Creative AI tools can be seen as sophisticated plagiarism software, as they do not produce genuinely original content but rather emulate and modify existing works by artists, subtly enough to circumvent copyright laws.
>>101243281I will keep using AI only to make you seethe, artfag.
>>101243281What did you think that warm grey mass behind your eyes and between your ears was doing?Disputing definitions is not interesting or useful.If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, does it make a sound?Albert: "Of course it does. What kind of silly question is that? Every time I've listened to a tree fall, it made a sound, so I'll guess that other trees falling also make sounds. I don't believe the world changes around when I'm not looking."Barry: "Wait a minute. If no one hears it, how can it be a sound?"In this example, Barry is arguing with Albert because of a genuinely different intuition about what constitutes a sound.
>>101244522Holy fucking based, same
>>101243281Generative AI is only a threat to midwits.It cannot produce truly good art and it doesn't have the soul of deviantart sonic diaper MS paint doodles
>>101246645It cannot produce truly good art and it doesn't have the soul of deviantart sonic diaper MS paint doodlesDo a blind test. People will come up with lots of reasons - AFTER the reveal - why AI is inherently identifiable.
>>101243281
