Link

AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.

  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    5·
    1 year ago

    because you didn’t write the code for the algorithm, you didn’t make any of the training data pictures, and you didn’t do anything that could be considered ‘creative’ or ‘talented’ to make it

    Did you invent the paint brush?

    Real fucking artists that put hours of time, effort, and creativity into their work deserve to have it protective.

    Working hard does not have any intrinsic moral value. That is puritanist brainworms. There is no value in suffering.

    • blakeus12 [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      you are right. i’m sorry. but the issue still stands that the programs that create the art use other artist’s work for their own profit with no credit. these people are having their work just, stolen from them.

          • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            Is it any less ethical than producing art when your art supplies are tainted by exploitation? When you are living on land stolen through genocide? when your way of life is built on the subjugation of the global south?

            The fact is there is effort and creative input involved in making AI art no matter how miniscule that effort is. This ruling protects that effort and creative input from being used for profit by anyone who pleases. It isn’t protecting AI tech. its protecting producers form exploitation and that is all.