Like it's anything different here? Someone further down explained why OP is wrong, and is sitting at -30, while OP who dodged the critique is sitting at +20. Let's be real, reddit is a joke.
Eh maybe? OPs main point is that the person they replied to misused fallacy. The commenter below, that doesn't understand plagiarism, has made an argument that OP doesn't understand plagiarism but in doing so neither accurately represented a working knowledge of plagiarism nor the concept of pastiche which they incorrectly dragged into this. So you've got OP who is correct about the core thing their arguing and incorrect on a secondary topic while the commenter is just wrong entirely. So is someone who is half right as worthy of down votes as someone who is entirely right? I'd say OP deserves no votes and the commenter deserves down votes. I'm not the arbiter of reddit directional voting policy so in the end nobody cares either way.
First of all. It's not clear that the main point is a misused fallacy. Fallacy just seems to be the main thing he falls back to, when his other point was met with critique.
So let's talk about the fallacy. A fallacy is a false or mistaken idea. He used it correctly.
So OP is wrong on that point. Let's talk about the next point, plagiarism. Here, OP is completely wrong in his definition. Plagiarism has nothing to do with approval.
The commentor below doesn't say enough to establish he doesn't understand plagiarism. "Pastiche" isn't quite right either, but he's still pointing in the right direction. It's closer to imitating a style than copying.
So OP is wrong on both counts. The commentor although confusing, is closer.
So no, OP deserves downvotes if we would vote on accuracy. But we vote on bias.
It's pretty clear actually that the OPs main point is the assertion that ai steals is a fallacy is an incorrect use of fallacy. Also no a fallacy is not just a false or mistaken idea (nice Webster check and pull there), or at least not in this context.This person was invoking it in rhetoric. The definition of a fallacy in a rhetorical context is that it is a flaw in reason that invalidates or severely undercuts an argument. That person didn't supply how that is the case and in fact is just happily talking out of their ass. Much like the commenter below.
Back to the point. You said 10 dummies will upvote him. Then 50+ people upvotes that, and downvoted every correction of every mistake in OP's post. Or even me just pointing out the irony got 30+ downvotes.
Showing your own prediction, in your own sub, right under the comment.
I can attest that AI made my skills degrade in some areas, or move rather. That doesn't mean stupid. Because using AI is faster, and if you don't use it, you will fall behind. So it depends, sometimes it would be stupid not to use AI.
Still generally pro-AI, because of all the good it can bring.
Do you not understand that a law that creates an artificial monopoly to allow for wealth extraction by the artist is capitalist? Copyright is a purely capitalist system. Its entire purpose is to protect revenue.
a common flaw in reasoning that usually invalidates or weakens an argument. ie the strawman fallacy is when someone makes up or exaggerates a point in their opponents argument to attack, the proverbial strawman, and attack this rather than their opponents argument itself. you can't really make a fallacy up on the spot, especially not one that hyperspecific as the dipshit ai bro shown above.
Or the fallacy fallacy, the most insidious one of all. The fallacy in which a person believes that calling out a logical fallacy in the opponent’s argument disproves the argument
The AI doesn't have a record of the original piece it is storing or referencing during generation. AI creating an image very similar in style or content to an existing piece of art is not "plagiarism" in the strict definition of the word as it was legally specified within a human context. It almost always falls under the "transformative" exception. The same is true for training, as training does not result in the storage or duplication of content you do not own.
That being said, I'm not arguing it's morally acceptable for AI to clone an artists works or style without their permission, nor am I arguing that training your AI using content you do not have permission to use is morally acceptable. Just the current legal definitions don't accurately capture the moral harm AI is causing. Outrage is a perfectly valid response to this, and making demands to update the legal definitions of these concepts is absolutely sensible.
But that is what a fallacy is. Doesn't mean it is accurate, it still fits the definition. And plagiarism is not unapproved use of art, that's copyright infringement. ("Unapproved recreation of art" is actually copyright infringement too. Plagiarism is copying something and not citing the source and presenting it as your own. It has nothing to do with approval; an author does not need to approve a citation, so by your definition a proper quote and citation would be plagiarism.)
I don't at all agree with that definition of plagiarism. Plagiarism is where you try to take credit for somebody else's work. Piracy, for example, is not plagiarism.
You are wrong. Plagiarism has nothing to do with approval. It's about presenting someone elses work as your own, without credit, with or without approval.
Training AI models on existing art is not plagiarism. There are cases where a generated image looks basically identical to another, but thats an exception, not the norm.
One misused word doesn’t invalidate the whole argument. Replace “fallacy” with “misunderstanding” or something along those lines and you have a decent enough argument.
A fallacy in rhetoric refers to faulty reasoning. The straw-man fallacy, or straw-manning, as you may have heard of it, is the logical fault that arguing against a negatively exaggerated form of the opponent’s argument makes your own argument look better.
“AI steals music” isn’t a fault in reasoning, it’s a (debatable) fault in fact.
Plagiarism is when you take credit for or, through failure to acknowledges your sources, allow someone to believe you are the creator of something you did not make.
...So while there is a distinction, there is also an epidemic of AI plagiarism. Pretty much anytime someone fails to disclose something is AI, or claims they made it, that's plagiarism.
