Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

alexiuss t1_j0uv2y1 wrote

Reply to comment by OldWorldRevival in Why are people so opposed to caution and ethics when it comes to AI? by OldWorldRevival

>open sourced biotechnology that allows you to create a supervirus

nothing like that exists yet. every single open source AI model dreams using fractal math, nothing else. A dreaming AI is completely harmless - it creates visual and text lucid dreams

>because they found a new copyright loophole tool

this is just the start

the corporate models collected data through LIAON, yes, but VERY soon there will be open source models based on public domain stuff or artists own work that teaches the models, we're about 80% there.

> they're fine using artists work against them

No. Corporations are bending over right now. The corporate models are slowly transitioning to completely de-listing artists as they're being constantly harassed by the artists who hate AIs.

SD 2.0 has already started purging artist names from its new training dataset & key-words, so you can't type in "by greg rutkovsky" and get a result of greg's style anymore in it.

1

OldWorldRevival OP t1_j0v67f1 wrote

Artists don't necessarily hate AI... they rightly hate their work being exploited.

Getting the ethics of AI art ironed out includes protecting artists' work from being used in these tools, and secondly, making it known when a piece of art is AI generated.

A key difference between AI and photography is that you know a photo is a photo and a painting is a painting. AI image generators are a totally new paradigm.

The fact that it obscures the nature of the image is problematic, and tools that identify AI art will become increasingly necessary to preserve the knowledge that something is authentic human work.

1