I do know "ai," and the long and short of it is that these programs aren't actually ai, nor can they actually create anything. If I tell you to draw me an original fantasy creature or an alien, you could come up with something. But these programs, without having any "training sets" fed to them will output nothing. Because they're not ai, they're very complicated collage producing programs. They're amazing for what they are, don't get me wrong, but they're no more than that.
I get your point, but what I'm saying is that there’s more to it than just copy pasting and stolen work from random artists.
AI like SD isn’t just slapping together parts of other images, it’s not copying pasting, it’s learning patterns and ideas from the data it’s trained on, then using that knowledge to create something new.
For example, if I’ve looked at a ton of RPG creatures and aliens, I’d be better at imagining my own unique version, and those image generators AI works in a similar way, gets the "vibe" of what makes something a fantasy creature or an alien and then creates a new image from 'scratch' based on that understanding.
but honestly, I couldn't care less about being 'stolen' work or 100% original, art is made to be appreciated, not owned.
My point is that, first, they're just pixels, not real people, and second, the AI doesn't need to see a blonde woman to create an image that resembles a blonde woman (just don't expect too much). But after trying to remember how this 'argument' started, I understand that both points are 100% based on morality, so there's nothing we can do to change each other's perspectives. But it's good to see someone at least being able to have a good conversation and not just and not just throwing the 'ew you're a criminal because your pixels don't look pixelated enough like mine'
I'll merge this comment later, it's perfect and I could understand better your 'side' of the topic
As far as I'm aware, for the US at least, precedent protects depictions of fictional minors, at least at the federal level, so long as there was no usage of real minors in the production of the material.
we spent some time trying to get some facts about that, and a lot of countries yes, the only cases involving real jail time are the ones linked to real people, like deepfakes, sharing or involving minors in any way etc etc etc
So, if there were an algorithm capable of producing a photorealistic image completely free of training sets, precedent argues for the protection of the output.
I think the problem is when the image is so 'messed up' that the head looks way younger than the body (the most common case, as it's easily dismissed as just creepy and not 'dangerous'), when things start to get too complicated, the law tends to ban everything, maybe not enforcing it too strictly, but making it technically illegal.
I do agree with the opinion that the puritanism would likely win out on that one though. Too many people have a difficult time separating fiction from reality.
people are reporting us for random pixels, not even close to the level of realism we're discussing, they don't gain anything from that, but in their minds, they're doing something good to society because they're too deep in their own morality