IA don't look at an image, a dev input it too it, it's not the same thing. AI need an input and the input is something a dev bring so the dev used copyrighted stuff
That's something I wish AI advocates would get. I see them talk often as if it learns and behaves just like a human when it's blatantly not like that at all. It strikes me as being like trying to learn how to sculpt characters just by looking at people and never trying to understand what you're looking at. Maybe you can…
Evidently, the US copyright office has issued rules pertaining to copyright on ai generated images. I wasn't aware until I stumbled on a YT video published by Neil Blevins. To anyone that may be curious:
The first and foremost would be making sure how its sourcing its inputs. Why? There is no law that forbids to look at images and to analyze them. This is what artists does since art exists.
Why is it making it difficult to select viable candidates? Are candidates sneaking AI images into portfolios? Interesting to learn about this variant of the problem, see when someone can post more information on the subject
What false claim ? THIS false claim. You input (and i talk about input, Image to Image is a feature where you can load an image for further manipulation) a copyrighted image and claim the AI to break the copyright. Seriously? What lie comes next? And the false claim of broken copyright. And the false claim of broken law.…
@Tiles I presume the translation of text prompts into images is the primary function being focused on in these discussions. I think one would be mistaken to compare Photoshop as equal to AI generators, is my point.
AI isn't threatening anyone's jobs. I've already put it to the test as a solo developer. It doesn't even threaten 2d artist's jobs; we need the PSD files to be able to do cool stuff with it, like UI design elements. Images with prebaked colour, linework and lighting are useless. 1-off 'hero' artworks used for things like…
This site has been trying to catch/study and review all of the image that have been archived and collected into the databases to train the various open AI. You can use it to see if your work was used somehow.
The "cat is out of the bag" position is IMHO a rather short-sighted and somewhat unimaginative admission of defeat in regards to the way current models are using data from non-public domain images, without obtaining any license from the artists who got scraped. One could very well imagine a situation where providers of…