Would you object the idea of CBU3 using Ai voice to voice player character?

[LordMcMutton]

I don't see support for the claim that generative AI entails theft. Not even Andreessen Horowitz makes the claim that AI development is impossible without free access to copyrighted material.

"Andreessen Horowitz is warning that billions of dollars in AI investments could be worth a lot less if companies developing the technology are forced to pay for the copyrighted data that makes it work."

I'm not sure what else you could glean from the fact that they're using copyrighted material without paying for it. (That's theft)

That's also just the only thing I happened to have on hand- I'm tired of wasting my time searching up sources for people that won't listen.

Other evidence is the fact that these systems can replicate specific people's art styles- the way they work means that can only be done by feeding them files of that specific person's artwork, which is using their work in a way they do not permit, which. Is. Theft.

https://www.fairlytrained.org/blog/n...odels-march-24

If it can be done, that's fine. What we have now is absolutely not.

You need to learn how to communicate without insulting others

I most certainly do not when my opponents' position entails support for mass theft and the destruction of my discipline.

In situations where it's merely a difference of opinion on something benign, then I do

You keep yelling that learning from others like a human is incorrect, then provide no evidence on why, other than a tweet by some artists who's public against AI. It's a fact that humans learn through trial and error iteration, just like AI. It's also a fact that human art students are taught to mimic other people's styles repeatedly, then they are taught to fuse styles together.

And the only evidence you have to say that they do is your own word, and the word of a bunch of idiots that zealously support "ai" garbage, so I'm not sure what point you think you're making here.

Additionally, I'd say they're far more qualified to speak on the matter than you are.

You say I have no idea how any of this functions, I studied as an artist for years, I went into the games industry for years and then left because most of the industry is incredibly toxic and pays poorly. I have a pretty good understanding of the industry and tools. An AI sampling your style is not theft any more that me sampling someone's style. You're basically against it because, machine, That's your only argument.

And? The fact that you spent all of that time in the field and still don't understand how this works is an indictment of yourself, not an argument for generative "ai" art theft.

[blah blah blah] sound similar to anything else..... kinda exactly how generative AI works.

Nope. For the reasons that have already been explained to you.

The only issue that's really there with Gen AI, is people trying to pass off Gen AI work as their own and asking for money for it. That's a tricky territory. As in, when you use Gen AI to make yourself a bunch of different version of something, you then work from that, tweaking and adapting it manually from there. Well is that the AI's work or yours now? That's a genuine question and something that needs to be discussed in law and industry.

It's always the system's work- you just 'commissioned' it.

No matter what additions you make, it's built off of stolen work.

End of story.