>>48578140>You're comparing people, either self taught across years or took classes, to people feeding shit into an AI generator.No, I am comparing them to the AI itself.
Who was feeding it training data or prompts doesn't matter. How many years the real artist practiced, or how many years it took to create the AI doesn't matter either. The end result, in both cases, is a thing that has looked at countless existing pictures, used it to derive abstract knowledge on how things should look, and can use that knowledge to produce new pictures. Whether that thing is a human brain or a piece of software with a dataset doesn't make a difference. If the human didn't get permission to learn from all those images they were looking at, why should an AI?
Sure, if the AI ends up producing stuff that looks too close to those original images, then that's an issue. But if the human does the same, it's considered plagiarism too. Again, no difference human and AI here.
>>48578034Because I'm not talented and it would take me countless years of effort which I'd rather spend on other things.
>If learning to draw was as easy as looking at another drawingIt isn't. It requires looking at a whole lot of drawings and it requires knowing how to learn from them. The first part can be done very quickly, but only with modern processing power, and the second part is very hard to figure out. Which is why we only have this AI now and not several decades ago. Strangely, nobody thinks about that when they're butthurt about how learning how to draw took them "years" of effort and now computers can do it too.
Does it matter? No. Taking longer to learn doesn't ma
