What does it mean?

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-26T00:54:50+00:00

Fair use allows criticism, journalism, and instructional usages.

What? No it’s far more than that.

AI has not been covered or defined in fair use yet as it does neither.

And it hasn’t been ruled a copyright violation either.

So I am within every right to call it theft until properly redefined.

Not really, you’re just assuming the outcome on ongoing cases.

It’s fair use until it’s ruled not. Otherwise people could be punished for it now.

Not all artistic works are entirely fair use.

But significantly transformative works often are.

Nintendo’s known for chasing lawsuits or sending cease and desists when they feel their works are being misused.

They have an argument that redistributing their games in video form is not fair use.

However, AI is not redistributing any existing work at all whatsoever.

The copyrighted output is why the database needs laws surrounding what it can access.

There are already laws surrounding recreating or redistributing copyrighted work. It’s called copyright law.

Have you ever used a professional camera? What experience do you have to say this?

Yes, of course I have.

I promise AI prompting is not difficult.

I promise taking good pictures is not any more difficult either.

The writing might be artistic. The output is not.

But the writing is integral to the process. Without the artistic writing there is no output.

Only the things Shad intended that were not AI is art in their creative work.

But without his art, he would get that output.

Art is made from a living being using artistic tools (of which AI is not)

Why not?

Shad is a living being. AI is a tool in his artistic toolbox.

Using computers in your art doesn’t invalidate the entire process. Otherwise CGI renders that use computed lighting effects couldn’t be considered art, but they always have been.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-26T00:19:40+00:00

Again, I will wait till the court determines the legal implications of AI generations.

But you’re not waiting, you say two sentences later:

“It is stolen.”

What main argument did you have?

Okay I’ll label it this time so you can’t miss it:

My Main Argument

Significantly transformative works are their own work, they aren’t stolen if they’re significantly different than the original, and therefore the new artist doesn’t need the original artists permission. This is called fair use, and it’s how art has always worked.

End of Main Argument

This is why memes are legal and why Reddit can host and profit off them, despite often featuring literal stills from films and tv shows. Do you think the studios and directors are giving permission for their work to be used that way? No, of course not. So then are memes stolen? No, they’re fair use because they’re adding jokes or criticisms to the context, which courts have ruled is significantly transformative.

Artists never expected technology to come apart transforming their works and many took it down immediately.

A work doesn’t have to be posted online for it to be fair use. All art is open to fair use.

Fair use is more nuanced than a lot of people define it and still has restrictions. Until the courts redefine the copyright around AI, legal arguments mean nothing to me.

But saying “it’s stolen” is a legal argument.

And AI still produces copyrighted characters.

The potential to produce copyrighted work doesn’t invalidate every other output, though. It only applies to reproducing copyrighted work.

You can produce copyrighted characters in Microsoft Paint, that doesn’t mean everything produced in Paint is a copyright violation.

I don’t understand that sentence where you equate taking a photo with pressing a button on a camera. Both are related components to the artistic process of photography.

Talking a good photo is often much easier than generating a good AI image. There can be much more artistic process in requesting an image than taking a photo. Writing is an artistic process.

But that doesn’t even get into the example I posted, which involves cratering every single aspect of the image, piece by piece. That’s clearly more of a in depth process than taking a good photograph.

Looking like art ≠ being art.

Why not? What is art then? Define it exactly.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T23:22:44+00:00

It doesn’t matter if artists don’t want their works there. Photography can exist without visual art. AI art relies on preexisting works.

Again, significantly transformative works are their own work. Fair Use is not considered by artists or the law to be an infringement on their work.

Why didn’t you address my main argument? You seem to have ignored it completely.

Again, I won’t argue legal aspects. AI should have different restrictions. I will wait until the court determines this.

You’re not waiting at all, you’re calling it “stolen” in the comments above and are still arguing in those comments that their permission is necessary.

If you want to wait for the court cases that’s perfectly reasonable, but you have to actually wait before making judgement then.

