The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.

  • gwindli@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    i suppose i cant disagree with the premise… but to clarify, the AI is equivalent to a paint brush or phototshop… a tool used by the prompter to create (extremely derivative and hacky) artworks. i have seen a lot of very expressive works generated by AI, where a concept thought up by the prompter is expressed to humorous or sometimes grim results. but every AI image i have seen has tells of being AI generated.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      every AI image i have seen has tells of being AI generated

      Except the ones you didn’t realize were made by AI. You by definition can’t know how many have passed for you as “genuine”.

      • gwindli@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        and by the same logic, you cant know if i have or have not been duped by an AI image. thanks for asserting expert knowledge of my perceptionsl capabilities, but you’ll understand that i am extremely skeptical of that assertion. based on how i consume media, the likelihood that i have been exposed to AI generated images without my knowledge is pretty low. but do continue to tell me what my experience of the world is … its kinda hilarious

        • Thorny_Insight@lemm.eeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s a rather safe assumption. I too like to tell myself a story about how I can always spot fakes but I know it to not be true.