ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 50mReally? ChatGPT and Gemini both have over a billion active users. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 1hHow do you think we create? We recombine patterns that we've learned through out experiences, a majority of which comes from the works that others create. So, all art is derivative by its very nature. Furthermore, AI is doing a similar thing with code that it is with imagery. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 3hWhy behave like this? Is your position honestly that weak? 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 3hIn my experience, it all seems to boil down to people not wanting added competition in their space. So, there are those who program that don't mind AI art, and there are those who draw who don't mind AI code. The arguments that they make for their position are largely inaccurate. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 3hA director is an artist, despite directing others to perform tasks in order to create their art. They're often even credited as the primary creator of said art. While I can understand giving more credit to the individual that draws a work on my behalf, we don't generally give said credit to a tool. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 3hThis is a poor analogy as the software is a tool that I operate. It's not an individual that I'm commissioning. That said, both me and the individual that I've commissioned are artists in the scenario you've presented. We collaborated in the creation of a work of art. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hWhile there do seem to be some issues that LLMs have with translating Japanese to English, I think it can probably get you 80-90% of the way. So, you'd just need a translator to proofread the translation. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hWhile AI won't replace human creativity, it's being used by humans to express themselves creatively. The software itself is just a tool. 120
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hThere are really no specific steps required for a work to be considered art. As long as one is expressing their imagination, they're creating art. It's like taking a photo instead of painting the scene by hand. Both are art, but one is more trivial to produce. 210
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hThat really depends on the individual operating the software. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hFurthermore, how can you act like training AI on visual art is theft, but training it on code is not? Programming is still an art. It honestly seems like you just don't want the added competition for the form of art that you prefer. I'd argue that this is a rather hypocritical position to take. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hI simply don't consider training AI on one's art to be theft. As an artist, I recognize that I've trained myself on the works of others, often without consent. This is simply how one learns to create. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hI've seen AI videos that I'd be interested in seeing expanded into a full movie. So, I can't agree. Experience may allow one to more consistently produce appealing works, but it isn't a barrier to doing so. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hYou can't really be ethically opposed to generative AI and then use the fruits of said technology. That's a rather hypocritical position to take. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hThe difference is that they may have the skillset to do so when using generative AI. I liken it to taking a photo. With modern cameras, almost anyone can take a reasonably good photo, even if they weren't formally trained in photography. It has become a craft with a low skill floor. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 4hArt is expression. Creation is causing something to exist. One modifying another's work would still be art, despite the fact that it may infringe on the copyright of the work being modified. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 23hI'll return the favor and mute you as well. It's clear that you're incapable of discussing this without lashing out. Take care. I wish you the best. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 23hAre you incapable of having a civil discussion? You're behaving like a child throwing a tantrum because someone disagreed with them. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 23hYou don't think one's friends might have similar stances? 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 23hNo, I only have this account. Sihnrae is a follower of mine. Why are you so focused on attacking my character rather than what I've said? 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 23hWhat's wrong with defending tools that I find quite useful? 000
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 23hWhile fair use is always handled on a case by case basis, Judge Alsup's argument for why training AI is fair use is consistent with Us copyright law. As for people not using these tools, ChatGPT and Gemini have over a billion active users each. So, you seem to be incorrect. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 11/10/2026I've explained that copyright infringement hasn't likely occurred. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 11/10/2026No, it really isn't. Plagiarism is the act of claiming another's work as one's own. When one produces AI art, they're often creating a novel result. So, how exactly would that qualify as plagiarism? 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 11/10/2026Why should they be opposed to generative AI in the first place? It's simply another set of tools we can use in order to express ourselves. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026Correct. Plagiarism isn't a crime. When one plagiarizes, they will often copy a work while doing so, and thus be potentially liable for copyright infringement, but there's no crime of plagiarism in the US. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026We really don't need two tangents discussing the same thing. bsky.app/profile/ecut... 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026Please point out where someone is being charged with plagiarism. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026You really aren't. Even if I was to use a colloquial definition of theft, and say that it means to use another's work without their consent, that's not what I'm doing when I create AI art. A diffusion model simply doesn't contain imagery, as I've explained to you. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026I disagree with your premise. While you wouldn't necessarily learn to draw by using generative AI to create art, you'd simply learn other skills instead. In fact, producing AI art can be quite involved. I encourage you to look into ComfyUI. 120
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026What exactly did you say to said musician to warrant a block? 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026No. When I create AI art, I'm not claiming another artist's existing work as my own. Instead, I'm generatively producing a novel work using an AI tool. So, how exactly does that qualify as plagiarism? 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026If it's not, why are you using an emotionally charged word incorrectly? 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026It's really just an emotional reaction to something they don't like. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026That depends on how the work is specifically used. If you're claiming that work as your own, then it's plagiarism. If you've copied the work it could be copyright infringement, but only if fair use doesn't apply. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026Calling it a plagiarism machine would be incorrect, as it largely makes novel outputs. In fact, a diffusion model doesn't even contain imagery. It's a latent map of weights that represents an AI's ability to produce concepts from noise. How exactly is this plagiarism? 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026Indeed. Those calling the training of AI theft are often using the term because of the emotional connotation connected with said term. They'll use the term plagiarism for a similar reason, despite neither term really being accurate. Works were just used without their author's consent. 200
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026You won't be charged with the crime of theft for plagiarizing a work. It really is that simple. The Cambridge definition is a more accurate one. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026This is arguably a better definition of the term plagiarize. dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionar...dictionary.cambridge.orgplagiarize1. to use another person's ideas or work and pretend that it is your own: 2… 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026The definition that you've cited here really only proves my point. Though, it referring to it copying as theft is a misuse of said term. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theftlaw.cornell.edutheft 310
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026It is interesting that Bluesky recognizes that their posts are childish. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026Yeah, I prefer to mute people at most, as I'd like to be able to view their posts in the event that they do civilly engage. However, I don't think this individual is actually capable of doing so at this point. 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026I completely agree. Generative AI is a set of tools. 020
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026It seems like you're incapable of rational discussion. I'd normally mute you for behaving this way, but I think this case warrants a block. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026Plagiarism is the act of claiming another's existing work as one's own. It's also not theft. I really feel like you've conflated theft, plagiarism and copyright infringement. These are not the same thing. As for copyright infringement, US courts have ruled that training AI is a fair use. 110
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026What I said wasn't a lie. You can read the legal definition of theft here. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/theftlaw.cornell.edutheft 010
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026When one creates AI art, they're expressing their imagination. Thus, the result is art by definition. It may simply be art that you don't enjoy. 120
ecutruin.bsky.social @ecutruin.bsky.social · 10/10/2026All you've done this entire discussion is lash out emotionally. So?... 110