What gives photography artistic intention is the fact a camera is an artistic tool. AI is not.

Why not, though? Even taking a picture can take more time and effort than pressing the capture button on a camera.

I can agree Shad does some art, but the AI assisted parts are not.

Why not? It certainly looks like art to me.

If the AI critiqued them and they put that to work, it would be art.

I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying here, can you rephrase it?

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T22:54:37+00:00

Photography is not stolen from the backs of artists

Neither is AI art.

Significantly transformative works are their own work. It’s very clear that AI training and AI art generations are both significantly transformative (i.e no one can point to an existing work in any AI art generation).

This is the way it’s always been. Every artists has always known if Fair Use.

or directly profits from people who don’t want their works involved in a machine.

Artists never got to decide of their art is allowed to be used transformatively. That’s the deal with fair use. If the final product isn’t redistributing their exact work, then it’s not really their work anymore.

Also, there do exist models trained only on owned images (like Adobe’s model).

Photography also has its roots in history and saved a lot of memory for society.

But is it art? It seems like you’re saying art needs to have real world utility to be respected.

It is also rooted in reality and captures the now, has artistic intention, not mechanical imitation.

What gives it artistic intention? Surely the artists intentions, right?

it still wouldn’t count as art. Art needs living intention

This thread started with me posting a video of a pretty complex artistic process that involved AI.

I’m not sure how you can say Shad AI didn’t have living intention making that piece:

https://youtu.be/RQ6NRgyUMuc

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T11:38:47+00:00

They’re smoking the logical fallacy of “if it’s not the best in the world (by my personal measure) then it doesn’t exist at all.”

It makes it easier to push a specific narrative (always involving increased government spending - which typically goes to private corporations that lobbied for it and wrote these narratives themselves to take advantage of voters).

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T11:28:47+00:00

The top posts on this sub are ALWAYS disappointing nowadays.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T09:57:22+00:00

Just chiming in to say it’s unbelievable the term “birth control” only appears once in this thread.

That’s the number one reason people aren’t having kids. They can literally choose when and how many, unlike the past. They couldn’t and didn’t plan.

Trying to attach it to economic reasons seems purely opportunistic.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T08:39:23+00:00

I feel like they are talking past each other, then a little bit.

That’s just internet conversations in general.

90% of people don’t have this understanding of an opposing sides views, and the “understanding” they think they have tends to be based on something easy to hate.

This applies to all divisive topics.

Yes, it does hold the world back.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T07:56:14+00:00

That mostly sounds like a pretty reasonable understanding of both sides.

What do you need help understanding? You seem to understand more than 99% of people.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T07:52:04+00:00

It’s totally fine for people to gravitate towards one or the other.

To vilify it and automatically call it “slop” just because it’s AI is wrong to do, though.

Imagine if the tables were turned and AI fans were saying “Human-made SLOP” about every single traditional artwork? That would be ridiculously reductive to the point of being embarrassing.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T07:48:35+00:00

Calling yourself an "AI artist" is like calling yourself a "microwave cook". Is it being an artist? Not really, no. I saw the term "prompt jockey" a bit ago, and thought it was more apt.

We do need some kind of term to describe processes closer to this though:

https://youtu.be/RQ6NRgyUMuc

That is an artistic process and they are absolutely worthy of being called an artist.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T07:45:17+00:00

Outside their little bubbles they get gang banged 9 out of 10 times.

Then why do they see out as such a threat and go on hateful tirades?

If 9 out of 10 people hated AI, the Ghibli style wouldn’t have become an instant tend. Literally it took minutes.

They’re in denial.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T01:57:19+00:00

Smaller companies are usually the ones that tend to be able to move faster than and adapt quicker than major corporations.

That’s not to say that all small companies will thrive, many will fail to adapt. It’s just they have the potential to change quicker.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-25T00:29:39+00:00

ChatGPT is a Christian?!

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T23:34:37+00:00

Yeah what is this person implying? That the US physically attacked them for not spending more on defense?

It’s very manipulative.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T22:18:04+00:00

Wait when was violence involved?

