the ones that will save us from the AI menace are... the big corporations???

of course not, don't be silly. it'll just mean that the common western man will lose access to ai while corps and jeets get to keep pumping out slopshart

>>7605910 (OP)
No, if anything they are likely prepping to launch their own proprietary AI generation models and want to be the only ones able to generate Disney/Marvel/Star Wars AIslop, the goyim are getting too uppity.

took them long enough, presumably this means they're prepped for legal rape
>>7605930
and? that's a good thing, ai isn't going anywhere, what matters is keeping copyright over your work
some rando artist was never going to win again a company backed by billions in investments, it was always to be corp vs corp
I don't give a shit about ai existing or le western man using it, I want my work out of it

>>7605930
Like the failure that is Disney+? Disney is just simply to cheap to make something like that.

>>7605943
>what matters is keeping copyright over your work
нy кa

>>7605910 (OP)
why'd it take them so long? don't they have an army of a gorrillion sharp toothed lawyers with laser eyes? the horse has left the stable at this point.

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gen is a good guy with a gen.

at least something will be done, now that money is on the line

>>7605974
not really, if they win this they're just gonna sue everyone for damages (they're asking for 150k per infringement), then settle and have them remove their shit
>why
probably preparing their arguments to avoid a sony-bleem situation

>>7605981
>150k per infringement
>midslop already losing money
Downside, there already thousands of other slop generators.

>>7605987
But if they win the lawsuit it sends out a message to all other AI companies to remove their property from their database.

>>7605987
doesn't matter, this is the precedent
either mj wins and nothing changes or they lose and then every corp goes after every ai
realistically I doubt the corps will settle if they're going to war

>>7605991
>But if they win the lawsuit it sends out a message to all other AI companies to remove their property
That’s true unless it’s was created in a 3rd world shithole or china. Copyright laws are non-existent in those.

>>7605910 (OP)
>>7605974
It took them a long time because they had to promt over 25,000 images. Lol

>>7605917
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. The kikes win either way. The battle was lost 6 years ago. We're currently in the "PR" phase of pretending like they want to regulate themselves

>>7605993
wrong, being illegal means no market access, so it's effectively out of the industry if this passes
second, the reason thirdies don't enforce copyright is that they don't have anything to gain, china is rapidly becoming a major player in entertainment, it's only a matter of time until they have more to lose by allowing infringement
the US was the same, literal communists were in the berne convention before Americans

>>7605997
>it's only a matter of time until they have more to lose by allowing infringement

>>7605910 (OP)
I doubt this will do much to the overall AI landscape. Midjourney is... "special."

Most of the pro-AI people hate it, because it's closed source, totally opaque and operates like a toy. It's the iphone of the AI world, where SD is like running a desktop. Any desktop. That is how locked down MJ is.

I do wonder if this might actually be Universal and Disney trying to force MJ to crack open their model/code in the court proceedings so they can do a little piracy of their own. "Cleanroom engineering" style.

>>7606003
wukong sold 25 million, not the mention manhua overtaking manhwa, their gacha slop printing money
tencent alone is is 3 times bigger than disney

>>7606003
wukong sold 25 million, not the mention manhua overtaking manhwa, their gacha slop printing money, etc
tencent alone is 3 times bigger than disney

>>7605910 (OP)
Obviously.

Do you really think the law cares what the poors think?

>>7606021
Every chinese export is controlled by the CCP, as an open secret. They even disappeared the Alibaba guy at one point for a few months of correction when he got uppity.

It's not direct control, but it is monitored and they pick who gets to be a winner.

>>7606032
...and? how is that an argument against the inevitable incentivization for the government to protect those assets? or is being indirectly controlled by blackrock because they choose who gets money a prerequisite for copyright?

>>7606040
IP is a way for the state to to get to exercise power in the disputes between private individuals. China has no need for an excuse to do that because it's totalitarian.

Beyond that, their goal rn is to spread chinese influence and curry a better reputation. Other people copying them gives weight to their ideas as being worth copying, and elevates their prominence. Being "permissive" in the current climate gives them brownie points when you have corporations like Nintendo and Disney sending C&Ds to everyone and Wizards of the Coast sending literal pinkertons to some dude's house.

Hey, I’m all for them attacking each other. It’s a good distraction from them raping eastern content.

Please stop bumping this pointless, critiqueless thread.

>>7605910 (OP)
I'm under the impression that Disney has realised that AI could possibly destroy their industry, and are trying to essentially snuff out that flame so it's no longer a threat to them.
If copyright is enforced, then AI is essentially stunted at best, and set back significantly at worst (or possibly even destroyed) - like that one dick head said, "the AI needs to use copyrighted material for free to be sustainable".

>>7605910 (OP)
maybe they should sue anybody who has papers and pens in their house too

>>7606907
worry about getting a toilet in your house, rajesh

>>7605917
That sounds great, I don't consume anything from said corpos anyways.

>>7605987
And those are next. Wait until Nintendo started going after them.

