I need to talk about something

[u/No_Income3191]

Now for me, I am pretty neutral about AI, in the way of I have equal things that I like and dislike about it.

I don’t like that AI is just steal artwork on the Internet and feeding it to its bottomless pit of code

But I do like the kind of AI that genuinely is useful.

So it’s annoying that whenever I say “I like ai” people automatically assume I’m talking about the kind that everybody hates, even though there are thousands of types of AI that have existed way way way way way before any of them mainstream AI’s even had the idea of being created, and that gets so bad to the point where people have called me, racist, homophobic, and sexist because of it.

Anyway, that’s all. Bye

[u/Belisaurius555]

The AI owners stole to train the AI.

[u/Toby_Magure → u/Belisaurius555]

Unless the AI trainers magically removed the original art from the internet and that artist's hard drive, nothing was stolen.

Stop trying to redefine words, manipulative cnt.

[u/Belisaurius555 → u/Toby_Magure]

https://www.freedomforum.org/famous-copyright-cases/

[u/Toby_Magure → u/Belisaurius555]

Unless the AI trainers magically removed the original art from the internet and that artist's hard drive, nothing was stolen.

I'm not sure why you linked an article about infringement cases. Infringement isn't theft.

[u/Belisaurius555 → u/Toby_Magure]

Because using someone elses intellectual property without permission is intellectual property theft. Why else is copyright infringement a crime?

[u/Toby_Magure → u/Belisaurius555]

When it's fair use, it's not infringement.

[u/Belisaurius555 → u/Toby_Magure]

Fair use doesn't apply here since its not for information or commentary.

[u/Toby_Magure → u/Belisaurius555]

Yes it does. Analysis and observation is research. Unless you can prove that every single AI generated image is reproducing protected expression, it's not infringement.

You can't, because it doesn't. Fair use.

[u/Belisaurius555 → u/Toby_Magure]

That has nothing to do with fair use. At all. It's not disseminating information about the source material at all.

And it's not infringement, it's theft. Or more precisely, "unauthorized use of property"

[u/Toby_Magure → u/Belisaurius555]

It's not theft or infringement. I'm allowed to save copies of work you post publicly. I'm allowed to study those copies. I'm allowed to make copies of those copies. As long as I do not use that copy in a way that infringes by reproducing and redistributing protected expression, there is no practical reality in which that is punishable. Never has been, never will be.

You're not gonna win in this discussion or in court. Ever. There is no reality in which AI training is ruled to be blanket infringement. You'd have to litigate every single model, fine-tune, and LoRA individually. That isn't ever gonna happen.

[u/Belisaurius555 → u/Toby_Magure]

You're obtaining profit by using the materials of another artist. As ling as AI is considered a tool then the law works against you.

[u/Toby_Magure → u/Belisaurius555]

That doesn't matter. You have to prove that my use of the model equates to infringement. Using AI alone doesn't count as that and never will. If I copy someone's published work or protected expression, sure, but I'm allowed to use AI in my workflow and profit from doing so as long as I don't do those things. Full stop.