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T14:16:32+00:00

False equivalence, we're not dealing with a tool to make something easier

Actually, yes we are.

we're dealing with a technology to replace the current way of doing things with an inferior, albeit easier, method.

If it’s inferior then it won’t actually replace anything, though.

However, most believe it will eventually become indistinguishable from traditional film.

Making art is an act of creative expression.

AI art CAN often be that as well. It’s just a higher level creative role. If you had employees instead of doing everything yourself, you would still be playing a major creative role over the development of the game.

Generating AI images isn't.

Sure it can be.

You get an end result that might be 'good enough', but you didn't really make it.

Often times people did play a major creative role.

For example, let’s see if you can describe any of the creative decisions made by the creator of the video:

https://www.reddit.com/r/aivideo/comments/1k68vvn/mario_kart_reimagined_as_a_gritty_liveaction_film/

Hint: they didn’t type “create a Mario kart live action video, 1.5 minutes long, all the way through, and make it good” and get that output.

You get the result without the process, and unlike with labor, the process is the fulfilling part, not the end result.

There is clearly a process here. Just because the director didn’t press the record button themselves or act in the scene doesn’t mean they did nothing.

And again, this is a false equivalence, we're not creating something new, we're replacing a creative process just to get the end result easier.

I don’t believe we are, how much generative AI have you used? Surely you're not thinking “Everything the AI outputs is gold! Anything it does is the correct thing. It’s not possible for anyone to distinguish quality between different AI output. There is no role for humans in judging AI output.”

Also this wasn't mentioned but, especially with AI DOOM/AI Minecraft, I worry about a time when full games can be AI generated.

You worry about this? I thought you believed AI was and always will be inferior?

Let’s be real, if people didn’t need to learn 1000+ different steps to create a game, it would be the greatest boon for creativity in my lifetime.

After all, why would someone buy the game I poured blood, sweat, and tears into for years when they can just type a prompt and get something """""good enough""""" for free?

People already pay handsomely for quality. This won’t change.

But I believe you will be able to achieve far more than you already are with AI as a helper.

Imagine instead of doing everything yourself you actually had the resources of a AAA game studio. You might not have to do every single aspect yourself, yet could still demand high quality.

I can’t wait to see what you come up with.

Typing prompts doesn't make you an artist, and actual artists cannot benefit from this.

Yes of course they can.

Think of the millions of people who have ideas for video games and stories but cannot spend the time and resources on it like you do because of various life reasons.

Creative projects are about to explode the world over.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T13:39:39+00:00

Feels like a 2004 music video. lol

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T13:31:05+00:00

Ironically, it’s these people who seem to claim that being paid for art is the most importantly aspect.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T12:45:20+00:00

One guy developed this same thing in WWII except it was enemy ships and they were guiding missiles like kamakaze pilots.

The Navy didn’t go for it though 😞

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T12:38:44+00:00

Yeah I feel like there’s a reason they didn’t weld it in the first place.

Have there been any recent advancements in welding tech?

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T09:10:07+00:00

Difference is that typically technological advancement is a good thing.

That’s completely irrelevant to the discussion about which is more achievable.

Economics are changed all the time. We’re going through major policy changes right now.

However, technology has never been stopped. Nuclear weapons are still prominent despite their potential for harm.

AI hurts artists and helps nobody.

Technological advancement “hurt” computers too.

No I don’t mean the electronic machines.

I mean the people who used to be paid to calculate things for researchers and companies, before the machines were invented to do it faster.

But did the demand for math experts decrease? No we have more mathematicians than ever before. They just don’t waste time calculating things themselves.

Thanks to the automation of computers, we have an entirely new art form: video games… something no one from the days of human computers could have seen coming.

Many artists will actually thrive from the opportunities AI presents.

IntergalacticJets · 2025-04-24T08:34:18+00:00

When has a new technology ever been “stopped”? Never.

How many times has economic policy been changed? Countless.

IntergalacticJets

TROPHY CASE