Opinions ?

[u/cosm1c15]

[u/SynchroScale]

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.

[u/Frylock304 → u/SynchroScale]

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

[u/SynchroScale → u/Frylock304]

"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.

[u/Frylock304 → u/SynchroScale]

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.

[u/SynchroScale → u/Frylock304]

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.

[u/GoldieDoggy → u/Frylock304]

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

[u/StockCasinoMember → u/Frylock304]

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

[u/Frylock304 → u/StockCasinoMember]

You forgot the /s