RuPaul under fire for using AI special effects in new movie

[SimonBaetens 9,365]

he literally fracks

[Sepsami 20,524]

10 hours ago, gagzus said:

As a creative I can tell you it is, AI is making people lose jobs. Especially in tech and creative industries. And we won’t stop making a fuss until this is properly regulated.

Not to mention all the unethical ways AI can and will be implemented. We think these social media algorhythms are an issue, which to be fair they are, but AI is going to be much much worse.. 

[chathonnete 980]

I promise the way Rupaul would be the biggest queer icon if they had real left wings convictions (about trans people, ecology, anti AI, remembering the queens' names lmao)

[Helxig 45,000]

Look Rupaul may have been a trailblazer who paved the way for gay people of today. But he is also a capitalist piece of ****. His mottos have always been around making money no matter the cost. After the fracking scandal the he was totally unapologetic about, you're really surprised he's using gen AI?

[MountainMonster 2,370]

7 hours ago, nATAH said:

a paintbrush doesn't steal, genAI's only option is to steal 

A paintbrush doesn’t learn, but neither does generative AI simply copy. It analyzes patterns from existing works and generates new outputs from those patterns. Whether that’s fair use, infringement, or something in between is a legal and ethical debate, but calling every AI-generated image ‘stolen’ assumes the conclusion rather than proving it.

It uses mathematics and patterns to create novel images - and claiming that it can only steal is radically reductive. By that same logic, all art that is created mathematically and by patterns are stolen and not art - which means we have to say Escher and his tessellations aren’t art, perspective drawings and their geometric rules and projection mathematics are not art, music is not art because there are only so many notes, anything created using the golden ratio is not art, photographs aren’t art because the camera can only steal light and convert it to math, video games, CGI, 3D animation, graphics design, etc are all invalid because they can only create models from math and vectors from formulas. 
 

I just think claiming it blanket steals is too reductive. At a technical level, modern image generators don’t have a database of images that they cut up and paste together. Instead, they learn a mathematical representation of visual concepts during training and then generate images by transforming noise into a coherent picture. It’s doing exactly what humans do. If a room of 50 people were all asked to draw a cat, the vast majority would look similar - all based upon their prior knowledge of what a cat looks like. 

[nATAH 55,451]

24 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

A paintbrush doesn’t learn, but neither does generative AI simply copy. It analyzes patterns from existing works and generates new outputs from those patterns. Whether that’s fair use, infringement, or something in between is a legal and ethical debate, but calling every AI-generated image ‘stolen’ assumes the conclusion rather than proving it.

It uses mathematics and patterns to create novel images - and claiming that it can only steal is radically reductive. By that same logic, all art that is created mathematically and by patterns are stolen and not art - which means we have to say Escher and his tessellations aren’t art, perspective drawings and their geometric rules and projection mathematics are not art, music is not art because there are only so many notes, anything created using the golden ratio is not art, photographs aren’t art because the camera can only steal light and convert it to math, video games, CGI, 3D animation, graphics design, etc are all invalid because they can only create models from math and vectors from formulas. 
 

I just think claiming it blanket steals is too reductive. At a technical level, modern image generators don’t have a database of images that they cut up and paste together. Instead, they learn a mathematical representation of visual concepts during training and then generate images by transforming noise into a coherent picture. It’s doing exactly what humans do. If a room of 50 people were all asked to draw a cat, the vast majority would look similar - all based upon their prior knowledge of what a cat looks like. 

genAI literally steals

[TheSine 6,794]

26 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

A paintbrush doesn’t learn, but neither does generative AI simply copy. It analyzes patterns from existing works and generates new outputs from those patterns. Whether that’s fair use, infringement, or something in between is a legal and ethical debate, but calling every AI-generated image ‘stolen’ assumes the conclusion rather than proving it.

It uses mathematics and patterns to create novel images - and claiming that it can only steal is radically reductive. By that same logic, all art that is created mathematically and by patterns are stolen and not art - which means we have to say Escher and his tessellations aren’t art, perspective drawings and their geometric rules and projection mathematics are not art, music is not art because there are only so many notes, anything created using the golden ratio is not art, photographs aren’t art because the camera can only steal light and convert it to math, video games, CGI, 3D animation, graphics design, etc are all invalid because they can only create models from math and vectors from formulas. 
 

I just think claiming it blanket steals is too reductive. At a technical level, modern image generators don’t have a database of images that they cut up and paste together. Instead, they learn a mathematical representation of visual concepts during training and then generate images by transforming noise into a coherent picture. It’s doing exactly what humans do. If a room of 50 people were all asked to draw a cat, the vast majority would look similar - all based upon their prior knowledge of what a cat looks like. 

Of course it doesn't learn, it's an inanimate object. The owner learns, and controls the paintbrush as they see fit.

Also, that's a fancy way of saying it steals either way. Sure, things use math, but art is defined by the independent creativity of the owner. There's no true definition to art, but it's related to craft that AI doesn't have. There's no such thing as originality, we lived through that already. What matters is how it's re-purposed and refined.

The cat drawings may look similar, but you're forgetting about how the person drawing moves their hands. A cat has ears, nose, torso, tail and legs, but each line stroke is different, maybe they're thinking about a specific cat. What if they wanted to just draw a cat head? What if they know how to draw more realistically? What if they're thinking of a specific cat? What if they want to draw the cat in an environment? AI isn't the problem, it's the way people use AI to do simple skills for them.

Edited 11 minutes ago by TheSine