AI plagiarism is on an industrial scale, comparing it with artists borrowing elements from other artists or making pastiches is disingenuous. Open plagiarism has always been frowned upon in art.
I dunno man, 50 years of sampled music might beg to differ about your whole “open plaigerism frowny” thing.
And AI plaigerism is so cryptic, the links so tenuous, that we don’t know that they’re “industrial plaigerisming” us unless they actually tell us.
Live music people complained about recorded music. Silent picture people complained about talkies. Analog complained about digital. It’s old news. Go with it.
Sampling is sampling, it’s very different from plagiarism.
Just because you can’t trace what elements have been cobbled together to make the image does not mean it wasn’t stolen without the artist’s explicit consent. (And I’m not talking strictly legal, “click the box to accept our terms and conditions” consent here.)
Your third paragraph is just irrelevant to the ethical question here - and a tiresome and illogical argument. “Some people in the past were wrong about some new technology, so everyone critical of some aspect of a new technology is obviously wrong”. But I’m not taking the Luddite stance, in this particular argument at least, so it’s not a relevant criticism anyway.
AI plagiarism is on an industrial scale, comparing it with artists borrowing elements from other artists or making pastiches is disingenuous. Open plagiarism has always been frowned upon in art.
I dunno man, 50 years of sampled music might beg to differ about your whole “open plaigerism frowny” thing.
And AI plaigerism is so cryptic, the links so tenuous, that we don’t know that they’re “industrial plaigerisming” us unless they actually tell us.
Live music people complained about recorded music. Silent picture people complained about talkies. Analog complained about digital. It’s old news. Go with it.
Sampling is sampling, it’s very different from plagiarism.
Just because you can’t trace what elements have been cobbled together to make the image does not mean it wasn’t stolen without the artist’s explicit consent. (And I’m not talking strictly legal, “click the box to accept our terms and conditions” consent here.)
Your third paragraph is just irrelevant to the ethical question here - and a tiresome and illogical argument. “Some people in the past were wrong about some new technology, so everyone critical of some aspect of a new technology is obviously wrong”. But I’m not taking the Luddite stance, in this particular argument at least, so it’s not a relevant criticism anyway.
Your case seems thin
(Luddite-esque. Sure. Compounded with the social media outrage of the hour.)
At least I’m making a case.
An insult, how novel!