this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
194 points (92.9% liked)

Technology

69098 readers
3036 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Cool, another preachy argument that jumps to irrational conclusions. Because Ghibli?

It is a display of power: You as an artist, an animator, an illustrator, a writer, any creative person are powerless. We will take what we want and do what we want. Because we can.

Uh…we always could & did. Imitators have been doing that since always, long before LLMs. No one owns an art style.

This is the idea of might makes right. The banner that every totalitarian and fascist government rallied under.

That's the argument? Plagiarism & imitating art styles is fascism? Wow! The rest of the article is worse.

Please make the word fascism more meaningless.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Imitators have been doing that since always, long before LLMs

Fill me in a bit. Are you under the impression that artists are particularly okay with/enjoy people imitating their art style?

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Are we pretending this is new & their opinion matters in some new way it hasn't before?

There might be an argument to demand licensing royalties on intellectual property. Is that too capitalist? Maybe it's fine if we work that into the word fascism somehow, wear it out a bit more to hit that sweet spot. Ooh.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No. We're acting as if their opinion always mattered just as much as it does now.

While your style is not, can not, and should not be your intellectual property, you should have the right to say "I don't want you to imitate my exact style" and people should respect that.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

We’re acting as if their opinion always mattered just as much as it does now.

So not at all: got it.

you should have the right to say “I don’t want you to imitate my exact style”

You do.

people should respect that

"That's just like your opinion, man." meme goes here.

The argument seems to amount to "stop using/imitating my work to express yourself in ways I don't like", which is futile & senseless.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So, to recap, your position is this:

Artists do not deserve the respect that would allow them to be creative unfettered. Gotcha.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

How does "respect" "allow" an artist "unfettered creativity"? How exactly is instructing others how to treat/imitate their work & expecting their wishes to be fulfilled promoting "unfettered creativity"? Seems like the opposite. Can you break that down into logic?

Are you suggesting artists are fragile beings whose creativity only exists at the mercy of our "respect" and the slightest disrespect breaks them? That seems rather self-important.

I submit that artists don't need our respect to be creative: the suggestion is belittling to artists.

The real point is the article fails to argue well.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn't say they needed respect to be creative. I said they needed respect to be creative unfettered.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

they needed respect to be creative unfettered

Respectfully, I don't see what unfettered here is adding. I clarified by editing the earlier comment to request to explain the logic.

[–] JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (7 children)

Do you know what the word unfettered means?

Edit to add: Why are you arguing for disrespecting people's wishes?

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RoidingOldMan@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If Disney can't sue for this, then what exactly would be too far? We're a few steps from being able to animate our own movies in Disney style.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Did they specifically allow "Ghibly style?" Or did they just loosen the restrictions on asking for styles in general, and Ghibly style just turned out to be the popular one that memes started snowballing around?

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

For the longest time OpenAI’s systems would try to block people from generating images in the style of certain artists. This was obviously for copyright reasons, the didn’t want to get sued (even more than they already are). Which is something they just changed very explicitly. You can now easily generate stuff in the style of Studio Ghibli and Sam Altman made his avatar on X-The Nazi Network a ghiblified version of himself.

I don't have specifics if they have allowed other styles to be used now, too. I don't use this nonsense, but it's clear that Ghibli was put front and center.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Orisis@lemm.ee 0 points 3 weeks ago

We already have AI yet people are still illiterate and misspell words in the title. Really makes you think

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today -1 points 3 weeks ago

Figures. The wealthy could never fully buy power with just wealth, there was always someone smarter that was a threat. Now, they can just buy intelligence, thanks to AI, and crush everything else with their sheer weight.

Is this the great filter? The ultimate fate of all species?

[–] the_q@lemm.ee -1 points 3 weeks ago

You can eat at McDonald's and call it food, but that doesn't make it true.

[–] MolecularCactus1324@lemmy.world -4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Ugh, why are they quoting that blowhard David Gerard

Edit: Lotta David Gerard fans here

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›