150
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works

Show transcriptScreenshot of a tumblr post by hbmmaster:

the framing of generative ai as “theft” in popular discourse has really set us back so far like not only should we not consider copyright infringement theft we shouldn’t even consider generative ai copyright infringement

who do you think benefits from redefining “theft” to include “making something indirectly derivative of something created by someone else”? because I can assure you it’s not artists

okay I’m going to mute this post, I’ll just say,

if your gut reaction to this is that you think this is a pro-ai post, that you think “not theft” means “not bad”, I want you to think very carefully about what exactly “theft” is to you and what it is about ai that you consider “stealing”.

do you also consider other derivative works to be “stealing”? (fanfiction, youtube poops, gifsets) if not, why not? what’s the difference? because if the difference is actually just “well it’s fine when a person does it” then you really should try to find a better way to articulate the problems you have with ai than just saying it’s “stealing from artists”.

I dislike ai too, I’m probably on your side. I just want people to stop shooting themselves in the foot by making anti-ai arguments that have broader anti-art implications. I believe in you. you can come up with a better argument than just calling it “theft”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] burgerpocalyse@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

the generated product absolutely contains elements of the things it copied from. imagine the difference between someone making a piece of art that is heavily inspired by someone else's work VS directly tracing the original and passing it off as entirely yours

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

I understand that's how you think of it, but I'm talking about the technology itself. There is absolutely no copy of the original work, in the sense of ones and zeros.

The image generation model itself does not contain any data at all that is any of the work it was trained on, so the output of the model can't be considered copyrighted work.

Yes, you can train models to copy artists' styles or work, but it's not like tracing the image at all. Your comparison is completely wrong. It is a completely unique image that is generated off of the model itself, because the model itself does not contain any of the original work.

this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
150 points (87.5% liked)

Curated Tumblr

5048 readers
608 users here now

For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.

The best transcribed post each week will be pinned and receive a random bitmap of a trophy superimposed with the author's username and a personalized message. Here are some OCR tools to assist you in your endeavors:

Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS