AI Generated Images
Community for AI image generation. Any models are allowed. Creativity is valuable! It is recommended to post the model used for reference, but not a rule.
No explicit violence, gore, or nudity.
This is not a NSFW community although exceptions are sometimes made. Any NSFW posts must be marked as NSFW and may be removed at any moderator's discretion. Any suggestive imagery may be removed at any time.
Refer to https://lemmynsfw.com/ for any NSFW imagery.
No misconduct: Harassment, Abuse or assault, Bullying, Illegal activity, Discrimination, Racism, Trolling, Bigotry.
AI Generated Videos are allowed under the same rules. Photosensitivity warning required for any flashing videos.
To embed images type:
“”
Follow all sh.itjust.works rules.
Community Challenge Past Entries
Related communities:
- !auai@programming.dev
Useful general AI discussion - !aiphotography@lemmings.world
Photo-realistic AI images - !stable_diffusion_art@lemmy.dbzer0.com Stable Diffusion Art
- !share_anime_art@lemmy.dbzer0.com Stable Diffusion Anime Art
- !botart@lemmy.dbzer0.com AI art generated through bots
- !degenerate@lemmynsfw.com
NSFW weird and surreal images - !aigen@lemmynsfw.com
NSFW AI generated porn
view the rest of the comments
That's what I mean. We elevate the human thought process as if what we come up with is more valid than what a (future) computer could think up. But is it?
So if a computer synthesizing Shakespeare is stealing, maybe so is a human doing it. But maybe then we could never create anything at all. And if we must not be blocked from it, must a machine?
Copyright infringement is never stealing. But, as to whether it's infringing copyright, the difference is that current laws were designed based on human capabilities. If memorizing hundreds of books word for word was a typical human ability, copyright would probably look very different. Instead, normal humans are only capable of memorizing short passages, but they're capable of spotting patterns, understanding rhythms, and so-on.
The human brain contains something like 100 billion neurons, and many of them are dedicated to things like hearing, seeing, eating, walking, sex, etc. Only a tiny fraction are available for a task like learning to write like Shakespeare or Stephen King. GPT-4 contains about 2 trillion parameters, and every one of them is dedicated to "writing". So, we have to think differently about whether what it's storing is "fair" when it comes to infringing someone's copyright.
Personally, I think copyright is currently more harmful than helpful, so I like that LLMs are challenging the system. OTOH, I can understand how it's upsetting for an artist or a writer to see that SALAMI can reproduce their stuff almost exactly, or produce something in their style so well that it effectively makes them obsolete.