this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
825 points (92.6% liked)
Comic Strips
15748 readers
2160 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because obviously pirating games & shows for personal use does the same amount of harm as a corporate entity stealing the work of hundreds of thousands of writers and artists in order to turn a profit
How is it stealing though? Do the artists not have the art anymore?
This is the same braindead logic as people saying downloading someone else's NFT is stealing.
It's the same logic as saying someone tracing another persons art and passing it off as their own to make money is theft because that's essentially what they're doing. Except they're scraping the internet in order to feed millions of artists' works without their consent to a machine that approximates what "art" is supposed to look like.
If someone stole an artist's work and passed it off as an NFT as has happened many times that's also an example of theft. I know that's not the strawman you're presenting but that is the actual NFT equivalent of what we're discussing. But yes, conflate it with downloading an image so you can call me braindead instead of formulating an argument.
It's fine if you personally enjoy slop, there's plenty of it out there now. But if you're gonna try to morally grandstand about it you may as well just say you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their own work and be done with it.
Always funny to me how the people who are vehemently anti-AI never actually understand how AI works.
Almost like the hatred always comes from a place of ignorance.
Not at all. Unless you purposely overfit the model to 1 image or a handful of images, you're not doing the equivalent of tracing. Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art...... which people do all the time and you guys don't get mad at them for that.
Except that using art for training data isn't remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You're the one relying on strawman arguments here.
The irony, lol. Talking about moral grandstanding, when you're just being smug about how ignorant you are of how a computer program works.
Also I don't like most AI content that gets churned out, the difference is I don't use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
So they're profiting off of the works of others with no credit given, no financial compensation offered and no consent from the actual artists. What would you call that if not theft?
Which is because they're using a reference to create their own art. I'm not sure how you think machine learning works but I can tell you there is no actual "learning" involved. What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it's trained on. If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you're attributing human traits to AI in a way that shows you fundamentally misunderstand the capabilities of image generation models as well as all current AI.
Meanwhile two comments ago...
If I was wrong on any topic I'd love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and "no, you're actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!" At the point that's what you have to result to in order to "win" a debate I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics. 👍 Have a lovely day
Not directly no.
Idk, life. Like I'm a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who's book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I'm a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
That's a very philosophical debate, lol
Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It's only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn't store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that's the general concept of stable diffusion.)
Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you're making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I'm saying.
Me pointing out the flaws in other people's arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
Well it's hard to give you a good argument, when you don't make any actual arguments to begin with when you're just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
Ignoring the fact you havent made any factual arguments, would it be rude to point out your comment history in turn?
Yup, sure sounds like you have a master in AI and robotics when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics behind what you apparently study. Obviously you're definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
Hope lying on the internet works out for you tho ✌️
It's so fucking predictable at this point.
You whine about how I argue, so I give you a solid argument, explaining to you the basics of AI imagine generation, how that relates to your argument and why it it means what you said is factually not true.
Then you just completely fucking ignore it, and look through my replies to find me saying bad words to someone and act like that proves me wrong somehow.
Because your only other option is to concede you don't know how AI works and that my point is actually correct. But since that would get in the way of the "AI bad" circlejerk you physically can't even comprehend the idea.
And then you even have to lie to make it sound worse. I'm not harassing someone for disagreeing with me about the ethics of AI. Hell I would LOVE to have an actual conversation about AI ethics instead of having people call me a literal Nazi for using generative AI, I insulted a guy because he insulted me.
Litterally I'm not. You guys are the one taking the moral high horse argument here, me refuting it and pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is not grandstanding. All you are doing here is the "I know you are, but what am I?" Arguing that you have been accusing me of.
Now, if you would kindly either come up with some sort of coherent counter argument to the points I made before, admit you don't know wtf you're talking about, or at very least shut the fuck up, that would be great.