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 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] ReCursing@kbin.social 0 points 7 months ago

y'all antis lost the argument generations ago. No I am not taking you seriously

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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!

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 2 points 7 months ago

... they continue to insist as they slowly shrink and transform into a corn cob.