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.