- cross-posted to:
- freesoftware@lemmy.zip
- linux@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- freesoftware@lemmy.zip
- linux@programming.dev
Finally, another web engine is being developed to compete with Chromium and Firefox (Gecko), and they’re also working on a browser that will use it.
Also, the use of AI-generated images on their website.
So?
For many small project is AI/copied images or no images at all.
When you do not have money you are not hiring a 2000€/month artist to do imagery for your website. You go online to copy something or nowadays you can use AI to wrap it up. It’s a tool at people’s disposition like any other.
And before anyone comes talking about copyright laws… shall I present them my 10 TB hard drive of pirated media? Human culture is to be shared, not gatekeeped.
On the site I see like, one stock footage of a plant, one of a ladybird and some rando abstract graphics. What are you guys talking about here? Am I out of date? Should I ask for raise? (I’m not an artist but SW engineer, so probably not.)
What’s wrong with that?
For one, AI datasets often break copyright law, frequently appropriating from artists. Executives are also trying to use it to eliminate the jobs of artists, and I feel it’s wrong to try and obsolete something people love doing.
In addition, they take a lot of power, not helping in the way of the needed changes to follow climate goals.
Clarification: Copyright laws can be annoying, and I don’t always agree with them. However, it also protects smaller artists. I think there are many cases where piracy is totally fine, though, like if a company vaults an animated streaming show and gets rid of all other ways to watch it.
Interesting. I am an artist, but I find it helps me make better art. Faster too.
But all my work is copyleft and I give zero shits about so-called “copyright infringement”
“It doesn’t affect me, so if it affects you, fuck you, I don’t give a fuck.”
Nah, fuck people who try lock up information in copyrights without copyleft.
Normal people boycotting AI models will not stop executives from being hostile to artists.
Especially people who would have otherwise not paid for art.
No, they will just hire artists who know how to use AI too
oh noooooo not the copyright infringement!
I do break copyright law every single day of my life. And so far the only harm I’ve done is avoiding Disney a free pass to kill my wife.
Copyright law is bad. Sharing is caring.
Also I’ve make AI images with Stable Diffusion self hosted on my N100 server that takes way less energy than a normal computer being turned on for hours using Photoshop, so I saved the world by doing AI images instead of manually painting them.
I fail to see how is traing AI on publicly available images hurting small artists?
You don’t have to write if you don’t have time, link to explanation is good for me.
I basically use generated images in places that would not have any ilustrations before. There is no budget. When I have money for an artist I hire an artist.
Luddism, much?
Luddites were based, actually.
The lesson of the Luddites is to fight the industrialist who wants to take away the pleasures of being human in the name of enriching said industrialist. Time and effort saving mechanisms should benefit the laborer, and no one else. That their movement has been labeled as being resistant to human progress or uninformed of the benefits of industrialization tells on our society’s propaganda mechanisms and our failure to teach our own history
people who add AI features to shit like this are always the dumbest fucking people alive
you’re not some big tech company actually developing an AI assistant for your browser or OS it’s just a fake feature every time lol
if they’re already trying to pass off AI imagery as proof their project is robust, they will do the same with copypasted AI features every time