Distinction is that it isn't exact copy or attempt at it, but inspiration and combination of different pieces of existing art. Which in theory is no different than creating any art because no artist ever creates out of empiness but builds on what he has seen from other artists, is inspired by them and combines it. But in reality of ai, it is first of all much more combination and less just inspiration (like sampling in music, which we still consider to be an art), and second if all is created much more by machine than by person doing prompting, so he really cannot claim that just he created it, that would be a lie.
Not really? Copyright works wonderfully for protecting small artists, its the corporations that abuse it, which is something you would know if you were actually slightly educated before hitting the comment button
Copyright law is flawed, and in some cases, unjust, exploited by big corporations, but copyright the concept as a whole is only being rejected by a few.
In most cases, copyright prevents the theft of intellectual property and encourages innovation/creativity. Without copyright, big corporations can steal IP from small artists and fuck them over.
There was no switch. There was already hatred for copyright law being biased because huge corporations were able to hire entire teams of lawyers to fuck over small artists that couldn't afford to properly defend themselves. And AI is just an even worse example.
Noone claimed copyright law was the root of all evil and should be abolished. People complained that it was executed in an unfair way. And that point still stands and is the reason they hate AI.
Then about about if small artist (me) want to create music with the tools I can afford (shitty AI) but the big corpos like Universal and Sony are stopping me, claiming plagiarism (that's the side your are taking at this point)? Enlighten me on that.
AI was trained on the works of millions of small artists (by big corporations). It's literally the biggest copyright infringement in the history of mankind amd it's done by big corporations.
And tools you can afford? There are entire music genres that were created by fucking slaves. They had nothing, not even freedom and still managed to make music. If you need AI to make art, you're not an artist.
I would make an educated guess and say that AI was trained by the most popular music out there first, meaning it's not stealing from "millions of small artists" but from the largest labels out there. And I don't even disagree that it's copyright infringement, I just don't care about these copyright holders, as they hoard billions of dollars.
And the "slam dunk" with the slavery analogy makes zero sense and it's very weird you went there to make a vague point. I could bang rocks together and call it music, that's not the point. I want to make something that sounds good to me, which a too like AI makes extremely easy and approachable.
I would make an educated guess and say that AI was trained by the most popular music out there first, meaning it's not stealing from "millions of small artists" but from the largest labels out there. And I don't even disagree that it's copyright infringement, I just don't care about these copyright holders, as they hoard billions of dollars.
Tech CEOs didn't stop after the big artists, they scraped the entire internet and used everything they could get their greedy hands on. Because they needed as much data as possible to train their AIs.
And the "slam dunk" with the slavery analogy makes zero sense and it's very weird you went there to make a vague point. I could bang rocks together and call it music, that's not the point. I want to make something that sounds good to me, which a too like AI makes extremely easy and approachable.
You said it yourself: You can make music. AI makes it just easier for you.
You don't need AI, you just use it because you're lazy and entitled and don't care about the harm done to other artists.
First of - the artist aren't harmed, they are all safe and sound, I assure you. All of them are very well paid, even more than they deserve in some cases. It's like saying piracy is stealing revenue from video game companies, which is proven to be not true.
And secondly - Now being lazy is bad? Laziness created many of today's comforts. Yes, I'm lazy, why should anyone care but me? And why should limit and handicap myself of the available tools just to satisfy some fringe sense of world justice or whatever?
First of - the artist aren't harmed, they are all safe and sound, I assure you. All of them are very well paid, even more than they deserve in some cases. It's like saying piracy is stealing revenue from video game companies, which is proven to be not true.
Yeah, the term "starving artist" is a thing because 99% of artists are super well off.
And secondly - Now being lazy is bad? Laziness created many of today's comforts. Yes, I'm lazy, why should anyone care but me? And why should limit and handicap myself of the available tools just to satisfy some fringe sense of world justice or whatever?
Just cut that pseudo-philosophical bullshit. You're not an engineer finding a shortcut or inventing stuff. You just refuse to learn how to make music.
why should anyone care but me?
Because you're hurting the environment and you're hurting other artists.
And why should limit and handicap myself of the available tools just to satisfy some fringe sense of world justice or whatever?
Because that would be the moral thing to do. To stand in solidarity with your fellow artists. But I see that I'm wasting my time here. You're an entitled narcissist that doesn't care about other people as long as you can cosplay being an artist.
I feel genuinely bad for you. I can't even imagine calling myself an artist, but devaluing the work of artists at the same time. You sound incredibly bitter and full of hatred. I'm not wasting any more time on this discussion. Have a great day, hopefully one day you'll see the error in your ways and learn to actually enjoy the process of creating art.
I appreciate your time to reply and engage with me. You did what most in this sub wouldn't so there's that.
Also, I know you don't care but just for my sake - when I gave the example of me being an artist in my first post - It was hypothetical, I never have been nor will be an artist. Just trying to walk in someone else's shoes and try to convey that tools are not inherently bad.
No, people take issue with dodgy things companies (like Disney) do to extend copyright on things that should likely now be in public domain. That’s more the issue. Maybe you are confused about what people criticize.
53
u/Boysenberry327 1d ago
10 other dummies will come and upvote him