Human learning and computer processing millions of works are different things. I don't think any human artists have seen as many images as the developers used for training.
Looking at real things while living life is categorically different from viewing millions of artworks made by other artists. I can guarantee you that no artist has ever seen millions of artworks. This comment is not even bad-faith, it's just wrong.
Are you telling me artists never get inspired by something they saw living their life? Only allowed to be inspired when specifically looking at other art?
You must not have responded to the right comment, because your comment is completely irrelevant to mine, as anyone with eyes and basic reading comprehension can see that I never said anything like that.
You're factually incorrect, then. Objectively, those things are different, along every single relevant axis - from the psychological, artistic, moral, economic, and legal perspectives.
The vast majority of humans (>99.99999%) can tell that those things are different. The fact that you can't should be somewhat concerning.
> The fact that you don't understand that humans absorb a lot of knowledge just by existing
That's clearly not what I said, or what you claimed. You claimed that looking at real things while living life is the same thing as viewing millions of artificial images made by humans:
>> Looking at real things while living life is categorically different from viewing millions of artworks made by other artists
> I don't see a difference.
You're now actively lying about your claims (and mine) and it's clear that you aren't interested in actually debating your point, just performative statements.
I'm not going to debate this further, just going to call out your lies and fallacies for the record.
It's pretty interesting that everyone I've talked to who wants to steal the work of tens/hundreds of thousands of artists to train ML on resorts to lying and clinically insane statements to try to justify their beliefs.
