I was using tracing as a metaphor for stealing their art without permission and using it as a weight in training data, and I said paid to do it as in these companies get massive returns off stealing the ai art. Even locally generated, the scraping was still content stolen without permission.
All artists copy, iterate or regurgitate existing work. What does pay have to do with anything? It's clearly not a deciding factor for anti ai critics; the original post doesn't mention payment at all.
I mean not wrong but not fully correct either. AI is generating specifically from the dataset it has. I would say the way AI neurons work is similar to humans, but the AIs data is literally just images and words. That is like 30% of what a human will experience, and they are limited to specifically what their dataset contains. It is incapable of generating outside that dataset. A human is also incapable of generating outside their dataset, but a human is not restricted in their dataset to experiences and things that have already happened, and the experiences are not reflected in just words and images. AI images also tend to average their dataset, so the images end up more generic on average.
Categorically false for art. Ai output quality does get worse when you inbreed it on facts or data based in the real world. The only thing it's really truly good at is hallucinating, which is a fine way of making art because the quality is entirely subjective.
Do you have a source for that? Everything I've read has said the opposite, such as https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.12202
I absolutely agree with things like using it for inspiration or helping create an open source project, but I'm weighing the cost benefit for art and it seems like the long-term is negative for artists and consumers both, even if I might not care in the short term.