• ReCursing@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    Go read how it works, then think about how it is used by people, then realise you are an absolute titweasel, then come back and apologise

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I know how it works. And you obviously can’t admit, that you can’t explain how latent diffusion is supposedly a creative process.

      • ReCursing@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        Not my point at all. Latent diffusion is a tool used by people in a creative manner. It’s a new medium. Every argument you’re making was made again photography a century ago, and against pre-mixed paints before that! You have no idea what you’re talking about and can;t even figure out where the argument is let alone that you lost it before you were born!

        Or do you think no people are involved? That computers are just sitting there producing images with no involvement and no-one is ever looking at them, and that that is somehow a threat to you? What? How dumb are you?

        • Sylvartas@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Dude I am actively trying to take your arguments in good faith but the fact that you can hardly post an answer without name calling someone is making it real hard to believe you are being genuine about this

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I repeatedly agreed that AI models can be used as a tool by creative people. All I’m saying is that it can’t be creative by itself.

          When I say they’re “plagiarism machines”, I’m claiming that they’re currently mostly used to plagiarise by people without a creative bone in their body who directly use the output of an AI, mistaking it for artwork.

          • ReCursing@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            That is not what you have said. Of course it can’t be creative by itself, not can a paint brush or a camera. That’s a non-argument. You keep using the word plagiarism as if it’s in any way relevant. It’s not. A camera or a paint brush can be used to plagiarise as well so drop that

            • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              That is not what you have said.

              I beg to differ. Care to show me an example?

              A camera or a paint brush can be used to plagiarise as well so drop that

              Unlike cameras or paint brushes, the overwhelming majority of generative AI is trying to cut out the artist in an artistic process (the rest is used for deepfake porn). Since the training data for the AI was taken without consent and the original authors aren’t credited, IMHO, it counts as plagiarism.

              • ReCursing@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                Your argument is bad and you should feel bad. What you have just said is bullshit and you know it. I’m done because I have had this stupid fucking argument too fucking many times and you lost it generations ago so please, just shut up and fuck off!