this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
826 points (92.5% liked)

Comic Strips

15879 readers
2117 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tweeks 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people's art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it "feels" more original.

I'd argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.

Which does not mean that we can't disapprove of literal copies of other people's work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it's more or less a complexity scale.

[–] SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"People get inspired from art therefore lifting someone's entire portfolio as training data is OK actually"

Is it hard to type with your head that far up your own ass? Or did you just copy paste what chatgpt told you when you asked it to defend ai generated images?

[–] tweeks -1 points 1 week ago

No need to attack me like that when I'm just sharing my viewpoint.

I'm not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.

I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.