His style has been requested over 400,000 times, even surpassing legends like Picasso and Da Vinci—all without his consent.

Greg Rutkowski, a digital artist known for his surreal style, opposes AI art but his name and style have been frequently used by AI art generators without his consent. In response, Stable Diffusion removed his work from their dataset in version 2.0. However, the community has now created a tool to emulate Rutkowski’s style against his wishes using a LoRA model. While some argue this is unethical, others justify it since Rutkowski’s art has already been widely used in Stable Diffusion 1.5. The debate highlights the blurry line between innovation and infringement in the emerging field of AI art.

  • zeus ⁧ ⁧ ∽↯∼@lemm.eeEnglish
    2·
    1 year ago

    You’re using an analogy as the basis for an argument. That’s not what analogies are for. Analogies are useful explanatory tools, but only within a limited domain

    actually that’s exactly what i was using it for.

    Kicking a baby is not the same[1] as creating an artwork, so there are areas in which they don’t map to each other.

    if you read carefully, you’ll see that writing is analogous to creating an artwork, and kicking a baby is analogous to doing something that someone has asked you not to, and you’re continuing anyways. if you read even more carefully, you’ll see that i implied i wasn’t making a moral comment on ai, piracy, or even kicking babies

    You can’t dodge flaws in your argument by adding a “don’t respond unless you agree with me” clause on your comment.

    i didn’t intend to. i did it so i wouldn’t have to waste my time arguing with those who don’t understand analogies. however i seem to be doing that anyways, so if you’ll excuse me, i’m going to stop

    edit: okay, i’ve been reading the rest of this thread, and you clearly don’t understand analogy. i have no idea why you clicked on my comment

    1. yes. analogous doesn’t mean “the same”. it means "able to draw demonstrative parallels between ↩︎