MarinReiter

That's the thing - no, they weren't. They were inspired by how neurons communicate with each other. But that's not "the workings of the human brain", you're making an incorrect abstraction, same with these AI.

Why should I believe you and move on? "making art for decades" doesn't make you an authority on any of the relevant subjects: "how art is processed in the brain" nor "how AI processes these images." I don't think you understand the fundamental differences between the process of looking up references/inspiration and kitbashing.

Are you implying that the process of training the AI with images, which usually involves statistic models, is in any way similar to the process by which a human brain creates images? Or that the way people look up references is similar to the way AIs use images? Because if that's the case, I'm afraid you have a very odd idea of how these AIs function.

Otherwise, you have to agree that we're talking about apples and oranges here.

AIs don't get "inspiration". They get the source images they need to function. An AI also can't produce an output that's outside of the realm of their dataset.

1 - Not the same situation. No one stole already-done work from the people who used to "compute" to create the computers themselves, or its output.

2 - You're twisting my argument. I don't care if artists are employed or not, or that some jobs are transitioned out from the economy. I care that people who put in work get the value proportional to that work. You should, too.

When you use one of these AIs that have been fed millions of images in order to train them and generate an effective output, you are necessarily consuming the images themselves, without which the AI wouldn't do anything. In that process, the artists - whose copyrighted work is, again, fundamental to the development of the tool - have been paid nada, they have not even consented to the use of their images in the training process. How does that track?

This would be a very different conversations if these AIs only used public domain art, of which there's plenty. But then again, it wouldn't be much profitable, would it?

Unless necessary regulations are put in place that stop people from stealing art to use in training datasets, then yes. Those artists are going to get replaced. We should be discussing how to regulate these AIs.

100% agreed. I'd never use this type of donation service because it doesn't seem serious enough. The artist that side has to ask people to "buy me a coffee" is not the kind of artist that takes it seriously, and, say, uses art station and has a complete portfolio. "Buy me a coffee" just sounds unproffesional.

When I first saw this in tumblr, I thought: "I wouldn't want to be the artist that needs charity to survive". It's like Patreon without responsabilities or commitment...It just feels childish.

That said, I'm talking about artists only here.

Wew lad, I can't believe I'm saying this, but you either don't understand women or don't understand love.

Women dont want you to die for them. That's your own need for chivalrious purpose, you selfishly romanticizing your own (or your male friends') sacrifice. I dont know if you've ever had someone sacrificing themselves for you, but lemme tell you first hand, it's not nice, and it makes you feel like shit. Women, and everyone for that matter, are adults, so they don't need someone sacrificing themselves for them. Why would you die for someone, when that person is capable of complete independance? The "love you to death" love isn't really love, it's obsession, and it's unhealthy. And it's either "women are an easy target for trolling" or "people love women". I dont know what kind of twisted love makes you harass your object of desire online.

I can think of a million different ways to harass Eric. Everyday men are also harassed online, usually for not being "masculine" enough. So why are people more likely to harass Julia or Rachel and not Eric?

Why would an AI have survival instincts? You are projecting your humanity onto them.

I dunno buddy, I still seem to search "workshop 3d printer" in and get top results from countries I dont live in. Not to mention, I often search for full phrases that have two keywords way separated from another, but because google is used to seeing them together, it will still display pretty irrelevant results.

Last week I had a copyright discussion, so I looked up "Do I own the copyrights to my art?. First link was "creator or buyer: who owns the art?", second link was "does deviantart own my art?", the third link was a website called "desiring god" about copyright and the scripture...Sure, you can say the first link is relevant, but I never mentioned "buying" in my query, and the fifth link is the one that truly answers my question. It says that artists in the US have automatic copyrights to their work as soon as it is completed. Same things have happened where I search up a more complex query, and google throws me buzzfeed links and other stuff that have nothing to do with it, in its attempt of simplifying what I'm looking for.