cryptiod137

It's even more funny, or sad really, given that most of these studios are paying people to promote these games, without any of the legally required disclosures of course.

Those incongruously positive opinions disappearing after a few days is totally normal and definitely not because they were only being paid for a 1 week window around the launch of the game.

They cancelled all sponsored streams a short while after launch.

Cancelled one for CohCarnage as it was starting or had just started, he immediately launches another game and doesn't look back.

Damn your right

I have met 2 people with it as middle names though

Not an app, but the Kinect had trouble with people of certain shades

I wouldn't say 4-6 people is massive

Damn now I actually wanna make a mimic character

The pits probably big enough for them

If I pick bottom left, am I the guy above or below the table?

Imitation vinilla hasn't been made that way for decades. You almost certainly never eaten anything with it in it.

Less than 250 lbs of the stuff was consumed in the US in 1987 and it's only gone down from there.

It's actually significantly more expensive than sythensized alternatives like vanillin since there is basically no commercial beaver trapping anymore.

Decades before this was something I could scare the girls in food class with, it was already not true.

Does it matter? Probably to the artist? Less to me, I've never made anything pretty.

You might be surprised if you run one of those models locally, you can definitely ask it to reproduce an individual art style.

Let's say I wanted to remake the Starry Night with an anime girl spread eagle in the foreground, the best I could is clip art. Should I commission an artist or use an AI?

Outside of the moral and ethical concerns, the difference being that the human has to use there memory, skill, and the reference material I provide, while the AI has an exact copy of Starry Night, and every single piece of art, both official and fan, saved and tagged. The AI has no "talent" so to speak, and I doubt the result would be all that much better than what I could with GIMP, while the artist does. The same ingredients, maybe even better on some levels, but one is a much better cook. So yeah I'd agree on the last point.

On the ethical or more so legal side of things, the artist took their entire life up to that point abosrbing art to reach their are style. Unless they just use clip art of someone else's work, they had to create those images for themselves. It would be impossible to track and pay every single inspiration and every single instance where they learned their technique. There is a presumption of innocence for an individual artist that they came about those inspirations fairly, as in the might have not bought a ticket to the movie because they watched it as a friends house.

But an AI model? They should know exactly where they took every it's data from. So they know exactly who's art is it, where they got it, how they got it, and when they are using. So why shouldn't those artists be compensated or at least recognized or at worst informed that their work is being used as part of an AI model?

It's actually wild how every major rights holder in the West is actively pumping out AI to the tune of hundreds of billions to avoid paying tens of millions to artists, literally the least economically valued individuals. Every one of them decided it was worth having all of there works fed into each other's dumpster fires instead of protecting there own rights first. Gonna make for some interesting copyright cases in a few years i'd wager.

Stealing from individuals to make money as opposed to stealing* from a multinational corporation to not spend money