Fair use isn’t a loophole, it is copyright law.

As long as your AI doesn’t somehow infringe on your training data, you’re allowed to use whatever you want, just like reviewers, analysts, and indexers do.

They’re trained on technical material too.

Art isn’t work, it’s speech. It’s part of the human condition. Art is useless, said Wilde. Art is for art’s sake—that is, for beauty’s sake.

I do not make art, I just post it here on lemmy. I’d be OK with that. People freely create, copy, and iterate on memes, and they are the greatest cultural touchstones we have. First and foremost, people create because they have something to say.

People already make memes and mods for free. Humans are a social species and will continue to create and share things until the end of time. Making money off of creation is a privilege for only a tiny few.

You should read these two articles from Cory Doctorow. I think they’ll help clear up some thing for you.

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/

It was a different word when this show aired. https://youtu.be/rMoDslz0EtI

Have you read this article by Cory Doctorow yet?

Check out Civitai for Stable Diffusion models. I’m not quite sure which model they are using, but you may be able to find something on there.

Also, there’s a Stable Diffusion community at !stable_diffusion@lemmy.dbzer0.com. If you make a thread there we can help you find what model they use or something similar.

Drake is not a rapper.

The way you describe how these models work is wrong. This video does a good job of explaining how they work.

But you can still be creative if you keep every outcome, it would be very hard to prove creativity if you discard everything. The one could argue you’re creative the moment you select something.

How can it be creative to destroy outcomes? Destruction is the opposite of creativity.

I don’t think all creativity requires intentionality. Some forms of creativity are the accumulation of unintentional outcomes, like when someone sets out to copy a thing, but due to mistakes or other factors outside their control end up with something unique to what they were going for.

I was asking about creativity, not art. It’s possible for something to be creative and not be art.

How is intentionality integral to creativity?

How that preclude these models from being creative? Randomness within rules can be pretty creative. All life on earth is the result of selection on random mutations. Its output is way more structured and coherent than random noise. That’s not a good comparison at all.

Either way, generative tools are a great way for the people using to create with, no model has to be creative on its own.

What does that mean, and isn’t that still something people can employ for their creative process?