Prandom_returns

Missed a comma before 'man', since you're kind of addressing. Now you're just swearing man.

No u LMAO 😂😂😂💀💀💀🤣🤣🤣🤣

"Full-self driving next year"

There are too many things to reply to, I'll try to tackle the main one, "getting the message across".

So the original artist made the Trump's face. It was not a slip of a hand, nor it was a hallucination. The artist intended you to understand that Trump is oblivious to the situation / acting childish. This part of the compound message is GONE in the copy, as Trump's face is gereted completely serious. You cannot say "small detail", or "doesn't matter", because it's not up to you. If it was small/unimportant, the artist would have left it out.

Same with the eyes. It's a part of compound message, that has been left out.

There is a HUGE difference between the person A and B, as looking straight into the "camera" and smiling with your eyes open, makes you look sinister, evil, as if you are mocking and intimidating.

B is just a person with a plane having fun. The whole other part of thr message is gone.

Sorry, I cannot continue, if you can't pick up up subtleties, I cannot teach you to do interpretation.

Main rule(s) in the first pinned post: https://lemmy.world/post/14554426

This post is literally about plagiarism in its definition. So to answer your question - yes, it is you who are misunderstanding.

This is Fuck AI, may I remind you. We do not celebrate that someone has generated a "good enough" copy of an original artwork, but rather discuss the sloppiness of said copies and the sheer audacity of creating such blatant copies, in attempt to pass as original work.

If you choose to purposefully ignore my arguments regarding the missing subtelties and still prefer the, to quote you, "cheap copy", I have nothing to say to you besides maybe a suggestion to read the rules of "Fuck AI", because it pretty much aligns with the usual "AI" booster rethoric, where slop is always "good enough" and "better than the artist if you ignore this this and that".

It's a shitty, sloppy copy of an original artwork, and I gave you arguments why it is a shitty sloppy copy. If you prefer shitty copies of original artwork, you clearly don't care about art itself, nor the artist, so I don't see any point in discussing it with you.

Because it seems that you're just happy that statistical engines can generate sloppy copies of original artwork. Making/Selling knock-offs is a business and people have been doing it long before the emergence of statistical engines. I just don't want anything to do with it, nor do I care about people who do.

Well, on the original, you can see the the date on the side, and it's based on pretty topical current event. I don't know why would it be from years before?

The subtle nuances mentioned in my first reply, that were not included in the gen'd one.

And, as mentioned, of course you understand the message, it's a copy. One wouldn't exist without the other. One would (and did) exist without the other. I don't know if you want me to explain what plagiarism is?

I'm sorry to tell you this, but your view is incorrect.

1. It is not a "style". The statistical engine has no creative intent. You cannot have a style without intention. An absence of style is not a style.

2. It clearly does not get the message across that was intended by the original artist, since it lacks key elements mentioned in my previous reply. It gets 'a message' across, but it's dumbed down and lacks subtlety, as the slop often does..

3. I'm sure you clearly understood the message of the original artwork, and you didn't need the gen one to somehow explain it? If not, I have bad news for you...

1. It's a knock-off copy of an original idea
2. The copy missed an important detail, clearly intended by the original artist: Trump's face. In the original artwork Trump is pictured as oblivious to the situation, making the plane noises, acting childish. In the statistical engine generated image, no such emotion is depicted.
3. A few important details, actually. In the original the Qatari is looking straight at the "camera", in a kind of "see this?" way.
4. Sloppy gen artifacts everywhere

A statistical engine "knows" nothing.
Just like you know nothing about caricatures.

There it is.

From the perspective of a person from this very industry - the examples are at a level of a 10-yo. And the execution is absolutely terrible, even not conisdering it's from ILM.

Might look like any other "CGI" to people from outside the industry, but it absolutely is slop.

The number, of course, is grossly inflated, since the statistical engines are now embedded in virtually everything, and it's really difficult to even avoid them.

I.e. If you type something in google, and there's an AI summary at the top, it 100% counts that as an 'active use'.

The person in the article needs professional help, please don't propagate anecdotal sob stories (that may or may not be false) on "Fuck AI". "Fuck" in "Fuck AI" is not what you think it means.