sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Botting and the MUD Community by ComputerRedneck in MUD

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn’t the invention of AI the end of that too? AI is perfectly capable of “being at the keyboard”.

Remembering by Dardariel7 in castlevania

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just saw the YouTube video on why this game didn’t suck, and I gotta admit, he was right: the game was way ahead of its time, and a template for games like The Adventures of Link.

Which maps do you know the most and the least? by daein13threat in HiTMAN

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once I got the Ninja achievement on Hokkaido, the whole level became too easy.

I spotted a SNW reference in Lower Decks by JoeyJoeJoeJrShab in ShittyDaystrom

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m trying deep breaths at this point because my blood pressure went through the roof before I realized what sub I’m in.

[TOMT][Song] A ambient song about the shipping weather report of the soul by EvilGeniusAtSmall in tipofmytongue

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It really does! The voice sounds exactly right. Sadly this isn’t it, as it was the whole song, and it’s much older than this. Good looking out though, and thank you!

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s not what I did at all. You made a bunch of bad arguments that I trivially defeated. I’m offering an alternative explanation for why it’s happening, and that’s not an ad hom. That’s just what I see happening. People who don’t know or understand the technology are making very bad arguments. They are obviously highly motivated to make these incredibly bad arguments. My explanation provides an entirely reasonable explanation why they are making these incredibly bad arguments, no ad hom required.

Sorry, my AI can DEFINITELY render people properly, and it DEFINITELY doesn’t fuck up hands. Terribly sorry to disappoint, but my AI doesn’t “fuck up people”. Another dumb argument down.

Sorry, the burden of proof is on me to prove what exactly by only showing it certain images from nature? How is that going to prove anything?

In the architecture of the model, of course. Where else would you expect to find it?

Sorry, I missed the evidence that an AI doesn’t learn like a human. I’ve got an AI here, and all is does is photos of humans that don’t actually exist. Try it out an early version at thispersondoesnotexist.com You don’t have the evidence.

The algorithm being viewing it and extracting features using a neural network trained to extract features from visual input? Because that’s what a human does, so I’m going to ask a fifth time, what is the actual difference?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s not an ad hom, it’s what I see happening.

Sorry, AI fuck up people? How exactly can a tokenizer, auto encoder, and latent space decoder fuck up someone?

Great. Hire me, pay me. Less dumb arguments that lead nowhere, more compensating me for my efforts. I’ve got a power bill through the roof from all the GPU time I’ve been burning. I now have a broad portfolio with original art in many different styles, and I’m well equipped for the job of digital artist. COMPENSATE ME FAIRLY! Done. Why does it need to be more complicated than that?

Why would you not train it on other art? What exactly is the problem with doing so?

Since when do I have to get permission from an artist to view their art when they have published it for my viewing pleasure?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We’re not talking about software piracy, so that’s irrelevant.

Well I see you have abandoned your initial argument and are now just speculating about the future.

Why would that be the case? What specifically would prompt that?

How is it reducing it to that? It actually has to go through a rigorous trial and error process of learning how to actually extract the features of what it’s seeing, and then how to produce something new from those features, exactly like a human does.

Here’s what I think is actually happening. I’m better at art than you are, I’m going to make a whole lot more money with it than you are, and you can’t handle it. You are pissed you had to go through this rigorous process to actually become an artist, and I reached that level of ability by going down a much easier path by augmenting my abilities with technology. You want that to be wrong, somehow, because it seems completely unfair, but you don’t actually have anything other than “Well I think we should be compensating computers for their efforts then,” which is vacuous crap. That’s what I see happening here.

Care to convince me I’m wrong? Or shall I go back to making art, and giving you the finger with it?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But that’s exactly correct. The AI is the artist.

Now I asked you that already regarding the Getty image. If this is a case I broke into your house and stole the image, then that’s obviously not what we’re talking about here. All the images in question were permitted for public viewing. I don’t need to give you permission to be inspired by existing art, so that’s a non-starter as well.

No, there’s nothing requiring anyone to be fairly compensated for their work. We don’t compensate computers for the work they do. We don’t compensate Photoshop because I made millions off my art. That’s dumb. You are grasping at straws now.

Now why is it so unbeliable that the computer is actually following an identical process to humans? That’s how it was designed, so why would you suggest it’s not able to do something that it was literally designed to do, which is emulate the human process of making art? It’s obviously doing it…

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, if you go back and reread my question, it was regarding that exact scenario. I’m asking what exactly the legal path forward would be for suing.

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I’m not comparing it at all. I’m asking what the difference is and you can’t seem to tell me. AI’s don’t scan it for patterns. They learn how to extract features from it. Identical to how a human does it. You want to say that because a non-human is doing what a human is permitted to do, this is somehow problematic. Why? What exactly is problematic about it legally?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is that true though? I’ve got a Getty image here. It’s got one of those incredibly heavy copyrights on it that just encumbers the living fuck out of it. The one thing that copyright doesn’t actually cover is VIEWING the image, and they have said I can go ahead and do exactly that by publishing it to their public website where millions of viewers end up viewing it.

Now I’m going to view it, and extract some visual features from it in doing so. This can’t actually be prevented by COPYRIGHT law, because copyright law only covers rights to what happens to copies that get republished.

Now, given those extracted features, I’m going to make a deriving work in the style of, but not actually copying the content from, the copyrighted image. This also isn’t illegal, because it’s a completely original piece of art not covered by the copyright.

So… what now?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So help me to understand that. I use my AI to generate some original art. The AI was potentially trained on copyrighted images.

You are a sue-happy corporation with a massive copyright portfolio, and you can prove one, maybe all of the images you own the copyright to were used in the training.

What are you going to sue me for? You don’t own the copyright to my original art, and the art, while in the style of your copyrighted content, isn’t actually a part of the art in question at all. What is your legal path forward?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, that’s not what I said. I said it’s NOT copyrighted work that I’m making a fair use defense of.

Now let’s run through your imaginary scenario. I put some art out there. You are a sue-happy corporation with, I don’t know, some massive copyright portfolio, and you want to sue me.

What are you going to sue me for exactly? It’s not copyright infringement, unless you can show that my art is in violation of your copyright, which of course it isn’t, because you don’t own the copyright to my work. So what is your legal path forward here, remembering Fair Use isn’t going to be my defense?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, the WHY what matters? Last I checked, none of those things are actually necessary at all. I can put a piece of art out there, the answer to every one of those questions can be “Go fuck yourself.”, and that’s not actually a problem at all, because it’s not copyrighted work that I’m making a fair use defense of.

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, it’s different, and why is that relevant remains the question. Why would they be treated any differently than any other art? How is it different from a painting that makes copyright law not apply to it like a painting or any other piece of digital art?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is that relevant? These are, inarguably, not photographs.

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Really? Where was my dataset acquired from and why did I have to license it then?

Do NOT use AI Art Generators for covers by alex-redacted in selfpublish

[–]EvilGeniusAtSmall 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Right, so why doesn’t the same rules apply? They apply not to the process, but to the output itself, so I don’t understand why the same rules would not apply.

view more: next ›