It's because of money being potentially taken from their political faction. Straight up.
Bullshit, many lolcows documented on this website are within tech, if not programming, and are staunchly left-wing. There is a reason why programming socks became an unironic thing.
His argument that it's "normalizing corporate control over human creativity" is just funny to me. Where does he think he's posting his art? Where does he think the majority of his commissioners are finding said art? He's got his own website, sure, but what about the programs he uses to make art, or if traditional, the tools and products he buys in order to bring it out of his mind and into creation? It's all corporations. Art was the purview of nobility who became patrons of artists in the Renaissance, and then it became more available to everyone when industrial production by corporations allowed kids to pick up crayons, rather than only select prodigies being sent off for tutelage under masters. These LLMs have no more "control" over intrinsic human creativity than a factory in Hong Kong manufacturing cheap paint brushes does.
The macro/centaur/transformation and hyper spheres can't be replicated effectively using LORAs. Particularly character sequences or scenes or scenarios involving more than one character. Given those are the most "vanilla" fetishes in the fandom, even mid furry artists will have no issues with adapting if they actually want to make money.
Holy shit, I didn't even see this.
It’s faggots like this that deserves to be replaced by AI fags themselves. Selfish piece of shit.
Nightshade has made its way across a couple of my chats. Few key takeaways:
Oh no so awful. I wonder how many of these artists complaining about ai trace or plagiarize other peoples art?
it is an odd double standard that exists.
Developers choose themselves to work on projects and release them free and open-source, nobody's forcing them.
The only hope I see with this is the fact it is open source. Say what you want about programs like this but adversarial AI tools are going to be important along side development of AI.
Most open-source licenses need credit, and the concerns were that AI can repeat big snippets of code without crediting, due to the low-dimensional, restricted nature of code.
Programmers probably won't be affected too terribly much, considering the core of programming is made out of programs that turn abstract representations into more concrete executable code, I.E. what the AI does without the AI. Boilerplate is best dealt with by making it unnecessary as part of the language, and generating programs completely from English text will always be at least somewhat inconsistent and thus will need a human to audit it. Programming is also nightmarishly logical, and current AI sucks at everything that isn't fuzzy pattern matching and heuristic guessing.
When there's literally only one way to express an idea, the doctrine of merger makes it effectively uncopyrightable. It's a pretty limited doctrine, though, so that's probably a real issue.
I actually don't think they're that stupid.
