Even_Adder @ Even_Adder @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

4,824

Comments

1,569

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

Partial occlusions pretty consistently get weird like that.

Whoops. Didn't mean to leave that in.

The image description is a description I wrote for the visually impaired. The OP didn't list a prompt or any other generation parameters.

The project page didn't have a link to it, but there is a demo on HF.

Your name is crazy. 🤣

It can do IMG to SVG. Check out the right side of this image:

This is not my gen. The OP is linked in the text portion.

It does look weird. Even the texture of the sand is unsettling.

The movie is also a sequel to the Sega Saturn game, which is wild.

Damn, I haven't watched the movie, but the mech in it seems cool from what I've seen in Super Robot Wars.

What are your generation parameters? Also, this is more appropriate for !stable_diffusion@lemmy.dbzer0.com. Ask there in the future.

Nah. No thanks.

Just recently in the thread they asked me to define what I meant by public interest and I gave examples of what I meant. They say they don't care about the laws, so I ask them to not look at the laws, but rather what the laws protect. In their reply, they again turn the conversation to the fact that legal language was used in the material I linked, rather than thinking of the ramifications of what it would be like to not have those protections to the public interest. Going so far as to cherry-pick quotes from the blog post I linked to present them in a way that tries to completely misrepresent the point of the post.

In the message before the one you replied to, I clearly stated what I'm arguing and why, and in their reply they completely distort what I said into a straw man that they then mock.

I'm open to feedback.

Yeah, you make really good points, but we get also get the kind of bad faith actor that browses all and downvote community content whenever they see it.

You don't have to like anything, but consistent downvoting like this without any other kind of participation is indistinguishable from targeted downvote harassment, and isn't consistent with your claims of blocking.

I'm a moderator on !stable_diffusion_art@lemmy.dbzer0.com, where you've never upvoted once, but you have downvoted multiple posts over months instead of blocking the community. This down-ranks submissions, adversely affecting the visibility of the community for subscribers, which is why you were banned.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/28218497

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35031819

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/38704142

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/44766239

Yeah, it only barely resembles the image on the wiki.

Tagging and filtering works for communities that need it. Those that have NSFW content enforce rules that allow users to customize their feeds, just like is done here with the [AI] tag.

Please explain how honoring artist’s will can make the situation 10x worse?

That's what I was talking about when I said:

Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech are built upon. They want you to believe that analyzing things without permission somehow goes against copyright, when in reality, fair use is a part of copyright law, and the reason our discourse isn’t wholly controlled by mega-corporations and the rich.

And when I said:

The people who train these systems still have rights like you and I, and the public interest transcends individual consent. Rights holders, even when they are living, breathing individuals, would always prefer to restrict our access to materials, but from an ethical standpoint, the benefits we see from of fair use and library lending, outweigh author permissions. We need to uphold a higher ethical standard here for the benefit of society so that we don’t end up building a utopia for corporations, bullies, and every wannabe autocrat, destroying open dialogue in the process.

What do you think someone who thinks you’re going to write an unfavorable review would say when you ask them permission to analyze their work? They’ll say no. One point for the scammers. When you ask someone to scrutinize their interactions online, what will they say? They’ll say no, one point for the misinformation spreaders. When you ask someone to analyze their thing for reverse engineering, what will they say? They’ll say no, one point for the monopolists. When you ask someone to analyze their data for indexing, what will they say? They’ll say no, one point for the obstructors.

And when I said:

...If we allow that type of overreach, we would be giving anyone a blank check to threaten the general populace with legal trouble off of just from the way you draw the eyes on a character. This is bad, and I shouldn’t have to explain or spell it out to you.

What these people want unfairly restricts self-expression and speech. Art isn’t a product, it is speech, and people are allowed to participate in conversations even when there are parties that rather they didn’t. Wanting to bar others from iterating on your ideas or expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful. That’s why the restrictions on art are so flexible and allow for so much to pulled from to make art.

You have spent so many hours dishonestly dodging the actual points I've made, it's not surprising you're lost this far in.

And we're discussing your assertion that AI art is unethical because of how it's trained. I've given examples and explanations on how your views on honoring artists' wills are not only unfair, but shortsighted, and harmful to all of us too. I do this not only in hopes of changing your mind, but also the minds of anyone who might be reading this thread.