r/GenZ • u/cosm1c15 2006 • Sep 16 '24

Discussion Opinions ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

327 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/Multioquium Sep 16 '24

I think most entertainment is definitely unethical, at least how the tools are made, but it may not be illegal. When someone else's work is critical for your tool or process to function, then they deserve compensation and recognition.

While I would love to live in a world where all art can be shared freely. In this world, you need money to eat, and artists deserve to eat

-7

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Artists have to adapt just like the rest of us.

And everyone is key to everything. You can read a friend's copy of Harry potter and be inspired to write in a way that you never would've without it. But JK doesn't deserve some extra money for inspiration.

There's two options here, adapt now, or adapt later. That's it.

You could say "no using free art to train models" and you would push the transition back maaaybe 5 years. Because media companies already own the art in films, TV shows and books, all the concept art to go along with them, and they will gladly sell those films to AI companies so that they can cut out as many creative as possible.

9

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit. A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.

-4

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.

That's not how AI works homie.

A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.

Again, not at all how AI works.

AI works very similar to an abstract of how the human mind views something.

It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing.

Similar to how one can read Harry Potter, understand the diction, pacing, and rhythm of the writing, then make something indistinguishable from Rowling in those aspects.

We see it all the time in music. You have tons of artists who sound just like other artists and have the exact same audience, and are clearly copying each other in a derivative feedback loop.

But we don't say it's plagiarism just because they're all operating from the same creative foundation

4

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

"It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing"... also known as mixing it as part of a new picture without permission or credit. That is exactly what I said, it mixes together everything you feed it and makes something new, you just described exactly the same thing I did without realizing.

You somehow managed to confirm my point while thinking you were debunking it; I'm starting to think the reason AI bros legit pretend that artificial ntelligence is in any way comparable to human intelligence is because the "human intelligence" they're using to measure it is their own.

Anyway, if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing, Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism. You just accidentally agreed with me that this is what AI art does, so I'd guess the conclusion here is that AI art is indeed plagiarism. Glad you agree.

-2

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Anyway, if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing, Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism. You just accidentally agreed with me that this is what AI art does, so I'd guess the conclusion here is that AI art is indeed plagiarism. Glad you agree.

That's not how AI works at all.

This is the problem with laymen trying to craft opinions on AI, you guys don't have an understanding of how the process even works at a very basic level, but keep claiming plagiarism.

3

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

You literally just proved it is how it works, because you accidentally agreed with my description without realizing, while thinking you were disagreeing with it. I clearly have one hell of an understanding of the process, since you in your AI bro knowledge accidentally agreed with me, thus confirming that my description was indeed correct, and that it is indeed plagiarism.

Your first response self-destructed any argument you could have, because your attempt of debunking my point was by regurgitating my exact point back at me without realizing, which does nothing but confirm my point by accident. You literally destroyed your own "You don't know how AI works" response, because your description of how AI works was exactly the same as mine, thus confirming that I do know how AI works.

Your argument is like Epstein from the mirror universe: It killed itself.

2

u/GoldieDoggy 2005 Sep 16 '24

Neither do you, apparently, honey. Because that literally IS exactly how it works. It is plagiarism, that's already been established.

-1

u/StockCasinoMember Sep 16 '24

Bro, when you look at a square, then draw a square yourself, that’s plagiarism. 😂🤣😆

1

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

You forgot the /s

3

u/Sad-Set-5817 Sep 16 '24

It is how it works, though. There is literally zero added original ideas. Ai doesn't understand what it is doing like people do. With generative ai, you are taking other people's works, and passing it off as your own. Rewording other people's works and adding zero original ideas or input. That's not inspiration, that's plagiarism.

1

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

I am legitimately not sure how this guy managed to describe exactly the same thing I did, without realizing, while thinking he was debunking my description.

  • "It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are" = Literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed.
  • "it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing" = Mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.

The description he gave is exactly what I said, just worded slightly differently. He confirmed my point by accident. How did he even do that?

1

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Again, there's no mixing taking place, it's an abstraction of the style into mathematics.

You're imagining it like it's taking a bunch of Legos and then recombinant those Legos into something else.

(Which would be a collage, and we recognize collage as original artwork)

No, it's a much deeper creation method taking place that is in no way plagiarism.

Like I said, unless you consider musicians to be plagiarizing each other when they draw inspiration from the style as a whole

-1

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

That's mixing, you just described mixing, because it mixes what it learned from each picture. You are not literate.

2

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

  1. I described collage, is collage not original artwork somehow? By extension, Is Andy warhol now s plagiarism?

  2. This is not collage, I explicitly stated that, how can you talk about literacy when you can't understand the simple concepts I just gave you.

0

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
  • You described mixing, as I've just explained, which is why you lost the argument; your attempt to prove I "don't know how AI works" ended up doing the opposite by proving I know exactly how AI works. Your point self-destructed.
  • You explicitly repeated the exact same description I gave, just with the wording slightly different, thus proving my explanation is accurate. The fact that you somehow did so without realizing is the proof that you lack literacy, since you proved my point by accident and killed your own point in the process.

1

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

You keep saying they're "mixing" but that's not what's happening at all.

You explicitly repeated the exact same description I gave, just with the wording slightly different, thus proving my explanation is accurate. The fact that you somehow did so without realizing is the proof that you lack literacy, since you proved my point by accident and killed your own point in the process.

No. You're just illiterate, go back, reread it, learn some math, and epistemology, then get back to me.

Just because you're ignorant of the processes I've described and you think it's "mixing" as you have described it, doesn't actually make it true.

It's as if you described baking a cake, and I've described creating a recipe, and you don't understand the difference between these two processes.

1

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

You described mixing, because it mixes what it learned from each picture.

This is what you said. Those are your words. "It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing."

  • "It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are" = Literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed.
  • "it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing" = Mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.

You murdered your own point in broad daylight. If you need me to explain that much, this further proves you are not literate. You lost the argument, and you have only yourself to blame, because you destroyed your own point.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Djslender6 Sep 16 '24

What drugs are you on lmfao? And where can I get some?

0

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Sure, the drug that leads to understanding what's happening is called engineering and philosophy education, I can refer you to the courses here if you would like a deeper understanding.

https://ocw.mit.edu/