If there was a just and benevolent God, people like Musk and Trump would have been working some thankless minimum-wage jobs their whole lives rather than being among the most powerful people on the planet.

As for this "A.I. art" bullshit, it's just plagiarism on a mass scale. It's not an homage. It's not "inspired" by something else. It's tracing with extra steps. The computer just takes a bunch of assets without permission, smashes them all together, and regurgitates an amalgamation of all those stolen assets based on the parameters somebody types into a prompt. It's a soulless machine lacking all sentience, just following a program. It has no capacity to think abstractly, much less know what things like art or creativity even are in the first place. Whatever these "A.I.s" spit out shouldn't be subject to any legal protection. Even if we're generous enough to call "A.I. art" derivative works rather than just straight-up theft, those aren't subject to copyright either, regardless of whether the source material itself is still under copyright or is in the public domain.

I agree but it's in it's infancy. I like the Robots answer in IRobot to the question.

Most can't they can do one or the other, there has been very few Divinci's, true AGI/ASI will be able to do it all and if you are creatively minded you will recognise that, regardless wheter you want to admit it or not (some can't), you are doing nothing more complex than what these machines are doing, you're just doing it with billion year old hardware in a manner than you can't see over the course of your life but when you engage in something creatively and you have an introspective mind, you will notice that the process is very much the same, all built off of the previous step allowing for some skips in the process in-between and like you said just an amalgamation. Great artists steal is about the truest thing that can be said for art. 

There is exceptions to this, modern art whoch throws out the whole creative process in favour to try and get around the fact that we are this way but that's another story. 

AI produced assets aren't copyrightable in the U.S (and I believe most other western countries.) So it really isn't much of an argument at this point. That's already been decided by the courts. 

https://www.reuters.com/legal/ai-generated-art-cannot-receive-copyrights-us-court-says-2023-08-21/

Some countries, like Japan, are a lot more permissive though. 

https://www.privacyworld.blog/2024/03/japans-new-draft-guidelines-on-ai-and-copyright-is-it-really-ok-to-train-ai-using-pirated-materials/

I will say what is happening technically isn't quite what you described. There really isn't some algorithm that manually stitches together different specific data of the training set nor is there a database that stores these images. It's not an automated collage-building tool "following a program." What is happening, simply, is that a mathematical function with billions of parameters (think of parameters like dials) is created through learning how to transform noise into different images by being trained on labeled image data that is made into noise. Then one is able to use this function with text inputs and get an image output, because it has learned how to reverse that noising into representations described by that text input. What is learned in this mathematical function, the "features" we call it, are aspects of images that make something "dog-like", "human-like", or "monet-style", etc., etc. As you make the image nosier different features of the image are extracted based on their specificity/generality because the noise can hide levels of detail and allow for different features to predominate. And it is from this that the model "learns" what the essential qualities of say a bird is, at multiple levels of detail, like the example below. 

Having said that diffusion-models can learn the training sets quite well to the point that they can reproduce specific images (with some loss.) This is more likely if they are trained poorly with poor training sets, and is a behavior model engineers want to reduce.  

It is unlikely that this is going to be the state of the art method in 5-10 years though. We'll likely have models that are actually doing something much more akin to what humans do by then. Right now the models are more like our (or probably better, a Mantis shrimp's) eyes, storing visual information into a part of the nervous system and being able to reproduce it from a sort of memory when triggered with the text or image input. In the future, there will be something more "intentional" behind the reproductions. 

Edit: I would also like to point out that long before they were used for generative image modeling, these models were used for image-segmentation in medical applications. It just happens that when a model is good at being able to label parts of an image, it also is very good at reconstructing the image if you reverse the steps (and change the architecture a bit.) The distinction between classifiers and generators that is common in the lay-population isn't as strong in actual A.I research because classifiers can easily be made into generators with a trivial amount of effort. By making better classifiers we are making better generators. 

Yes dude, liking Nazis and using a product that involved children in mines somewhere in its chain of production is absolutely 100% the same thing. With such a brilliant logic, I bet next thing you're gonna say is that liking Nazis is actually not a bad thing at all...

I mean, you clearly like at least one, so you don't even have to say it out loud.

I mean, can we really have a thread about US's future minister of whatever the heck and not make it political?

You throw around the word Nazi like it means nothing. Maxi's in your opinion aren't Nazis. 

I mean you're the one that chooses to, not me. I chose to focus on the AI aspect and other solutions that don't involve AI, as well as the legality of him even being able to do this in the first place (since he is taking up a Gov job, which means you should not be allowed to create studios/manage them when you are operating within the gov).

I feel like it's making excuses to toss around those two terms, because it feels vindicating for some people, when it doesn't really make logical sense to the topic at hand. This is also a gaming thread, not the irl politics thread.

Also I really need to stress the part about ppl in here godwinning themselves. I dislike Musk and think he's quite the idiot, but I'm not going to Godwin myself and cite him as a "Nazi/Hitler".

I don't think there's any legal issues with Musk making whatever he wants. He doesn't have an actual government position he has a consulting job basically. Besides even the president doesn't let go of his businesses so I don't see why someone in government couldn't make a game studio. Not as though those are particularly government related. 

If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis. " - Dr. Jens Foell

When you enable evil you become evil.

Dogs have no self-conscious of society. And this is like the 900th time you have tried to defend siding with Trump/Musk and  with dogs.