[ SECRET POST #5838 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5838 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________




















06. [SPOILERS for Midnight Mass]




__________________________________________________



07. [WARNING for discussion of addiction]
























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #835.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Is it really “new and distinct” if it’s cobbled together from multiple pieces of art, some of it pretty easy to spot? These aren’t pieces of art being submitted for the training corpus with permission, this is art that is being used to make different art without the permission of the original artists.

I don’t get how you can say that the art used by AI to make new art shouldn’t have to be credited, while also saying it’s wrong to use copyrighted art without permission or payment. I also don’t get how you can clearly say all of that about the artists having a right to these images, how you can acknowledge that several pieces of art that can be recognizable are used to make something else, and then say that the images the AI produces has “nothing to do” with the artists. Those are contradictory statements you’re making. And the resulting AI art still does have something to do with artists, and the AI art isn’t a completely new and distinct thing considering it’s using their art as a base component.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not being used to make different art without the permission of the original artists.

The reason that you can sometimes spot source material in new images produced by AI models is because those models were designed to do that. It's not because of anything inherent in AI models. It's a characteristic of those specific models doing what they were told to do. It's the same way that a human artist can decide to sit down and plagiarize another artist, or they can make art that imitates the style of another artist, or they can make original art. And obviously, no one should use AI to plagiarize other artists, for the same reasons that human artists should not plagiarize other artists.

The way that it works is that the training corpus makes the AI, and then the AI makes original art. The AI is *not* just cutting up and reassembling elements from the training corpus. The resulting art is *not* merely an elaboration or recontextualization or whatever word you want to use of the human-created art. It is totally distinct and original. The art that is used in the training corpus has nothing to do with the art that is produced, it's just a necessary thing that you have to use to make the AI exist.

The reason that AI training materials shouldn't use copyrighted images without permission / payment is just because those images are copyrighted and artists have a right to say that their images shouldn't be used for purposes they disapprove of, whether it's the purposes of a training corpus or anything else. But it is *not* the case that the art produced by the AI after it's up and running are genetic descendants of the art from the training corpus. And the original artists have no authority, bearing, or relationship to the art produced by the AI.

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that AI art needs other art to exist means it probably shouldn’t until that’s no longer the case. These defenses are lukewarm at best. Walking back things you’ve specifically said in other cases.

[(Anonymous)]

all art needs other art to exist

do you think that humans learn how to draw in total isolation from existing art