deeglugs

Big payday for the defense if whatever was said are truly facts. Counter suit for damages++.

The AI training controversy can be simplified as this:

Can humans look at any publicly accessible image on the Internet?

If humans can, why can't AI?

If you can't come up with a reason based on logic, you lose.

You are not an expert in AI. You are also no expert in copyright given your dubious comparisons to performance rightsAND the fact you haven't mentioned fair-use doctrine (the core of the issue)once.

Are you claiming you are?

Which part violates copyright? Drawing images -even of copyright images does not so long as it's not distributed. It's fair-use.

Looking also is fair use.

If you can't name the process that violates copyright, it probably doesn't.

I know you think you aren't saying that, so let me break it down one more time:

- Looking implies learning in humans and AI.
- Training is the process of looking at images, trying to draw it, and repeating.
- If training violates copyright, any or all parts must violate.

...

I like AI because it makes me more productive. I can get more things done. You use AI in similar ways as you have admitted. Don't be a hypocrite.

Again the differences between us come down to you think that looking at images requires payment. I disagree.

You are welcome to buy my games (or try the free versions) and talk to me about how I can improve. I'm always looking to improve.

As for my other work, it speaks for itself. I get paid a lot of money for what I know and what I can do with computers.

Given you don't know anything how AI works, humans or computers, I'll trust my own expertise over yours.

I'm not wrong it'll come down to fair use doctrine interpretations www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2...

I taught myself computer and data science over the last 20 years and art and game development (animation, cinematography, writing, etc) over the last 4. You don't get to tell me who I am.

I've been keeping up with copyright law for almost a decade.

Your high horse isn't as high as you think.

Let me know when a copyright case succeeds on the basis of training AI. If I were the defense, I'd make the same arguments: looking at an image that's publicly accessible is fair-use.

Case-law is on my side here.

I get what you are saying it's just that you are wrong. You are trying to make the case that all art must be paid per view you just don't know it yet.

Also irrelevant to the AI training process and probably an example of where copyright goes too far IMO.

Again, profit is also irrelevant as the law also affects non-profit.

Playing songs verbatim and looking at images are very different activities. Performance licensing is completely irrelevant here. Come one now.

Training on copyright work is not illegal just like looking at copyright work as a human is not illegal. The lawsuits will likely be shut down by fair-use doctrine.

Charging money has nothing to do with anything. The free services would also be affected by any law restricting training.

If you answer yes to any of the above, humans using computers normally are guilty of theft.

I can talk down to you and everyone else here because I know how AI works and how humans learn.

Take the laion dataset. It's literally a list of urls and a caption. The url points to freely accessible image that people see all the time.

Wherein lies the theft? Was it theft by visiting the url? Was it theft when the image was copied to computer RAM? Was it theft when it was downloaded?

...

"unlicensed" generative AI tools don't inherently reproduce specific works either. Just like you they can (usually poorly). So that's an orthogonal issue to licensing.

It is exactly how the human brain works. It learns from what it sees. You can train AI on anything you can see as a human. I guess we are all thieves by your definition.

Have you paid your licenses for all the art you have seen?

Since you are not a data or neuro scientist, I take it you don't know how AI learns vs how human brains learn at a fundamental level. If licenses are required for ethical use of what is learned by visualization, your industry is in trouble.

Gatekeeping aside, what AI tools do you use?

I'm talking about generative AI as a tool. Clearly. Please go back and read everything I said and then go back to art school. While your at it, take a few computer science and data science classes. Then you may be qualified to talk to me.

Sounds like you need a thicker skin. If you can't take competition from artists using next-gen tools, maybe you should go back to art school and learn to deal with it. Tools have been evolving since humans started painting in caves. More tools are coming that make art easier to make.

They really can't tell the difference.

Correction 5 every week, for 52 weeks.

Even if those are the same 5-people and one is your mom, that's a massively dedicated following.

I'll ask your mom to reach you how averages work next time she's over.

You haven't seen it yet because no one is doing it, including me. That's the point. My work isn't AI because AI is entirely inappropriate for what I'm doing. Those who think it's AI vastly overstate AI's capability and likely don't understand it at all.

I asked a legitimate question and I was immediately called a paid shill. Then once I outed myself as an artist my work was attacked. Who exactly is insulting who?

Nothing that was said to me was in anyway criticism. It was ad-hom and you know it.

It's for your mom when she follows my account after tonight.

Euryale's Gambit was released in the summer of 2022. It was my first full game.

Everyone has to start somewhere.

I'm thankful for those who supported me and gave meaningful feedback.

CoC is one of the most popular adult games of all time. I remember playing CoC 1 before I ever thought of making my own game.

Every dev aspires to achieve what this game has accomplished.