It’s not. They’ve definitely lost lawsuits before.

Maybe because there’s usually not even a perceptible difference in visual quality between the two and a very noticeable performance difference.

This process is akin to how humans learn by reading widely and absorbing styles and techniques, rather than memorizing and reproducing exact passages.

Machine learning algorithms are not people and are not ingesting these works the same way a person does. This argument is brought up all the time and just doesn’t ring true. You’re defending the unethical use of copyrighted works by a giant corporation with a metaphor that doesn’t have any bearing on reality; in an age where artists are already shamefully undervalued. Creating art is a human process with the express intent of it being enjoyed by other humans. Having an algorithm do it is removing the most important part of art; the humanity.

My Durge run has been pretty fun. Cut off Gail’s hand when he was reaching out of that rock and never had to deal with him again. So that was cool.

Yeah I don’t really get all the hate. Is it the greatest game ever? No not even a little. Is it good though? Yeah I think so. The combat isn’t all that deep but I’m mostly enjoying it for the writing and world building. It also helps that it’s a gorgeous game.

That being said I can’t see paying full price for it. I subscribed to ubisoft + for it and plan on canceling once I’m done with it. Playing it that way makes it cheaper than a ticket to the movies but for way more hours of pretty star wars locales.

Why is she the one having to press charges in the first place? They assaulted a government employee on government property because she was doing her job. Kinda feels like something the US government should be prosecuting for. Like one of those “no, you fucked up. Direct to federal prison for you.” Kinda things.

Headlines in one year: ”Amercan waterways flooded with reusable cups as Americans still throw away what should be reused."

Might be an unpopular opinion but I personally think this is fine. Especially for console. As long as the frame pacing is consistent I don’t think the game is going to be harmed by being at 30 fps. If this were PC or a competitive game it might be a different story but aiming on an Xbox controller is already suboptimal and once you play for a while your brain stops thinking about the framerate.

Then again I still go back and play Cod zombies in split screen with my gf on the 360 from time to time which doesn’t even have a consistent frame rate. So I may be someone less worried about that sort of thing.

In all fairness it doesn’t really sound like he’s a Covid denier. Its more like he’s Pro-Covid. I’m not sure if thats worse though.

Well this bitch is about to make you irrelevant you senile old orange rind.

Without checking I’m going to go out on a limb and say no.

Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to call it an emulation site? It’s not like they hosted ROMs or anything.

I just bought an RGH3 hacked 360 off etsy today after the Xbox live closure. Actually pretty siked to go back and play some of the 360 games I missed back then that have been stuck on that console generation.

If only that sale counted .

Plus they don’t even need to be profitable. They just have to convince some rich losers that they might be profitable at some undetermined time in the future.

Fuck no you can’t take my picture to share with 2000 other establishments to see if I’ve been a bad boy. That’s an easy way to ensure I just don’t hang out in your bar.

So when do we slam him back?

So AOC is clearly talking about Pelosi then. That is almost shockingly unsurprising.

I can just taste the fumble and 90+ yard run back Touchdown.

This is completely and utterly your own opinion, not a fact. I know several people who can’t draw for shit, due to various reasons, but now AI allows them to create images they enjoy. One of them has aphantasia (They literally cannot imagine images).

Never claimed it wasn’t an opinion. And I fully acknowledge that tools can make creating art easier. Hell, I even support the use of machine learning tools when making art. When used as tools and not as a means of creating art wholesale they can enable creativity. But, I’m sorry, writing a text prompt for an AI to produce an image is not making art (for the person writing the prompt). It’s writing a prompt. In the same way that a project manager writing a brief for a contract artist to fullfil is also not creating the art. The AI is producing the art (and by extension the artists who created the works the AI was trained off of). Your friend with aphantasia is not.

This is basically trying to argue there’s only 1 correct way to make “art”, which is complete and utter bullshit. Imagine trying to say that a sculpture isn’t art because it was 3D printed instead of chiseled. It makes 0 sense for the method of making the art to impact whether or not it is art. “Expression” can take many forms. Why is this form invalid?

Again, I never said any form of art was invalid. Not even AI art. Nor do I think AI art isn’t art. AI art is perfectly capable of creating something worthwhile by means of its content. It’s basing it’s output on worthwhile works of art created by people after all. I’m merely arguing AI art is unethical. If you made a mural out of the blood of children you murdered it’d still be art. But it sure as shit wouldn’t be ethical.

You could say that about literally all art

Except I couldn’t. Because a person being influenced by an artwork and then either intentionally or subconsciously reinterpreting that artwork into a new work of art is a fundamentally different thing from a power hungry machine learning algorithm digesting the near entirety of modern humanity’s art output to churn out an image manufactured to best satisfy some random person’s text prompt.

They’re just not the same thing at all.

The whole purpose of art is to be an outlet for expressing ourselves as human beings. It exists out of this need for expression; part of what makes a work worth appreciating is the human person(s) behind that said work and the effort and skill they put into making it.

…and this is the crux of it - it’s not anything related to the actual content of the image, it’s simple protectionism for a class of worker. Basically creatives are seeing the possibility of some of their jobs being automated away and are freaking out because losing jobs to automation is something that’s only supposed to effect manufacturing workers.

Yes it has nothing to do with the content of the image. I never claimed otherwise. In fact AI art sometimes being indistinguishable from human made art is part of the problem. But we’re not just talking about automating someone’s job. We’re talking about automating someone’s passion. Automating someone’s dream career. In an ideal world we’d automate all the shitty jobs and pay everyone to play guitar, paint a portrait, write a book, or direct a film. Art being made by AI won’t just take away jobs for creatives, it’ll sap away the drive we have as humans to create. And when we create less our existence will be filled with even more bleakness than it already is.

Again, the argument is it’s nothing to do with the actual result, but with it being done by an actual human as opposed to a mere machine. A pixel for pixel identical image create by a human would be “art” by virtue of it being a human that put each pixel there?

I’m not certain I understand what you’re asking. But If the human is the one making the decision on where to put the pixel then yeah that would be fine. But at no point am I arguing about whether or not AI art is “art”. That would just be a dumb semantic argument that’d go nowhere. I’m merely discussing why I believe AI art to be unethical. And the taking away work from creatives point is only one facet as to why I do.