Always nice to have a reminder about how absolutely wretched Fox News is as an organization

Do you think people are like, born with the ability to make art? Are they some kind of upper class? You can just go learn to draw you know, you don’t need to use AI

Frankly I don’t know who the fuck you support, you just seem like an asshole for the sake of making people not like you

You haven’t made a single statement as to what meaning you’ve drawn from these articles, this is useless to the conversation. I am reading these articles and stating my conclusions, but you are simply telling me and others to read them again. You don’t seem to actually be interested in sharing what you think, yourself.

Could you explain how the last one goes against what I am saying? The author seems to be personally against AI art and wants to ensure that artists continue to be paid for their work, how does that go against what I am talking about? You haven’t made a single statement in your actual stance on this topic, just said I was off base and linked articles.

Ah I see, you just sent me the wrong articles. I don’t see how I was supposed to just know you also wanted me to read the other blog post on the first article you linked. Feels very “do your own research” doesn’t it?

However, these also don’t seem to change my initial opinion. The first article talks about the writers guild ruling that you should not be able copyright anything created wholly by AI, as it should be used as a tool. This feeds into my point that you can’t really claim to have truly made anything made by using an AI (unless you created all the training images and run the AI yourself, that is properly employing it as an artistic tool)

The second article seems to be about the copyright laws related to AI and how companies are avoiding infringing in copyright law. Again, I already wasn’t considering copyright, I already understand that copyright laws don’t protect artists and that ruling AI as copyright infringement wouldnt help anything.

I don’t think you are actually interested in making a point here, just trying to make me defend myself online. Fortunately I have had nothing better to do this morning so I have.

Could you please explain the point you’re making rather than expecting me to come to a conclusion reading the articles you linked?

I see nothing in them even after a re-read that would address the idea of AI being used to replace artists. If anything these articles are just confirming that those fears are well founded by reporting on examples such as corporations trying to get voice actors to sign away the rights to their own voices.

Says the person supporting capitalist corporations pushing AI as a replacement for real human artwork?

Those capitalists support AI because it would allow them to further cut out all creators from the market. If you want solidarity, support artists against the AI being used to replace them.

These articles feel like they aren’t really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I’m not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.

Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

Not use it and hire a professional? If you use AI instead of an artist, you will never make anything new or compelling, AI cannot generate images without a stream of information to train off of. If we don’t have artists and replace them with AI, like dumbass investors and CEOs want, they will reach a point where it is AI training off AI and the well will be poisoned. Ai should be used simply as a tool to help with the creation of art if anything, using it to generate “new” artwork is a fundamentally doomed concept.

Which is why I’m saying it isn’t malicious on their part. Calling it malicious implies that they are ignorant out of spite. There are people like that, and many people who are malicious in taking advantage of them, but my 70 year old coworker who just doesn’t understand LGBT people and hasn’t talked to enough black people in their life isn’t malicious, just purely ignorant and scared of change.

They aren’t choosing to be stupid as part of some evil plot, they’re just ignorant and don’t want to change because they don’t think they should have to.

The problem is, a lot of the people who support these people are just… Stupid

I have known many a coworker who talked about voting for trump and every time I engage them in conversation about it I realize all their genuine beliefs are against the GOPs policies entirely. They just are scared of things they don’t understand and like them talking about how scary minorities are.

Actually there’s no point in recycling plastic because the plastic you put in the recycling bin ends up in a landfill anyway, so yes we should be going after the industries instead of blaming individuals

Maybe I was thinking of cellophane

We definitely use all of those in the US as well, though I haven’t heard the Zodiac one. I was asking more for regional things like this rather than saying it was just something in the US.

You know, I mostly only know the US examples of this and always assumed it was just more common here, now I’m wondering about generic trademarks around the world.

I hear a lot less people saying it nowadays, honestly

Yeah 4chan is basically just the chaotic form of social media. Near absolute anonymity and essentially no rules as to what you can post will result in some rancid shit, but also is just as capable of pretty good content.