57
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

@Kissaki In another thread, people are mocking AI because the free language models they are using are bad at drawing accurate maps. "AI can't even do geography". Anything an AI says can't be trusted, and AI is vastly inferior to human ability.

These same people haven't figured out the difference between using a language AI to draw a map, and simply asking it a geography question.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Like, I get that there's people who are mocking AI for the wrong reasons, and they're silly for that, but there are very real reasons to dislike AI in many applications.

Would chatgpt be able to do this if their dataset had consisted only of ethically obtained data where the authors had provided consent? My money is on no, at least not yet. The technology is in its infancy and has powerful potential, but is having its progress boosted through highly unethical means.

I'm so very much for the concept of AI, its a monumental technology space at its core. But it needs to be done right, and I fear that it never will be, and we will have to live with the sins of the existing models forever. I hope I will be wrong.

If we can reach a future where models are trained on entirely consensual data and the environmental impact of their training and usage isn't as dire, I'd be so happy.

[-] [email protected] -1 points 1 week ago

@apotheotic As for things like creating images in the style of a specific artist, that is not plagiarism unless you are asking for a perfect replica of a specific art piece and claiming it as your own original work.

All artists imitate the styles they find appealing, if you paint a Van Gogh style painting it isn't plagiarism of Van Gogh. Likewise, if I were to imitate Van Gogh's style using an AI, the resulting image would be my original work and not Van Gogh's creation.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

I don't agree with this argument at all, because if a human artist were to employ the same kind of algorithmic mimicry that an AI does, I would consider it plagiarism. There is a distinct difference between how a human observes and learns from other artists work, and how an AI does it.

Moreover, to take things out of the realm of plagiarism, if a human artist was mimicking the style of another artist and making bank off of it, and the original artist were to say "hey, that's kinda not cool, I don't appreciate this" you could have a conversation about how to accommodate both parties. With AI, there is no such conversation to be had, because it will replicate without barriers and do so in volumes that dwarf any sort of output the original artist could dream of, no matter how nicely you ask it not to, unless it was not trained on it in the first place.

Anyway, my pushback in my original message was not about the output being plagiarism or anything of the sort, it was about the usage of authors/artists work as training data (input) being non-consensual.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
57 points (89.0% liked)

Technology

39066 readers
384 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS