Now Apple users can truly flex
As it turns out, the majority of folks are just people trying to get by, and if you're nice enough to them, they'll be nice enough to you.
The problem with most terminally online people is that their social lives ended when they left school, which is when the population of arseholes is at its highest. Everybody is trying to impress everybody else, even at the cost of others.
But a lot of those same people tend to chill off as they mature into adults and become less self-centred. There are still absolutely arsehole adults, but nowhere near as many as the terminally online expect there to be.
It may be true that they'll be dead before the worst of it comes, but as you say, it's already here. Bigger and more frequent storms; more drastic, frequent, and longer heatwaves and droughts; bigger floods; colder and colder winters. They're all symptoms of climate change, and they aren't going away.
It's as though the generations after WWII forgot that they're supposed to leave a world for the next generation to live in, not sell them out for a buck.
Imagine knowingly throwing humanity under the bus to make a quick buck because you know you'll be dead by the time the consequences come.
I don't often find myself agreeing with cruel and unusual punishment, but if anyone deserves to suffer Hell on Earth, it's these people. They deserve to feel the pain they've caused through their money-making malice.
I think you're getting things mixed up here...
I'm not arguing the output of an AI cannot ever be art, there are beautiful AI works out there, just as there are beautiful photos out there.
What I am arguing is you can't claim it to be your art.
Prompting isn't enough of a creative element to take ownership over the art an AI outputs, especially if you don't own the training data used for the AI. As such, you cannot (nor should you be able to) claim copyright over it.
If an artist takes requests and happens to pick your's, you don't automatically own the final piece just because they happened to use your prompt. The artist owns it, unless you pay them for that right.
In the case of AI art, the work would become public domain, since AI cannot copyright their works (much like non-human animals).
You’re the one gatekeeping work. Don’t make a dumb argument against your own dumb argument.
What I said was hyperbole, but it isn't invalid. You're claiming direct control over an independent process simply because it happens to be deterministic for any unique set of prompts.
But honestly, my arguement isn't that complicated...
If the argument against AI is that it’s too little work, then Photography neesds to step it’s fucking game up.
When you take a photo, you're the one taking the photo. You physically go to the location, you frame the shot, you're the one who has to make sure the lighting is right, even that the camera is set properly.
When you draw a art, whether paint or digital, you're the one doing each and every brushstroke, deciding each and every detail as you draw.
There's a clear human creative element not just deciding what to photograph/draw, but in how every part of it is done.
There's a reason most people hire a photographer for special occasions like weddings, and not just Bob down the road with his IPhone - good photography takes skill.
Whereas for AI art, all you're doing is providing instruction to the AI, that then goes on to make all these decisions. It connects the dots between your prompts, it decides where everything goes, what brushstrokes to make. It draws the art, it generates the image.
If the argument against AI is that irrelevant companies get to profit off of others’ work, then say that. Don’t make stupid arguments.
That is a valid argument, and one I actually have made before. If you don't own your training data, then how can you possibly claim ownership of anything that comes out of the AI, since it's not just inspired by that data, it is working/pulling directly from that data. But, that is not the argument I'm making.
Edit: Do I have direct control of the LLMs that Samsung uses to sharpen the photos on my phone? Do I not still own them? You’re yelling at clouds.
Now that is a stupid arguement. Having an AI sharpen an image you already took and own is not the same as having it generate the entire image for you by instruction and then claiming that as your own.
You could transform that AI work into something you own and claim copyright over that transformative work, but the original work the AI made isn't your's to claim.
By your definition, you could copyright a screenshot from Google streetview without doing anything transformative to it because you prompted Google where to take you, and decided where to screenshot.
Yeah, because Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are companies who would never pass those costs back to the devs or down onto consumers. They'd totally bite the bullet on Unity's new royalty...
Unity are out of their minds if they think this is at all a good move. All they're going to do by pushing devs away and pissing off the major distributors is inspire the creation/adoption of a competitor.
That's like saying you can control the sun for a photo because you can predict where it will be at a given time.
The fact that an AI can be deterministic, in that the same "seeds" will generate the same images, doesn't at all invalidate my point that it is still the one interpreting the "seeds" and doing the actual image generation.
Actually… If an animal you own/trained makes art… you did get to have the copyright to the art, until recently with these same legal developments. Now it’s less clear.
If you're referring to Wikimedia's infamous Monkey Selfie Dispute, which is the case I'm most aware of, then the reason its less clear is because its hard to determine the sufficient amount of human creativity required to render a human copyright over an animals work.
I'd argue that last bit doesn't apply to the AI, because while you do provide inspiration in terms of your prompting, tweaking, etc., it is ultimately always the AI that interprets those prompts and creates the artwork. Supervising an AI is not the same thing as setting up and taking a photograph, or drawing a painting.
We copyright art made by random chance emergent effects (Polluck et al.), process based art (Morris Louis et al.), performance art (so many examples… Adrian Piper comes to mind), ephemeral art, math art, and photography, as the poster says. None of those artists are fully in control of every aspect of the final project- the art makes itself, in part, in each example.
If you're going to cite artists, it would be a good idea to at least link their work for context for those who aren't in the know... As I don't know these artists, I can't make an informed response, so I'll move on.
