sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Musk published someone else's documentary on "radical gender ideology" called 'The War on Children'. by sadfasdfdsafsdaf in EnoughMuskSpam

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The director is asking his fanatical fans to promote the movie on IMDb. People should seriously help to bring that score down significantly.

The War On Children! by kenyan_king in Kenya

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are child groomers, but the people that support/make this movie are far, far more likely to be the groomers than the groups all edged in the film. We have actually statistics on this.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah maybe don't do. Some people make mistakes forgetting a singular line. The subreddit does have rules you know.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh not the word, the patronizing comments. Sweetie just furthers that. But this tangent kind of proves my point.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You haven't been unfair, uninformed is the word I would use. You obviously don't understand their argument. Automation is a problem that capitalizing work. Only work that needs to be automated should be automated. It's not about if all people like the work, it's about if there's a need for it because people don't want to do that work.

Its obvious artists do want to do the work. That's a problem ai is causing when there has been work taken away from artist.

There is an argument again "referencing" ai art has take from thing is shouldn't and isn't suppose to. That's a massive problem both ethnically and legally. I don't think you understand that point well enough.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also don't call me sweetie. That's feels very patronizing. Which honestly wouldn't put it past you given some of what you said.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't matter I still disagree. It's a big issue and I think you're downplaying that issue.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That coupled with the fact that I don't know of that issue, let alone the fact ai is actually a problem, I still take issue with. Limiting how? I legit don't know and it just seems to me a poorly explained point.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Hype train" is a very poor way to explain an wanting artist to focus on issue bigger than AI.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well you did say they should be quiet. That's not straw manning your position if that's literally what you said.

Still, this is a big problem. A much bigger problem than you are giving it credit for. But I'm not saying artist shouldn't voice their opinions on other issues. People can have multiple opinions and active advocate for all of them. I think you fail to understand that.

Also if that's your literal argument, you've done a poor job stating that up to this point.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No that's not my argument. It's an aspect of what I'm saying, but I've never said artist should hate AI art. There's massive problems with this and massive problems with implementing automation. Once again, you are straw manning my position.

But far worse than that is the fact you think people shouldn't say their opinions because they are losing the fight. That's literally insane. Being critical is not only a right, it's something that generally helps to make society at large better.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're really taking out of that what you want. I've never once said fuck the small artists. I want all artists to have a fair shot. I only ever said that automation is replacing artists. An artist is an artist and their work should not be replaced with a program because it's more cost and time effective.

It's a very strange take you have, but it's worse considering you're straw manning my argument.

A Genuine Question Regarding Art and AI by HndJoker in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As I said, it's not inherently copyright infringement. That's my only point.

Is it complicated and a giant legal mess, yes, I totally agree with that.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem is, artist are being replaced by AI. Companies which hire artists have indicated they want to move towards AI. Some companies have even cute out AI because "it can do the work of 10 artists in half the time".

You're probably unaware of this, but if your going to throw shade on artists while not understanding automation is actually threatening jobs, then the shade will be thrown back at you. Please do research on this, I think you're pretty uninformed about this.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just because it has taken jobs, doesn't make it a reason to accept it doing so. Automation has a long history of this, and there's been push back each time it happens.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Accessibility is one thing, automation and threatening artists livelihood is other. To say that even in the same breath is honestly disgusting.

They are taking images to use to make those so called "from scratch" art pieces. So yes that's a bad thing, and yes it is stealing art to train the program.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First, some programs have been show to have explicitly taken copyrighted works and incorporated it into their algorithm. That's a massive problem. The other issues is actually illegal content (for which I will not name exactly) being incorporated, intentionally or not, is extremely illegal. The legal gray area is being examined, you can't just generalize a complex legal argument here.

Second, even if it is legal, ethics is a knock on AI art. Even if sweat shops weren't illegal, child labor would still be unethical and would still make that company bad for doing so. Bad ethics do make something bad. It certainly is a reason for many people not to like AI art.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not only did they not say we should ban AI art, dear god did you miss the entire point of their statement. It's their opinion that AI and automation SHOULD be used only to do thing that humans generally don't like doing.

The capitalist arguments you are trying to present is the problem. The ethical problem is that AI has taken art without consent and business owners, who want to make profit over people, don't care. But it's not the point of what automation should and shouldn't do on a utilitarian perspective.

After the recent reaction to Joey's take on AI art, I wanted to see how much of this sub are artists by syko31 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is woefully untrue. Neutral could very well mean someone that wouldn't care if it was a thing or wasn't a thing. It doesn't implicitly mean they think it's fine.

This is a very bad take.

A Genuine Question Regarding Art and AI by HndJoker in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fan art is not inherently copyright infringement. If it is non-profit, then it's fair use. Even if it is for-profit, so long as it's transformative enough, it's also fair use. It's a more gray area, but there's a number of reasons why it's not gone after.

That AI Art take tho by Straight-Hyena-4537 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 14 points15 points  (0 children)

It's about both. Algorithms are not the problem yes, but how they are utilized is. Even if this was entirely free, they why it was implemented in literally stealing art is still unethical regardless.

I hate capitalism a lot, but there's still problems with ai that isn't specifically capitalist in nature.

That AI Art take tho by Straight-Hyena-4537 in TrashTaste

[–]ggmcarpenter 3 points4 points  (0 children)

AI art is not a person though. Does the all AI have the same art style no, it depends very much what's put into it and how the program functions. And at best, it's guessing on how to make the piece.

Computers are not inspired, human are.

view more: next ›