>>7605910 (OP)
I say yes, but you can be sure that they spend resources to find out if they can capitalize on LLMs first. Turns out it is a net negative for them and the quality drop would be too noticable, so they are starting lawsuits. Not because they are "good" or any moral obligation but because it is their best move forward. Every once in a while their selfish interests can align with our interests, though it is rare. I hope they fuckem.

gotta love /pol/jeets pretending ai is some strike against kikery when microsoft and the usual suspects are the ones funding it

>>7607287
Absolutely nobody who is pro-ai is arguing in good faith.
They'll say "AI is based and redpilled, and only stupid calarts-loving leftards hate it" here, since the site has a right-wing bent, and then go on reddit and say "AI is 'democratizing art' and 'empowering disadvantaged communities', and only evil right wing capitalists hate it." since that site has a left-wing bent. They'll say absolutely anything because they're fucking parasites.

>>7605910 (OP)
>the ones that will save us from the AI menace are... the big corporations???
They won't save us, they will use AI trained on their copyrighted material and they'll destroy the competition that don't use their own stuff like MJ.
Disney will use their proprietary AI while the average joe get fucked in the ass, fuck AI niggas tho, they're not a threat like Disney but they deserve nothing so I'm happy, in an ideal world both pajeets and NuDisney get their assholes prolapsed but muh capitalism will never allow that so whatever.
>TLDR
>We Won but fuck Disnoy

>>7607293
>Absolutely nobody who is pro-ai is arguing in good faith.
I'm pro AI but I'm a non-AI artist. I think the main haters of it are
>people who want to make slop for a corporation
because it only competes en masse with slopfoundries. This is the position that few will actually admit to because it's really unconvincing, so many resort to bad faith presentations of other reasons. Typically such a person has a cynical view of art, either from being in the industry and having their hope and enthusiasm drained, or from already having a nihilistic outlook and lack of self-confidence.
>people who just dislike how most of it is shit
and early on it was somewhat difficult to filter out on certain sites. Less of a problem now. This is moreso a position that proposes an extreme solution for a mild problem, and can be relaxed by showing them filtering tools and how to find good art in 2025+.
>people who are overly-protective of their art
and think ANY reuse should be copyright infringement. This is the most uninformed of the positions, and is difficult to rectify because it typically relates to someone's entire viewpoint of art history and art as an entire concept being terribly off-base from reality.
>people who think AI art is competition with ANYONE and it has to be stopped before it gets good enough
This is mostly people who don't know why people pay artists in the first place. I argue this is the 2nd most uninformed position, because it's usually hinging on a few key misunderstandings, but can be a struggle to deal with because such a person also typically has poor self-esteem, and this is a fearful place to be.
>Skynet-doomsayers
Most of this goes back to a harry potter fanfic author's insane ramblings, which is the reason why OpenAI exists: their mission is one of fear of an AI apocalypse, and they're retardedly trying to develop a "safe AI" to prevent it. This type of individual typically acts in bad faith until backed into a corner. Ressentiment motive.

>>7607330
(cont, additional notes)
Part of the conflict is also that a large chunk of the tech world freely shares code, often (but not always) with the caveat attached that if you use it, you must also release what you use under the same open license. That's GPL, and other "viral" or "copyleft" licenses.

But people will just copy code from each other all the time, in snippets usually. This is normal, and often encouraged. The Debian Free Software Guide even has some tests (attached) that help to determine if something really is "free software". And by "free software", it's free as in freedom, free speech, "libre".
Not price, not "free beer."

In contrast, much of the art world is built on no reuse. You may be informed as to what tools and techniques someone uses, but the appropriation art segment as a whole has always been only begrudgingly-accepted by many artists. In fact, plenty of artists reject huge swathes of the art landscape, deeming it as "not real art".

This of course isn't universal - particularly in the 2000s, the cypherpunk and net-art movements were pretty in-synch, artists and technologists both aligned with the greater Free Culture movement. There's still plenty of people who are for this, including contemporary internet artists like chip (fractalcounty) and believeinthetyrone.

Still, there's a ton of clash, with some people viewing the AI art thing as "tech people not staying in their own lane, invading art culture", others seeing the reaction to it as "artists trying to kill the internet out of greed", and many other spicy fucking takes.

Woe unto thee who lacks perspective of the greater situation, for you will regret the time you wasted being assmad about cartoons on the internet, when wisdom was within reach of a few keystrokes.

>>7607330
>>7607339
also
>inb4 someone tries to call me a bot or pajeet using ChatGPT to write this
Sam Altman can shove a GPU power cable down his urethra and push the full power a 5090 would draw through it. OpenAI is cancer, fuck them and their gay ass data harvesting to try to fund their psychotic savior complex.

Thread belongs to trash along with the >>7607333

>>7607339
> people will just copy code from each other all the time

Professionals write code, they do not copy them :x Copying code from various sources would create a licensing nightmare for the final product. Stop all this gpt talk

>>7607344
>professionals do-
This is an argument I have seen numerous times. It's uninformed.

They do it anyway. Little bits here and there, not enough to be a licensing issue. Hell, sometimes on purpose to fuck over their boss as malicious compliance.

Somtimes they just use it as "reference" changing the structure a bit. But a lot of the time it's just one way to do a small thing and that's that.

Concept artists do this as well. They copy-paste images off of good, photobash shit, paintover things, and swipe through heavy reference. It's why internal art is rarely shared.

Professionals are not some kind of "I can do this all by hand in my sleep in machine code" or "I painted a total image I saw from my mind wholecloth with 0 references completely to my client's spec in one go."

>>7607352
>off of good
off of google* fucksake