this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
0 points (50.0% liked)
Videos
18675 readers
249 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
- AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Oh, I was merely commenting on your expression towards thinking people were nicer here. Certain things, like AI, do tend to bring out the mixed tempers here
Seemed needless to me, but whatever floats their boat. For what its worth the video was written and spoken by an actual person. They did generate the images for the video but animated it. This is pretty old relatively speaking, AI wasn't as capable 3+ years ago. That first Will Smith spaghetti video was released around this time to give you some context.
I appreciate that. This was the early days so to speak when people were just beginning to play around, before the current flood of content which was never touched by any person aka the beginning of the dead internet. Personally if it's a person making something with intent then it's just another tool but if it's fully automated aka someone just told an agent to go make content and that's it then I'm also not a fan.
Every time there's been a new tool it's been degraded, like for a long time photography wasn't considered for art, and then digital art or CGI wasn't considered art and so on.
There's still some possibilities here for making actual art. Like if a person replicated AI generated art well enough it triggered people because they thought it was AI but was fully human generated then that could be an intriguing art piece. Either that or probing the neural nets, finding their behavior or where they break or have odd behavior would also be interesting. Like in the early days just toggling one pixel in an image to a specific value would be enough to destroy image recognition which is intriguing.
I'm not sure the situation is so simple. To steal art one has to breach copyright. If a model is trained on data that does not breach copyright then nothing was stolen. So long as the dataset was lawful then to me it is just another tool humans can use to make creative and interesting, thought provoking works with.
We can get into more creative models like ones trained on physics that are then used to create intricate and organic structures. Would that also be theft?
Your final statement is problematic, particularly towards really anything else. We should be clear about unlawful uses or what I would consider inhuman uses aka uses that remove humanity from humanity and uses that are indeed creative or even beneficial for humanity.
We shouldn't just start lumping things together and assuming it's all bad like children or people lacking the mental capacity to understand reality actually isn't so simple. You're intelligent and you can get past prejudice and bigotry of a modality.