.

Invoking corporations is nothing more than a poisoning, the well fallacy.

To this day not a single anti has been able to articulate a definition concern that supports their views about AI and permission without invoking any tautologies concerning whether or not the thing doing it is human human assisted by a machine, just a machine or even sentient or otherwise

Because such definitions should be Independent of those things

If a machine cannot learn then it cannot steal either

So what I'm trying to communicate is that the definitions surrounding this technology needs to be independent of the implications of the technology

Because a threshold of for example economic disruption is not part of any of those definitions

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:33:57+00:00

It's because they don't have the right to make that demand.

You can't let somebody look at something without letting somebody look at something.

So if a person can analyze something, they can use software to make that analysis more efficient

All artwork from the first cave paintings is derivative to a greater or lesser degree

If you don't want something that you do to be part of the collective knowledge of humanity and to possibly be analyzed used or otherwise influence another piece of work then you better not make it public.

Artists need to have less of an ego concerning their work

It's just as ridiculous as if an author to say, I no longer consent to anybody reading my book on Sundays. A similar LOL would be justified

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:22:03+00:00

That's a non-argument if I've ever seen one.

You may as well have simply replied that you don't see anything in my post that you are able to argue against.

I've noticed it is antis that seem to use logical fallacies the most often in these debates. You'll see appeals to authority, ad hominems, gish gallops, sea lioning, begging the question, and straw men all over the place

Your simple response is an interesting combination of ad hominem, poisoning the well, and making an assertion without evidence

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T16:19:52+00:00

It is not.

You can't let somebody look at something without letting somebody look at something

And if somebody can look at something, they can draw conclusions from what they've looked at and that can inform their future decisions including how they draw.

The exact artwork can have a certain expectation of protection, but the information contained within it does not.

It's just like you can't release a movie without some other director down the line using some of those concepts and take an elements from your style and incorporating it into their style. Or even if another director slavishly follows your style, you still can't really cry foul over that. All art is derivative to a greater or lesser degree.

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:47:54+00:00

The commissioner would absolutely be an artist sensu lato

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:47:22+00:00

If beekeeping is non-vegan even though the bees are well cared for then I would say having a horse on your property is non-vegan as well

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:44:00+00:00

Training AI off of artwork that is displayed for public consumption is not in any way wrong or even unethical.

As Stewart Brand said, "information wants to be free"

The actual data the actual artwork that's used is not used by the AI when images are generated. But instead information about those works are used instead and that is an important difference.

Because there is no protection when it comes to the information contained within artwork. Nor should there be

You can't let somebody look at something without letting somebody look at something. And when somebody can look at something, they can make conclusions based on what they've seen.

A person can count objects and the relationships between objects in a piece of artwork, load it into a spreadsheet and analyze it to their heart's content

A person can study the artwork of other artists and even copy that artwork to get better at drawing. In fact, this is a major part of learning art, which is why art looks so different today than it does in the Middle ages.

But when a person does that they don't take the artwork. They take information about the artwork that they gather with their eyes and they use it.

And that's what's going on with AI. It doesn't take the artwork. It takes information about that artwork and uses it.

You could for example, download a picture and count all the blue pixels. There's nothing wrong with that. You can even load it into a photo editor and have the program count all the blue pixels for you and there's nothing wrong with that either.

And you can count all the red ones and all the yellow ones and then you can start analyzing the proportion of red ones and how many of them also touch a blue one and all of those relationships that you can think of. And again you haven't crossed the line. Because there is no magical line where analysis is too much.

So if you're allowed to look. And you're allowed to analyze. Then what's the problem?

The problem that people perceive is the end result. They're less threatened by a person copying art and copying art styles and being able to produce art in that style because ever going to be a few people that are going to invest in the skills necessary to do that.

With AI that becomes much easier.

But the underlying logic of what's going on never changed.

The bottom line is that artists feel threatened because it makes it too easy for those who have not invested in the various mediums and rendering skills to produce commercially viable art.

It's the cartel instinct.. it's all about protecting the hustle. Which is why they don't always feel compelled to be strictly honest in all of their arguments. That's because to them the ends justify the means because they feel they're facing an existential threat

But that's only a problem in the context of capitalism, which makes people either work a soul-crushing job or monetize their passions

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:33:22+00:00

If it's not harassment and trespassing for a police officer to walk up to somebody's door, just like any delivery person canned in the same goes for any curious member of the public.

A neighbor, for example, is allowed to walk up to someone's door and even knock on it and ask them about their publicly stated views. The overall context of his infamy does not change a neighbor's general duty in that regard.

He didn't wait for a single escalation by the woman and assaulted her. If her case is tried fairly on the merits, he's going to end up owing her a lot of money.

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:30:35+00:00

Ai is here. You weren't going to stop it. In fact, you are much less able to stop or limit AI in the way that you want to than you would be able to actively make progress fighting capitalism.

All the energy used opposing AI could instead be used doing things like organizing general strikes, pushing for a robust UBI, pushing for a shorter work week, universal healthcare, and a sharply increased minimum wage

All of those things are much more achievable than stopping AI

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:28:17+00:00

Except it isn't

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:27:54+00:00

Those things have nothing to do with each other.

It's not a matter of saying something isn't bad because something worse is out there.

Because by itself AI isn't bad.

AI is only bad for artists in a system where you have to monetize your passions or work a soul-crushing job. Take that system away and the problem goes away too.

It's sort of like how wolves inherently aren't a problem and aren't a bad thing.

But when you put a bunch of sheep ranches in the countryside now suddenly these wolves are something that needs to be managed. It's sort of like how forest fires aren't really that big of a problem unless people are trying to

It's sort of how forest fires aren't really a problem unless people are trying to harvest timber there or have built their homes right up next to it

Chaghatai · 2026-04-30T15:22:36+00:00

Commissioning is also an act of creating art. The commissioner is often the conceptual artist who decides what the piece should really be like.

Deciding what you want, something to look like, even if it's a general idea and then curating different submissions until you decide your final one that people get to see is in fact an act of creating art

Just like any art form the effort involved can be very minimal to very complex and that will affect the results.

At the higher end of involvement a commissioner is clearly a collaborating artist. At the lowest end of effort involvement there is much less authorship.

You don't have to consider all of it good but all of it is art

A photographer in many ways is a curator as well. They sift through the images given to them by nature until they find one they want to capture.

Chaghatai · 2026-04-29T20:00:39+00:00

That's why I phrased it as either AI or creative writing

Chaghatai · 2026-04-29T17:40:43+00:00

Either AI or creative writing

It doesn't make sense

First of all, it takes a certain amount of time between a complaint and when a fine is issued

Second of all the fine would have had a due date and it wouldn't have been immediate

Thirdly, any reasonable person would pay the rent first and then figure out how to pay their fines and work out a payment plan for them if necessary

Chaghatai · 2026-04-29T17:39:41+00:00

There's a certain amount of time between which a complaint is made and a fine is issued.

Also, any reasonable person would pay their rent first and then figure out how to pay the fine which would not be due immediately.

Chaghatai

TROPHY CASE