Treats must be defended, even treats that involve potentially ruining a person's career or life that never asked to be made into someone else's :awooga: treat.
It is, and the hostility in every single one of your comments in this post confirms that it is. You may not like artists for whatever reason but they're workers just like we are and their labor deserves to be properly compensated.
the deserve fair comp but that doesn't mean you turn around and defend liberal ideas about intellectual property
it's not about the treats I don't care about the damn treats i'm too busy making my own stuff for free to care about entertainment media products i'm not gonna watch. if you're gonna accuse me of something at least make it credible.
And no one is "defending IP". Learn the difference between owning the concept of a character/story and owning the actual art you make. A painting is not IP, it is a material creation that should be owned by its creator. AI isnt "stealing" ideas from people, its taking the data from actual art itself.
Its like if I traced someone elses drawing and sold it as my own.
I *am * sing pre-made art assets but those were included in a retail software product and the artists who made these textures and animations were exploited in the boring old fashioned way of work for-hire long before this ai stuff popped up as a commercially viable product. oh and i don't owe those guys anything ya lib.
The way Ligma and Catgirl are maligning others as "not communist" or "not materialist" enough for just being wary of and critiquing this technology... it feels very personal lol
I implied that the revenge porn (and related issues) side of the technology was being selectively ignored or dismissed by one of those people. After the "bad people will do bad things anyway" non-argument that was way, way, way too much like :reddit-logo: localized justifications for child porn (cartoon and otherwise), that same person started telling me to eat shit, called me a clown, and so on.
I'll say this: I'm not convinced whatsoever that there was no personal motive for that person being that enraged at me for what I bought up.
Even ignoring the personal attachment... its just a weirdly wrong analysis of the situation.
The whole calling artists petty bourgeois and equating protecting their livelihoods to worshiping "IP law", it really reminds me of the patsoc line about baristas not being real proles.
Bringing it into the real world is probably worse, the culture of doing that to begin with even just in people's imaginations probably wasn't great for society either.
this still sounds like the problem is some of the things people do with the doctored image but not all of the things they do with it.
like, we all agree writing fanfic about real celebrities is fucken weird and gross, but i don't think there's any harm in the adam/jamie weirdos or whatever... until you start sending it to the actual people or posting it in public somewhere they'd see it and people bother them about it... and the problem there is everything after the art, not the art itself.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Treats must be defended, even treats that involve potentially ruining a person's career or life that never asked to be made into someone else's :awooga: treat.
it's not about treats you ridiculous clown
It is, and the hostility in every single one of your comments in this post confirms that it is. You may not like artists for whatever reason but they're workers just like we are and their labor deserves to be properly compensated.
the deserve fair comp but that doesn't mean you turn around and defend liberal ideas about intellectual property
it's not about the treats I don't care about the damn treats i'm too busy making my own stuff for free to care about entertainment media products i'm not gonna watch. if you're gonna accuse me of something at least make it credible.
And no one is "defending IP". Learn the difference between owning the concept of a character/story and owning the actual art you make. A painting is not IP, it is a material creation that should be owned by its creator. AI isnt "stealing" ideas from people, its taking the data from actual art itself.
Its like if I traced someone elses drawing and sold it as my own.
no it's like if you traced one line each out of millions of paintings and put them together with a computer.
deleted by creator
Im also pro taking whatever you want from billion dollar corporations
Im not ok with taking anything from proles
deleted by creator
Im done arguing this with you. Rationalize using other peoples work however you want, I do not care about your actions.
Thats the treats part. The ai generated images are the cheap treats made at the expense of artists.
i'm not making ai art lmfao.
I *am * sing pre-made art assets but those were included in a retail software product and the artists who made these textures and animations were exploited in the boring old fashioned way of work for-hire long before this ai stuff popped up as a commercially viable product. oh and i don't owe those guys anything ya lib.
keep making shit up about me though it's funny.
I dont understand why you are defending ai art taking other peoples art without compensation or permission
muh IP law
"Intellectual property (IP) is a category of property that includes intangible creations of the human intellect."
The actual pictures themselves are not Intellectual Property, they are the material products of labor. Is this a bit? This isnt hard to understand.
it's all digital copies of stuff. there's no theft occurring, the only violation is within a liberal framework of intellectual property laws.
copying isn't theft. is this a bit? This isn't hard to understand.
The fuck is wrong with you. Stop being an asshole
yeah, stop being an asshole
The way Ligma and Catgirl are maligning others as "not communist" or "not materialist" enough for just being wary of and critiquing this technology... it feels very personal lol
E: Add Redbolshevik in there too
I implied that the revenge porn (and related issues) side of the technology was being selectively ignored or dismissed by one of those people. After the "bad people will do bad things anyway" non-argument that was way, way, way too much like :reddit-logo: localized justifications for child porn (cartoon and otherwise), that same person started telling me to eat shit, called me a clown, and so on.
I'll say this: I'm not convinced whatsoever that there was no personal motive for that person being that enraged at me for what I bought up.
Even ignoring the personal attachment... its just a weirdly wrong analysis of the situation.
The whole calling artists petty bourgeois and equating protecting their livelihoods to worshiping "IP law", it really reminds me of the patsoc line about baristas not being real proles.
Agreed, it was dreadfully familiar, the "not real work" attitude, both in the weeks ago thread and now.
Removed by mod
Bringing it into the real world is probably worse, the culture of doing that to begin with even just in people's imaginations probably wasn't great for society either.
this still sounds like the problem is some of the things people do with the doctored image but not all of the things they do with it.
like, we all agree writing fanfic about real celebrities is fucken weird and gross, but i don't think there's any harm in the adam/jamie weirdos or whatever... until you start sending it to the actual people or posting it in public somewhere they'd see it and people bother them about it... and the problem there is everything after the art, not the art itself.