Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

  • hglman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Greg wants to get paid, remove the threat of poverty from the loss of control and its a nonissue.

      • hglman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Compensation shouldn’t be an aspect of most human activity.

      • CallumWells
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        But every human activity desirable to others deserve compensation. If you want someone to do something for you or make something for you or entertain you then it deserves compensation. The way ads on the internet have trained a lot of people to think that a lot of entertainment et cetera on the internet is free has been a negative for this. But at the same time that ad-supported model does make it more available to people that otherwise couldn’t afford the price of admission. It’s partly democratizing, but it’s also a scourge.

        • Virulent@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if that were true it wouldn’t apply to this situation. The man wants monopoly rights to his art style. That’s insane.

          • CallumWells
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Has he said that no other humans could be inspired by his art style? If no then he hasn’t expressed a want for monopoly rights to his art style. But he has expressed that he doesn’t want computers to generate art explicitly to mimic his art style.

            Also don’t make claims that are totally disconnected from the argument discussed. It’s dishonest discourse and serves as a way to brush aside the other argument. You didn’t make any counterargument to my argument and the point of this chain which came from you saying that “Not every human activity deserves compensation” as a reply to someone saying “Greg wants to get paid, remove the threat of poverty from the loss of control and its [sic] a nonissue.”

            Your reply to me was inane.