- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
- cross-posted to:
- technews@radiation.party
Elon Musk blamed AI companies for new “temporary” limitations on Twitter access. Verified accounts can read up to 6,000 posts per day, while unverified users are limited to seeing 600 posts per day.
If I look at 12 van goghs (or any artist) painting and tried to make something in a similar style do i need permission? I don’t see why how the AI learns is relevent. As long as the creation in the end is original.
You are not allowed to use any media commercially for free, why would that be different for an AI?
Because they’re not using it. They’re generating something original. It’s not a copy paste job. You imagine ai art is like a ransom note or a collage. It’s more like reading a text book on drawing and then creating that drawing.
Good point, most artists don’t live in a vacuum these days. The art we create results from a similar traning process than the AI’s. Maybe just treat AI art the same with all rules about plagiarism so that it has to be original as well?
edit: a word
Personally, I believe that all AI generated content must be non for profit. You can create anything you like, for any purpose, as long as it doesn’t make you money.
If I am a news article and I generate a photo to accompany the article is that for profit? Making ad money of the page.
Well the difference between you and an AI is that you have biases. You have what is called a perception filter that everything you’ve experienced is fed through. You can consume as many Van Gogh’s as you wish but you’ll never match Van Gogh because you aren’t Van Gogh. An AI doesn’t have a perception filter, it sees things as they are and will replicate it as best as it can. It’ll go to the extent of copying Van Gogh’s paintings entirely and someone can take those and post them as new things. An AI cannot be inspired by Van Gogh, it isn’t capable of that, it just copies.