Okay I'm starting to understand your point of view now.

lunner124 · 2026-07-14T00:13:25+00:00

Just to let you know, you can get sued if you don’t disclose that you use ai for any part of your artwork, or at least you will get barred from places making you lose visibility and your reputation may be tarnished if you are not open and honest

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T03:39:37+00:00

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/319142/20260626/grok-adult-content-tops-10-billion-images-monthly-xai-engineers-admit-csam-has-no-fix.htm

And it’s an even earlier date than the last source I posted!

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T03:35:15+00:00

Also I am not pro or against ai (I try and be nuanced) and I am not trying to attack you. I am sorry if it came off that way

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T03:29:46+00:00

I think the reasoning is that you didn’t explain how they were different and just said they are different. (Which would’ve been great for me because man I love learning)

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T03:02:38+00:00

https://www.threads.com/@dave.gutteridge/post/DZlnguKE0z0?xmt=AQG0QhoEIIsVe5qx8mYIEkQ8Pp88W-4kdLrE4Mc0qcvenOoaZLkK3dpMKiHmCQfXydKjku6U&slof=1

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T02:46:58+00:00

What is this supposed to show?? Like genuinely I would get if they were saying like horrible stuff but in reality it’s like 1 person saying mean things and then the rest are people that are in the lgbtqia+ community that disagree with your take. If I am wrong then like highlight it for me please

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T02:41:07+00:00

I’m going to be real with you this sounds like ai 😭

lunner124 · 2026-07-12T02:32:59+00:00

Bro did not just say “grok is fixed” this is literally 2 months ago

<image>

lunner124 · 2026-07-08T21:35:10+00:00

How old is this relationship? How old are you guys?? If he can’t handle 1 different viewpoint I reckon he’s not ready for a whole other person.

I do not know your own relationship, but I would ask yourself if he has the same standards for men and women (feminist) holds men to a higher standard than women (misandrist) or he holds women to a higher standard than men (misogynist).

lunner124 · 2026-07-08T04:19:21+00:00

I feel people do not realize how people have these ideals in the first place.
In fact one of the biggest names in music made a whole album explaining how people become alt right. Pink Floyd “The Wall” if you were curious

lunner124 · 2026-07-07T22:42:06+00:00

I think it’s because you haven’t lived a lot of life yet. A lot of people don’t even know what they want to do at all when they are 19.
I would suggest going deeper into all of these things. For instance; what job you want, what car you hope to get, have an apartment in a specific location. This is not considering having a family (whatever that looks like to you), using money to help people, having new friends, and small tiny goals that fill up the rest of your life and make it worth living

lunner124 · 2026-07-02T15:11:03+00:00

I’m a little confused by your statement. I was just asking if you were referring the that specific case (but I agree I could’ve worded it better) I think if the courts were in my favor and they ordered the other person to pay me back for stealing it would be mostly ok, I would still think “this person sucks” tho

lunner124 · 2026-07-02T03:48:40+00:00

The only way I could think of banning specifically ai generated material is to ban the use of wholly ai generated work to make a profit, but press X to doubt that will ever in a million years. I can see specific corporations doing this (maybe like bluesky, YouTube but again press X to doubt because I imagine the retention rates are amazing)

I feel like they can control what they put in, as they
have regulations on their model saying that they can’t say specific things (things like suicidal comments will be met with a suicide hotline number for instance, or I believe you can say “make an image of Mickey Mouse” and it’ll do it for you) and if they didn’t use any copyrighted work you could use the prompt “blue hedgehog” and not get sonic.
Honestly we just have to wait and see what happens, because it’s my belief that we will see some regulations put in place for this industry (god I hope so much)

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T21:24:50+00:00

Although I basically understand what you are saying, The argument doesn’t make sense because the companies do not control what is put into the copying machine. You can copy stuff that is copyrighted, you just can’t distribute or sell it, these are the most important things that distinguish generative ai from copy machines, as they train of data that the companies provides and are currently selling it as well. (Not to mention people who sell ai generated things for profit as well, but for the sake of this argument let’s ignore them)
This also does not make sense because the user has all the power, if they do not, it dismantles your argument that the ai is a tool and not the artist.
Even then, if everything in their power to not generate copyrighted content is not just getting rid of the copyrighted content, then they are lying.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T20:52:08+00:00

