Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

  • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    i’m not making a moral comment on anything, including piracy. i’m saying “but it’s part of my established workflow” is not an excuse for something morally wrong.

    only click here if you understand analogy and hyperbole

    if i say “i can’t write without kicking a few babies first”, it’s not an excuse to keep kicking babies. i just have to stop writing, or maybe find another workflow

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      The difference is that kicking babies is illegal whereas training and running an AI is not. Kind of a big difference.

        • FaceDeer@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That’s not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain. Kicking a baby is not the same as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don’t map to each other.

          You can’t dodge flaws in your argument by adding a “don’t respond unless you agree with me” clause on your comment.

          • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            > You’re using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That’s not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain

            actually that’s exactly what i was using it for.

            > Kicking a baby is not the same[1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don’t map to each other.

            if you read carefully, you’ll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you’re continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you’ll see that i implied i wasn’t making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies

            > You can’t dodge flaws in your argument by adding a “don’t respond unless you agree with me” clause on your comment.

            i didn’t intend to. i did it so i wouldn’t have to waste my time arguing with those who don’t understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you’ll excuse me, i’m going to stop


            edit: okay, i’ve been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don’t understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment


            1. yes. analogous doesn’t mean “the same”. it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between ↩︎