Furry Technologists

Calling someone a prompt "engineer" should be punishable by law.

But...

The AI is the artist!

Not sure what this other guy is doing though.

The term is apparently prompt-fondler now.

And if AI work would be copyrighted by the "prompt artist" then all the artists whose work is in the training set can sue the prompter for profiting of their work without licensing fees. It would be a legal clusterfuck so it was pretty wise to side step the whole issue.

AI art requires more input though. Like a song made on a computer is still copyrightable. We've yet to see a court decide if writing a prompt is enough to copyright the output.

I'm of a split mind because getting good results from it is more difficult than people think but it's often not as hard as ai users make it out to be. And it doesn't help people emotionally when AI models are trained on already copyrighted stuff without permission, but that's more like asking if you could copyright the content you make with a pirated copy of Photoshop in my opinion.

I haven't made my mind up on this and my opinion flips a lot. If someone is doing something like modifying a prompt over a few iterations, maybe using infill to make a "composite", then getting a single image at the end they claim as their creation, I think that's fine. If people just sort of throw a prompt in and then make thousands of images and claim all of them are their creations then I have a verily difficult time seeing that as something other than "machine output."

A scary thought is that case law on this might be determined by which sort of these two approaches ends up in court first. Imagine the more valid type above ending up there first (even if you view it as invalid it's definitely more valid than the other lol) and a jury agreeing it's a unique creation. It just protects all the AI slop creators more. But if the reverse happens, it could affect what people view as real artists. Just a random, extreme example: Someone uses a little AI on an otherwise totally original piece to do something like add good looking wrinkles to fabric. Is it suddenly not copyrightable? Could I now steal this and put it on shirts? It's just sort of scary because we don't know what's going to happen when it actually goes to court.

You laugh but I seriously think people should be getting a cut if they are building a non-open LLM by commenting.

Member how people defended free price of gmail? I member.

Generally you sign that right away in website's terms of use by giving them the right to display content you submit. (I know this is a joke though.)

AI art might not be real, but Sonic giving birth to Borat is an extremely cool concept that people should be celebrated for drawing

Dude, you can’t end it in such a rad way and expect us to despise the prompt input guy.

Apparently, the competition was a year before that ruling.

“Famous” is accurate, but change to “Infamous” and it’s perfect.

Money laundering.

its probably fictionally calculated like sales are to piracy. just because someone pirated a game/software doesnt mean they would have bought said thing at asking price had the piracy option not existed.

This is the schadenfreude I needed to get through my day

Be an 1880 impressionnist, paint an artwork, die.

Now it's worth a million, possibly.

Ah, good ol' music industry math. "1,000 people downloaded a picture that I created, and I wanted to charge $1,000 a piece, so I lost $1,000,000." In reality of course charging $0.02 would've stopped most sales.