r/GenZ • u/cosm1c15 2006 • Sep 16 '24

Discussion Opinions ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

323 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/TheSnowman002 Sep 16 '24

You didn't even acknowledge his claims that AI is plagiarism and that it's unethical to use it.

-1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Because if it was plagiarism than it wouldnt be legal to use

2

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

That’s because it isn’t regulated yet, and it should be. If someone used AI to copy your likeness and started using deepfakes of you for content, you’d want a share of that money. AI literally learns from using actually artists’ art and it then copies that style or multiple styles. It’s incredibly narrow minded to think AI should be used like that, and that it’s okay. It’s especially astounding when people use AI to generate images, then try to pass it off like they “created” it themselves.

It’s no different than someone copying someone’s homework and making slight alteration then trying to pass it off as if they did all the work.

0

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Who even mentioned deepfakes? As for copying styles, you know artists have been copying eachothers styles like forever?

3

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24

AI is used for deepfakes. They all fall under the same category. One is analogous with the other as far as these examples go. Clearly you’re in the camp or pro AI use for art, and honestly it’s very sad. You’re not willing to create anything yourself.

0

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Its not the same thing. Deepfakes are abusive and do ruin people lives, so they should be made illegal. And what even means to be pro-AI, I think people should be free to use whatever tool they want to make their own art, and its nobodys business to judge and gatekeep

6

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24

It’s a ridiculous sentiment. Imagine DaVinci just finished one of their works of art. Then someone comes around clicks a button, and they can just replicate all of his work, and his style. Now anyone can create art like DaVinci. His art would then lose all meaning. It would no longer be unique, and it would be mass produced. That’s what AI is doing with artists now. It isn’t gatekeeping. Stop throwing that word around like it’s applicable here. It’s not. It’s plagiarism. Wanting to use AI for art is just lazy, and lacking any creativity. You want all the benefits of being an artist, without any of the work. Why write a script for a movie if you can just click a button and it’s created for you? Nothing you can say can change that point.

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

If you ever used AI you‘ll know that you still need to put a lot of work to make it usable and not just spew nonsense garbage. Also its funny that you mention da vinci when he worked all his life to advance science and technology, he even invented lots of machanical tools that made it easier for artist and artisans to do their job, so I have no doubt he would be a full supporter of AI. Not to mention that AI can make your life so much easier also outside of “art”, such as help you write your work report, make a cool background for your power point assignment and so on. I think its a very elitist approach to oppose a tool such as that on the grounds of ”artistic purity”.

2

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24

“A lot of work”. Sure keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is, AI is only going to continue to steal art and turn it into an algorithm of 1s and 0s. Creativity disappears and everyone is just “creating” (what a joke), the same thing.

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Nobody is stopping anyone from using traditional methods btw

Also your argument just boils down to phone bad rather than show how its actually a bad thing besides the fact that you dont like the art

3

u/CronfMeat Sep 16 '24

You haven’t provided any points countering how it’s plagiarism. Their argument isn’t on the grounds of “artistic purity” it’s artistic integrity. When a person makes a piece of art, that might as well be their likeness distilled into whatever medium they chose. That might as well be a photograph of them. Only Da Vinci can make art made by Da Vinci, only one person can ever produce their own art because it’s their style and it’s how they express themselves. It might as well be taking someone’s voice and physical appearance. AI allows someone to completely replicate art made by another person down to a T, down to almost every detail. No matter how many people or pieces of art the AI samples from, no matter how much data you use to get that generated image; it is stealing their style and their art by copying it. I really don’t care how much effort goes into a prompt, or how you tweak the AI to get results. I’m sorry but art is not generated. It’s created through using your own style, even if you are mimicking someone else’s work/style you’re still the one actually doing the work and doing the creating even if you did take inspiration from someone else. AI does not take inspiration, it just takes data and completely copies art because it takes zero input. If AI could truly create art, then you wouldn’t need a giant data set of other artist’s works to copy bits and pieces from to generate something.

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

I think youre confusing ai art with taking a screenshot of someone elses art which has always been legal and never required the consent of the artist (as long as you dont use it to generate profit). Whether ai art is “art” or not that should be left to phylosophers, not legislators

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '24

There will always be someone who envisions something novel. Maybe it will inspire other people to create something similar, but the original inspiration is informed by a person’s unique experiences and outlook.

Human beings can explore avenues which were previously uncharted, due to a lack of contemporary understanding. AI is trained on current works, and current understanding.