If a human uses a math equation for the geometric output of a printer, and they tweak the variables to get the best looking output, we consider that art by law. Ai is exactly the same.
There's a big difference between a human designing a math formula to output a desired geometry, and a human instructing an AI to do the same.
By having the AI do the artistic work, it'll always be the one making the artistic choices based on your instruction, and therefore the art is not yours to own.
It doesn't matter who made the camera, in the same way it doesn't matter who made an artist's paintbrush and canvas.
It is the human's direct involvement in choosing what to take a photograph of, and in taking that photo that determines it as art, even if it turns out to be shitty art.
The problem with AI is that no matter how good your prompting is, ultimately you're not the one doing the painting, the AI is.
The camera is a tool you directly control, the AI is an independent entity acting on your instruction. They're not the same, and that distinction is fundemental to this arguememt.
The camera simply puts what you see through the viewfinder into a form that can be stored, you're the one who decides everything about the shot.
Whereas no matter how good your prompting is, it is ultimately the AI who interprets your parameters, who creates the images for you. It is the one doing the artistic work.
Do you not notice the difference? As I said in my last reply, your camera is a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do. An AI acts independently of you based on your instruction. It is not the same thing.
Also, I absolutely agree with @Eccitaze
No, because there's a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction.
When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.
It's as silly as asking if your paintbrush owns your art as a response to being told that you can't claim copyright over art you don't own.
You're losing the analogy here because these things aren't analogous. You can only copyright what comes out of the sensor because you took the photograph. Not everything that comes out of a camera sensor is copyrightable, such as photos taken by non-humans.
There's a fundemental difference between a tool that functions directly as a consequence of what you do, and an independent thing that acts based on your instruction. When you take a photo, you have a direct hand in making it - when you direct an AI to make art, it is the one making the art, you just choose what it makes.
Look, if I train a monkey to draw art, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting art is, I don't own that art, the monkey does.
As non-human animals cannot copyright their works, it then thusly defaults to the public domain.
The same applies to AI. You train it to make the art you want, but you're not the one making the art, the AI is. There's no human element in the creation itself, just like with the monkey.
You can edit or make changes as you like to the art, and you own those, but you don't own the art because the monkey/AI drew it.
The difference is it's not you making the art.
The photographer is the one making the photo, it is their skill in doing ehat I described above that directly makes the photo. Whereas your prompts, tweaking, etc. are instructions for an AI to make the scenery for you based on other people's artwork.
I actually have a better analogy for you...
If I trained a monkey to take photos, no matter how good my instructions or the resulting photo are, I don't own those photos, the monkey does. Though in actuality, the work goes to the public domain in lieu as non-human animals cannot claim copyright.
If you edit that monkey's photo, you own the edit, but you still don't own the photo because the monkey took it.
The same should, does currently seem to, apply to AI. It is especially true when that AI is trained on information you don't hold copyright or licensing for.
Because the human element is in everything they had to do to set up the photograph, from physically going to the location, to setting up the camera properly, to ensuring the right lighting, etc.
In an AI generated image, the only human element is in putting in a prompt(s) and selecting which picture you want. The AI made the art, not you, so only the enhancements on it are copywritable because those are the human element you added.
This scenario is closer to me asking why can't I claim copyright over the objects in my photograph, be
This scenario is closer to me asking why I can't claim the copyright of the things I took a photograph of, and only the photograph itself. The answer usually being because I didn't make those things, somebody/something else did, I only made the photo.
Edit: Posted this without realising I hadn't finished my last paragraph. Oops
At the time it came out, definitely, considering its main competitors for a standardised connector were Mini USB and Micro USB, which were serviceable but not that great...
Could be worse though, you could've been stuck with "superspeed" Micro USB like some folks were, those were just plain awful to use.
Of all the places to try to escape from Russia via, I can't help but feel like their vassal state wasn't a good idea
Guys, he's not that bad...
He's only a money hoarding billionaire who came from a glut of generational wealth obtained through other's suffering via his father's Emerald mine, which Musk vehemently denies exists in order to build up his image of being self-made.
I mean it's not like his father used that wealth to boost him up by being among the first angel investors in his first company, ZIP2, something else which he vehemently denies to keep up his self-made image.
It's not like he went on to use the money he got from selling ZIP2 to become an early angel investor "co-founder" of X.com, which he then essentially forced the actual founders out of before selling that onwards as well.
It's not like he then went onto use almost the exact tactic to force/sue his way into being a "co-founder" of Tesla.
And it's definitely not like he had a friend get appointed Administrator of NASA, who conveniently decided to award SpaceX almost $300 million, despite them not having flown any rockets yet.
His daughter is obviously worried about nothing, and he just needed to prove her wrong by cack-handedly buying out the platform she used to speak out in order to control her in the name of free speech.
While the lightning cable was ahead of its time when it came out, mostly because the USB consortium couldn't get its shit together, nowadays it's woefully inferior.
Having said that, Apple has still managed to fuck their customers over by making so that only their overpriced "high speed" USB-C cables can work at anything better than USB 2.0 standard.
I doubt that 3rd parties won't try to circumvent Apple's BS, but goes to show even the EU couldn't make Apple drop the act entirely.
Edit: And that's not even talking about the wildly expensive lightning to USB-C converter they're selling to anybody desperate enough to hold onto their lightning cables