Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
view the rest of the comments
Those regular people aren't here. And If they were what would you want them to see? People arguing over "stealing" and "copyright", completely sidestepping the actual point of the conversation like Mystic was. Or people warning each other over using corporate models and replacing artists.
From now on whenever I make something AI related I'm going to say "Don't use corporate AI. Hire actual artists." As the first line to combat this. Because, as I hope you've seen, arguing on whether or not this is stealing will simply go nowhere.
These models exist, and normal people will see generated content as every other platform is full of it. Allow this one space to be about doing image generation right: "No destroying the planet or replacing humans".
As with consent. I think training falls under fair use. You aren't going to be able to get an exact replica from a model anyway so any output I consider transformative, similarly to how a human brain transforms content (although obviously the internals completely different). For me the argument that you need consent to train a model is the same as arguing you need consent to train yourself, or cover a song, or trace over an image. Yes the transformation is mechanical, but if a human was doing all those calculations by hand it would be considered art, and no-one would question if they had the right.
Slight tangent as you mentioned music. I actually like generated music. Like the sound of it. It's got the vibe of melting a bunch of different songs together to make something completely unoriginal but still different. Real music is obviously superior in every way, but when you want something like that one song that's unlike any other and you just wish it were longer, that's what generated music is for. It can't replace any actual musician but it can provide an interesting listening experience... For like an hour at a time before it becomes grating.
But the point I want to make is that generated music does not sound like music. It's something different. So arguing that it's somehow plagiarising just seems silly to me. The model transformed it. It's not the same, audibly.