Hacker News Reader

How do you know. If I stick up an image on the internet. Its legal if I made it myself in photoshop, but illegal if it was mostly generated? But what if I just say I made it myself?

This is different to most copyright cases where all that matters is the end result, not the process.

That’s irrelevant, the argument is that copyrighted work shouldn’t be used to influence new work.

No, the argument is that humans are treated differently than hardware/software before the law.

I think we're reading different threads.

As others have already mentioned here before:

- a "style" isn't copyright-able

- Looking at how others have done art, imitating them to learn, and then combining what we learned with everything else we've seen in our life is how humans produce art. And it's the same way that stablediffusion produces art: train on data, reproduce based on what it's learned, combine everything its seen with a prompt to create something new.

But people are computers —that’s the point.