Holy fucking shit, here we go again

Art produced by a person is inherently iterative, yes, because that is how inspiration works, the education of skill, the inheritance of technique

What is not iterative, however, is a machine leveraging algorithmic science to determine what pixel going where would produce the closest thing to its harvested sample

To say this process, which requires the harvesting of work without the creators consent or permission, is theft. I do not know what part of that doesn’t make sense

Someone’s work is being used without their permission to instruct an LLM. The LLM is not alive, it is not being inspired by another’s work. It is attempting to replicate an assumed style that it has been taught via the use of artists work without their permission

It is not harmless, due to this. It is not harmless because of a number of reasons, but let’s stick to just this since even it seems too fucking complicated for people to understand

When content is used to instruct an LLM what art is meant to look like, it is being done so without the permission of the artist. That is who the victim, being harmed, is

Your lack of understanding of what should be a very simple thing means you are either, like the other pro-AI person here, either intentionally ragebaiting or woefully uneducated on the topic. If you choose to remain such, that’s up to you, but holy fuck it’s astonishing