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.
It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.
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.
If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.
I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.
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.
To quote a funny meme: “I’m not doing homework for you. I have known you for 30 seconds and enjoyed none of them.”
You should make an argument and then back it up with sources, not cite sources, and expect them to make your point for you. Not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you, nor will they understand your intent.
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.
They go over that, you should give them another read.
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.
It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.
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.
If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.
I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.
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.
Can you specify with quotes what we’re talking about exactly? Just so we’re on the same page. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.
To quote a funny meme: “I’m not doing homework for you. I have known you for 30 seconds and enjoyed none of them.”
You should make an argument and then back it up with sources, not cite sources, and expect them to make your point for you. Not everybody is going to come to the same conclusions as you, nor will they understand your intent.
This is a really complex subject and what I linked covers the issues thoroughly, better than I can.
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.
They explain what’s wrong with these two statements.