- May 5, 2023
- Reaction score
I fear you are misreading me again. I put a lot of details into my previous posts and I have covered a lot of these points already.Qualify to the bar of that industry and I suspect in almost all but publications aiming to professional artist the bar is far lower than professional artists would like to admit.
I'm of the opinion a) training on art is not theft as it is essentially what all people do to learn skills that exist. I looked at other folks code to learn how to program. I looked at other folks management styles to learn what works for me.
A computer doing the same isn't theft in my mind so we're not likely to agree here.
Mostly though having gone down this road with other professions disrupted by Internet or computer advancement the computers win. They do more work in less time with good enough results for most. I've heard most of the argument why this time it will be different but usually I hear from the say person a decade or two later saying they wish they didn't fight it and just adapted in X, Y or Z way that still let them do most of what they wanted. I'm jaded in this area. The car isn't perfect but I'm not going back to the horse and buggy. I could never draw worth crap but I can describe what I want and get what for me is art. That's awesome.
This technology IS different because it exists on less than solid ground. Cars didn't contain stolen copyrighted data in their blueprints when they were first invented, while ai training models, likely do.
I don't want to argue though, so I guess I have to agree to disagree.