709
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago

If typing a prompt into a plagiarism machine makes you an artist, why doesn’t paying a real human to make art for you also make you an artist?

If someone said they were the artist of something but it turns out they just paid someone else to do it, would you think they were a talentless jackass or an artist?

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

They weren't calling themselves artists, they were saying the AI/model is the artist.

Your comparison is a strawman.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Art is made by artists, who are human, and your argument is the fallacy fallacy.

[-] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

The artist is the neural network

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

The plagiarism machine vomits out the visual equivalent of text prediction. It isn’t an artist any more than the text prediction on your phone is an author if you hit the next predicted word enough times, people are artists and authors. Image generation is at best a Xerox machine.

[-] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Yeah well that's just like, your opinion, man.

[-] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, it’s based on knowing the difference between a tool and a human being 👍

[-] FourWaveforms@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I know plenty of human beings who are tools

this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2025
709 points (97.7% liked)

Funny

14863 readers
982 users here now

General rules:

Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS