How could they forget Pascal :/

The average user of Lemmy has more empathy with a two times convicted rapist than with Amber Heard or that one woman from this atrocious Tiger King series.

Jep, Not even two years for his second rape.

Murder doesn’t get laughable sentences. Like under two years for a repeated offender.

Murderes also normally don’t have a whole bunch of people online rallying behind their right of redemption. It’s only rapists who get this and suddenly everyone turns into Jesus online and demands the victims better forgive them!

Why is this “especially relevant to rape cases”?

What do you think can restorative justice look like for crimes like torture (that is what rape is)?

“Trauma is part of life”? Murder and dieing is also part of life. Sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense. Trauma in a clinical sense is certainly not “part of life”.

There is no reason why rape is judged much less severely than torture though.

In the absolute majority of rape cases there is no bettering themselves happening because the rapists never face any consequences to begin with.

You do realise that the models stole the art from people all over the world, yes? It’s not like someone in Indonesia drawing fan art can simply profit off their own work the way people like you now can.

I also think this attitude (“just get a job to support your hobby while I get to profit of your work”) shows an overall lack of respect for artists.

“Soul” is the word we use for something we don’t scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.

You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to “it’s a probability machine” definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.

Current models aren’t intelligent. Not even by the flimsy and unprecise definition of intelligence we currently have.

Wanted to post a whole rant but then saw vexikron already did so I spare you xD

deleted by creator

As an artist you draw with an understanding of the human body, though. An understanding current models don’t have because they aren’t actually intelligent.

Maybe when a human is an absolute beginner in drawing they will think about the different lines and replicate even how other people draw stuff that then looks like a hand.

But eventually they will realise (hopefully, otherwise they may get frustrated and stop drawing) that you need to understand the hand to draw one. It’s mass, it’s concept or the idea of what a hand is.

This may sound very abstract and strange but creative expression is more complex than replicating what we have seen a million times. It’s a complex function unique to the human brain, an organ we don’t even scientifically understand yet.

In general I agree with you, but AI doesn’t learn the concept of what a circle is. AI reproduces the most fitting representation of what we call a circle. But there is no understanding of the concept of a circle. This may sound nit picking, but I think it’s important to make the distinction.

That is why current models aren’t regarded as actual intelligence, although people already call them that…

I think the difference in artistic expression between modern humans and humans in the past comes down to the material available (like the actual material to draw with).

Humans can draw without seeing any image ever. Blind people can create art and draw things because we have a different understanding of the world around us than AI has. No human artist needs to look at a thousand or even at 1 picture of a banana to draw one.

The way AI sees and “understands” the world and how it generates an image is fundamentally different from how the human brain conveys the object banana into an image of a banana.

$20/mo

good value for people without much money

The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.

AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won’t be able to benefit from it.

I think there is a much easier explanation. People keep rabbits and guinea pigs as pets. They are much more of a “prey animal” than a wild hog, for example.

Humans simply find rabbits, dogs and cats more aesthetically pleasing / cute. That’s the whole secret to it. Some animals are liked by humans and get a bare minimum of compassion and some don’t. And that’s the biggest factor in our decision of which animals deserve to rot away in their own filth until slaughtered and which can enter our homes as “entertainers”.

People pirate and then wonder why small developer studios for example go broke or software becomes more expensive or less plenty. It’s so dumb it hurts.

If you use that approach there is no way left to claim that current AI models aren’t a huge copyright infringement on the data they were trained on. Because the biggest argument for why AI is supposedly not copyright infringing it’s training data, is because it’s generated images aren’t direct copies of the works if was trained upon.

But if you start arguing the idea behind a image or the vision is somehow copyrightable than all AI models are illegal. Since they definitely work by using the ideas and visions of artists.