AI programs don't create art from thin air. They create art from the tens of thousands of images they were "trained" on: images created by actual artists, mostly without the artists' permission.
How can you accuse someone of theft when your entire work was created by stealing from thousands?
Yes, I'm aware, but many of the AI fanboys literally aren't.
They think that AIs being "trained" by being fed artwork to mix up and regurgitate is no different from being taught or inspired by another artist's work.
I'm not an AI fanboy, I am a tech fanboy that has little to do with art at all.
What I can tell you is that AI does not regurgitate images like that. That's technically possible but not what is done. It is in fact closer to being inspired by something but also not the same.
AI is much more
Complicated than most can imagine. No it does not do the same thing as artists and won never be able to. I'm quite torn about its usability, but just when it comes to image generation. It's a tool and to use it you need certain skills, that part is true and it might change in the future.
It cannot create. There's nothing to be torn over - it is not making anything original and cannot function without mass scraping which has been done completely without permission. People are seeing their signatures, their private medical imagery, etc, being spat out by that shit.
"Torn" over theft?
You know.. That position is as wrong as saying that AI has no impact on artists or as saying that AI can generate things without training.
But I guess this is not a discussion and not about facts...
