Fair use isn’t a loophole, it is copyright law.

Don’t believe this dog, for it only tells lies.

I thought Mario was canonically 24?

Here’s a video explaining how diffusion models work, and this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF.

Your comment made my day. Thanks.

Anyone spreading this misinformation and trying gatekeep being an artist after the avant-garde movement doesn’t have an ounce of education in art history. Generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that’s shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should.

I still only see half a dog.

What dogs? There isn’t a single complete dog on here.

Entertainment.

It’s not a computer playing, a person plans out the run and then executes the plan with the help of slow motion, save states, and frame-by-frame play. Seeing things that no human could possibly pull off unassisted is entertaining too.

If you want to run local AI stuff, the more VRAM and muscle you’ve got, the better.

Their policy could never stop anyone in the first place.

Works should not have to be licensed for analysis, and Cory Doctorow very eloquently explains why in this article. I’ll quote a small part, but I implore you to read the whole thing.

…counting words and measuring pixels are not activities that you should need permission to perform, with or without a computer, even if the person whose words or pixels you’re counting doesn’t want you to. You should be able to look as hard as you want at the pixels in Kate Middleton’s family photos, or track the rise and fall of the Oxford comma, and you shouldn’t need anyone’s permission to do so.

This open letter by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries, further expands on the pitfalls of this kind of thinking and the implications for broader society. I know it’s a lot, but these are wonderfully condensed explanations of the deeper issues at hand.

Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

They explain what’s wrong with these two statements.

Can you specify with quotes what we’re talking about exactly? Just so we’re on the same page. I don’t want to end up talking past each other.

This is a really complex subject and what I linked covers the issues thoroughly, better than I can.

If you had been reading them in good faith, the first article follows naturally into the companion blog post. The last one isn’t about copyright law, you should read the whole thing.

I linked articles by people whose explanations can do justice to this incredibly complex topic much better than I can. The point is obvious if you take the time to actually read them.

It should have been impossible to miss the first article linking to this companion blog post, and I meant to link this article instead of the second one.

They go over that, you should give them another read.

I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. You’re misrepresenting how these systems actually work. I’d like to hear your thoughts.