Appling your political beliefs led to 60% child poverty. Explain that.

More than having 60% child poverty? Doubtful.

I don’t see how this is any different from adding another e-mail account on gmail.

I’m curious. How do you train such AI without being raided by the authorities?

You’re putting too much importance into this matter. If this is distressing you should let it go and think about something else.

Dude, chill. Even if you’re right, having a meltdown on github doesn’t help anybody. Go outside and take a breath.

What I’d really like to have is a tool that lists blocked communities. That information is not as public as defederated instances.

It works for me.

I suspect with a creative enough prompt you will likely be able to claim copyright and author ship over the works.

It seems that’s not the case, no matter how much effort or time you expend on the prompts. This is from the Copyright Office:

The Office does not question Ms. Kashtanova’s contention that she expended significant time and effort working with Midjourney. But that effort does not make her the “author” of Midjourney images under copyright law. Courts have rejected the argument that “sweat of the brow” can be a basis for copyright protection in otherwise unprotectable material.18 The Office “will not consider the amount of time, effort, or expense required to create the work” because they “have no bearing on whether a work possesses the minimum creative spark required by the Copyright Act and the Constitution.”

Here’s another key factor:

Because of the significant distance between what a user may direct Midjourney to create and the visual material Midjourney actually produces, Midjourney users lack sufficient control over generated images to be treated as the “master mind” behind them. The fact that Midjourney’s specific output cannot be predicted by users makes Midjourney different for copyright purposes than other tools used by artists.

This only applies to an image generated with AI prompts that isn’t significantly altered by an artist.

Autonomously AI generated art cannot be copyrighted.

If you generate something with AI and claim you created it yourself you can easily be asked to reproduce a similar works again.

Asked by whom exactly? The Copyright Office? Are they going to ask for prove from every artist that requests registration for a work?

If you say you did use AI you should be able to show how much effort you are putting into creating the images

Or you can lie in your request. From the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices:

“As a general rule, the U.S. Copyright Office accepts the facts stated in the registration materials, unless they are contradicted by information provided elsewhere in the registration materials or in the Office’s records.”

In practical terms? If you are going to generate content using AI either don’t say it was AI generated or lie about how much human involvement it had. Also you can’t use “this work was completely made by AI” as a hook.

That latter case likely wont be copyrightable

It is if you don’t say it’s AI generated or you lie about how much human input it required which would be impossible to prove false.

they generate from stealing the work of thousands of human artists.

Has this been litigated yet?

because since some diffusion generation are deterministic

You are generalizing and using the word “some” at the same time.

With the shit some governments pulled during the first rounds of vaccination you can’t blame people for being skeptical.

What would be a solution to this conflict?

If you get caught we’ve never met.

Guess it’s time for another FPS hit…

Is it August already? Man, time flies.

It’s hard to find a name because nowadays people often use terms like ‘bigotry’, ‘hate speech’ and ‘bad faith’ to refer to anything they don’t like so they can shut down discussions.