tyler @ tyler @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

1,177

Joined

2 yr. ago

Your logic is just absolutely horrendous and outright wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation.

If you want to make sure AI art can’t be copyrighted there are other actual logical reasons that I’ve already covered. Arguing with you when you clearly don’t understand what you’re talking about is incredibly annoying though so I’m gonna wish you a good day.

How do you get results like this when combining non-humans with things humans usually do, like stand up and hold stuff. I’ve tried generating bears holding stuff and it always turns out funky

Anywhere you’ve got decades long republicans in office you will find it extremely hard to vote in America. Elsewhere it’s relatively easy. In Colorado I literally don’t do anything, a booklet explaining all the laws shows up in the mail a few weeks before the ballots do, then the ballot shows up and I can either drop it off in one of the numerous drop boxes, put it in the mail, or ignore it and go vote in person where the lines are short because nobody votes in person.

The mama bear didn’t kill the bear that killed her cub. The mama bear won the contest. The headline is terribly worded.

Your logic means that every single photo touched by the “content aware delete” in Photoshop is ineligible for copyright which is hilariously incorrect. Your logic would not hold up in court (and hasn’t!).

That's like asking "How many alterations do I have to make to an image of the Mona Lisa to transform it into something I can copyright it as my own work?"

No. No it’s not. The fact you still can’t understand the difference between controlling an image with tools and asking an AI to do everything for you is pretty dang clear. Your logic resides entirely on the user doing everything which is not how art works. Many, many, many, MANY pieces of art do not involve the artist doing anything except setting up the initial conditions and seeing what happens. Since your beliefs hinge so heavily on the fact that you think the artist has to control all aspects of the creation you are refusing to even notice that copyright has held up for these cases, cases not involving AI at all, cases hundreds of years old.

Of course if they want to lose their copyright, then they are free to tell everyone that they didn't really have any control over the output. See: Monkey selfie.

And here we see you misunderstanding why the monkey selfie wasn’t copyrightable. It was not because the artist didn’t control the output. It was because non-humans cannot hold copyright. This is the true reason that AI art shouldn’t be copyrightable. But even legal experts agree that if he had taken it to court that he would have gotten copyright on the monkey selfie. https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/monkey-selfie-copyright-lessons-originality-photographs-and-internet-jurisdiction

Your logic around this is not only flawed, it’s just absolutely incorrect and has been shown to be incorrect in court. Control of the artist is not the only arbiter of copyright and you seem to not even have a basic grasp of how basic features like content aware delete in Photoshop even work. I can guess pretty solidly that you have never touched Photoshop nor bothered with something like control net in order to understand the implications of their use as a tool in art are.

Right one does not depend on the left one. 3rd dimension for the win!

As the explain xkcd notes, it’s badly told by cueball so it’s impossible to answer. https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/169:_Words_that_End_in_GRY

Username checks out

transpiling is just a type of compiling. compiling in no terms means 'directly to machine code'.

I’ve been seeing the same thing. Hope it gets resolved soon.

When he got kicked out by the board I was quite happy, literally “omg they’re actually going to follow their principles” but then nope. Apparently nobody in the company could see it for what it was and people outside didn’t want their “chatbot to go away!”

You clearly don’t understand how (lots of sophisticated) AI art is made. At what point does the generative capabilities in Photoshop (which you can give prompts to) become not controlling the output? At which point does control net (which literally allows you to pose models and replace every single thing about a scene along with numerous other features) become “controlling the output”.

“All decisions have to be controlled by the artist” isn’t how art works either. See any sort of public art, or even the paintings you make by literally just pouring paint on a canvas or hanging a bucket of paint by a string and having it move across a canvas and drip.

Recent science has shown what they say to not be true. PTFE can even off gas without being under heat at all. And even if it was true, you’re still increasing demand for something that causes an insane amount of environmental damage and the factories do cause a significant amount of PFAS to get into everyone’s bodies.

That’s not the case at all, though it’s very often believed to be and stated as such on here and Reddit.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-corporations-obligations-to-shareholders/corporations-dont-have-to-maximize-profits

https://web.archive.org/web/20240529061049/https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8146/are-u-s-companies-legally-obligated-to-maximize-profits-for-shareholders

Your logic literally applies the exact same to ai generated art. It’s quite clear you haven’t even tried it if you think that the artists are just asking for an entire image and then saying “all right. I’m all done here”.

Listen. I don’t think ai art should have a copyright either, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the logic you’re coming up with. Control net (or even just basic Adobe Photoshop now) allows anyone to do exactly what you are saying a “real” artist does.

A power supply is not a car battery. Either it wasn’t a car battery or it was fake. Literally go try it yourself. I’m not joking. Car batteries you literally can’t even feel if you bridge the terminals. There’s plenty on YouTube if you don’t believe me and choose to believe some random Reddit vid.

It doesn’t really matter if they do take your phone in the end anyway. If it’s that clear cut illegal then anything they manufacture as evidence wouldn’t be admissible in court…no matter what.

You’re talking about during CI. Not during the actual coding process. You’re not signing code while you’re debugging.

You’re literally using a service there that isn’t the case for.