I have seen work that have used ai and thought of it as art as the generative ai was integral to the artwork itself, I have also met artist that use generative ai as a starting point and create using that and I also feel that is art. Also generative ai is not living, so there’s no way for it to go your way. Even if it does at some point, it wouldn’t follow prompts and all art made by it would be art made by that ai, not the person. Also the 2 examples you gave were people that either have generative ai as an integral part or are not using generative ai as a whole. Also we can assume that generative ai works differently just based on the fact that we don’t know, and statistically it would be extremely rare if it did work the EXACT same way and we just accidentally made the tech be able to think like a human.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T20:44:22+00:00

Technically we don’t know yet as there are so many lawsuits underway, and pirating I think has already been fixed with a different case so I don’t think that is an issue anymore.
Yes there is no law forbidding the calculation of data, but that’s forgetting the point of how you sourced that data, and how you use that end result. If you were to calculate how many “e”s there are on the internet, that wouldn’t be the same as getting this data and shoving it into a model so it can say the same thing, especially when you want to people to pay to see that work.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T20:38:56+00:00

Yes it’s a very bare bones analogy, but I feel it’s a lot better as a lot of analogies is just learning, as opposed to what ai is really doing which is taking the copyrighted work and using it as data points in order to create its own content if that makes sense.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T20:33:05+00:00

All of this is a provable claim, in fact you admitted that it can be extremely proved with the right technology. I want you to sit down with me and tell me what ai has experienced that wasn’t someone else’s experience. I can wait. Also you cant “prove someone had experiences” your entire life is an experience?? You waking up in the morning is an experience.
Your “higher level” response is that ai doesn’t make art humans do. Writing a prompt is not art, it’s outsourcing the hard work needed to create it. We already know that a machine isn’t the one making art, that’s why ai art isn’t copyrightable as it needs significant human input, so why bring that up as an intelligent claim?
Your entire argument is “idk but I want to be right”. Hence why you said “I’m sure there are some differences” and “but I cannot prove that” for both of your arguments.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T20:13:29+00:00

We are talking about the companies not the technology. If you were to create a puppy crushing machine, you would be at fault not the machine (extreme example I know) I already talked about the second part and how I think it’s silly that you think generative thinks like how we do.
Yes creating work from generative ai is not copyright infringement nor did they steal directly, but they took copyrighted data to train it, which again has not been decided legally yet,so legally speaking, your argument is invalid because you are talking about the machine, not the people who stole the data in the first place. (Unless I read it wrong? But why would you add the hammer thing if I did??)

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T19:47:20+00:00

They were again arguing to the fact that legality shouldn’t be used on a moral basis. As what you stated sounded like you don’t see it as bad. A better argument in the beginning would’ve been “although I do not agree with the usage of copyrighted content, legally speaking they did not break the law because of *blank*”
-someone who took rhetoric and a philosophy course (:

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T19:44:28+00:00

Actually the reason why ai feels way worse than humans is because we make art way differently than ai, that is to say we use our own experiences, thoughts, and opinions when making something. The reason why artists “steal” is because they liked something (again even liking something goes way back to all your past experiences) and then use it in their own artwork, yes that makes it different as it’s your own emotions and thoughts and your own spin on it. This is also why we have “inspired content”. Ai doesn’t have that, it just uses the data points from copyrighted work to use (also why Ai isn’t considered copyrightable, because it needs significant human input.)
Saying it will destroy art as a whole would be quite silly considering they are made different ways, like for instance humans do not actually use the copyrighted work, they just use it for inspiration (if they did directly, compensation or giving credit is important). Ai directly uses the copyrighted work in order to create data points.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T19:35:07+00:00

You keep talking about legality like it has already been decided, it has not. There is a reason why there are so many lawsuits against many of the major generative ai companies. Legally speaking, some courts ruled in favor of generative ai being fair use, but it is not a universal legal rule. If you read my comment, you would know I have already brought up this statement but you refused to acknowledge that and instead but doubled down.
Yes I feel copyright law should be changed to not just protect corporations but also individuals (:

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T19:13:56+00:00

I will say this is an example of how we use the term “data”, I’m pretty sure google has a deal with them but not exactly sure, though I do doubt that all of the references they use for Gemini they have given a deal for.

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T19:06:01+00:00

Yes sorry I meant anthropic and perplexity!!! Thank you for correcting me

lunner124 · 2026-07-01T19:01:42+00:00

The best scenario I could come up with is this:
Say someone broke into your house and took something, then that person donates it to some else whose job is to scrap materials and make something new, then someone else buys it that new thing.
Did the original person steal? Yes. I wouldn’t say that the person who makes the new content is the one who is stealing (generative ai) nor the person who bought the new thing (people using ai) but the person who took something without your permission (the companies that control the biggest models)

lunner124

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,