by foreverlurk » Wed May 01, 2024 10:31 pm
kira123 wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 7:55 pm
What did InksGirls do this time?
Beyond being a Nazi and antisemite?
Prof Sai wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 9:55 pm
I replied telling them that it was all AI, but no response. They just deleted everything.
I don't think it's that vague - Pixiv considers AI being "stolen without permission" and "detrimental to the original artist", because it was trained on copyrighted material and the rights owners don't get some sort of compensation. It's only half-true in the sense that the AI didn't actually "steal" (ie. it doesn't copy actual pixel data) but learned to reproduce as human artists do when first learning, but since it's a machine it can do so on a large scale.
I'm all for opt-in for dataset training, and proper royalties being paid when doing so. Just don't give corporations ideas about making human artists pay to "learn" from other artists, or some other dystopian bullshit.
[quote=kira123 post_id=39081 time=1714593300 user_id=86]What did InksGirls do this time? [/quote]
Beyond being a Nazi and antisemite? :roll:
[quote="Prof Sai" post_id=39085 time=1714600541 user_id=63]I replied telling them that it was all AI, but no response. They just deleted everything.[/quote]
I don't think it's that vague - Pixiv considers AI being "stolen without permission" and "detrimental to the original artist", because it was trained on copyrighted material and the rights owners don't get some sort of compensation. It's only half-true in the sense that the AI didn't actually "steal" (ie. it doesn't copy actual pixel data) but learned to reproduce as human artists do when first learning, but since it's a machine it can do so on a large scale.
I'm all for opt-in for dataset training, and proper royalties being paid when doing so. Just don't give corporations ideas about making human artists pay to "learn" from other artists, or some other dystopian bullshit.