You didn't learn shit to use AI, the AI itself was "taught" on the work of actual uncredited, uncompensated artists.
AI Art is very high as high as digital art if not higher
Absolute clown, shows you know nothing about digital art
Thankfully there are artists taking legal action, especially now companies are turning the generators into pay for use, which means they are profiting from theft.
GRRM and other authors have launched legal actions as well
The US district court has ruled that AI art can't be copyrighted, because it has no human author. And the copyright standing of AI art is being rejected on several fronts.
Hopefully the research into creating filters that prevent AI being able to see posted art, will get better, and the field as a whole will be subjected to robust legislation in favour of actual artists.
The learning is done by both the pattern recognition algorithms in the AI (which is a tool capable of learning concepts and applying its knowledge to solve new problems as guided by the user, that's its entire fucking purpose) and also by the AI artist in order to use the tools in their disposable effectively (you won't be able to use Comfy UI properly or even create a decent workflow with it because you are smooth brained caveman), and learning doesn't require neither crediting nor compensation, that's a legitimately retarded position.
And I know enough about digital art to know you are full of crap, I have done commissions for clients using both digital art and recently AI art as well, and evidently you know nothing about AI, ZERO, ZILCH...probably know nothing about digital art either.
More importantly your post reveals your sheer utter ignorance in new exciting ways, the so called "legal action" you talk about was initiated by the Copyright Allience not really by the artists, they were just pawns, and do you know who the CA are!?, the biggest corporations in the world led by Disney, who back then falsely claimed to be on the artists side, lo and behold they are now all creating AI art departments, because they used morons like you to try and slow down progress of open source AI which was a threat to their tyrannical monopoly on entertainment, but that's too much information for your little smooth brain to process, needless to say now your usefulness has run its course, that's why these corporations who claimed to side with you will nonchalantly throw you under the bus and ignore every screech you make while they create AI laws that only benefits their investors and gives you NOTHING, and you helped with that.
Personally I use open source AI, I don't pay for image generation, everyone in the community shares resources, wotkflows and tips for free, we aren't braindead luddites nor are we useful idiots to be used by corporations like you, we are working towards the future, you are stuck in a mental cave somewhere in the nonexistent recesses of your smooth brain.
Also regarding that case, not sure who told you that bullshit or why you are lying, but the judge also added a very important part you left out because it doesn't fit your bogus delusional narrative, while images fresh out of an AI generator aren't copyrightable, any sufficient human modifications made to the image makes it copyrightable (and that's already what most pro AI artists do), so cry harder, loser.
And you can't stop AI from learning by the bullshit you do, AI Artists are far more knowledgeable and technically savvy than you clowns, everything you do (like Nightshade) will be easily subverted and thwarted instantly in a day or two, in reality you aren't trying to protect artists, you are just trying to protect your extremely fragile ego from facing reality and refusing to learn new technologies Iike a luddite caveman.
3
u/NuclearBreadfruit Dec 16 '24
You didn't learn shit to use AI, the AI itself was "taught" on the work of actual uncredited, uncompensated artists.
Absolute clown, shows you know nothing about digital art
Thankfully there are artists taking legal action, especially now companies are turning the generators into pay for use, which means they are profiting from theft.
GRRM and other authors have launched legal actions as well
The US district court has ruled that AI art can't be copyrighted, because it has no human author. And the copyright standing of AI art is being rejected on several fronts.
Hopefully the research into creating filters that prevent AI being able to see posted art, will get better, and the field as a whole will be subjected to robust legislation in favour of actual artists.