Also damn, so many personal attacks, it is crazy.

So, it seems there's a bit of controversy going around on X at the moment, the DOJ (Department of Justice) essentially sided with OpenAI to state that training off copyrighted (New York Times) materials doesn't count as copyright infringement as it was classified as being "extraordinarily transformative".

Link

To directly quote:

"In sum, the use of copies to train LLMs is extraordinarily transformative."

"But consistent with the national interest in promoting innovation and free expression, the “training of AI models on copyrighted material,” in and of itself, “does not violate copyright laws."

However, this is nothing new, remember the Getty Vs Stability case with Mrs Justice Johanna Smith of the high court of England? Which essentially ruled the same thing. LINK (Page 165)

To directly quote:

"While it is true that the model weights are altered during training by exposure to Copyright Works, by the end of that process the Model itself does not store any of those Copyright Works; the model weights are not themselves an infringing copy and they do not store an infringing copy. They are purely the product of the patterns and features which they have learnt over time during the training process."

Now as you'd expect, people are taking it very well.

I believe it's pretty substantial now to say from the backing of both the DOJ and High Court of England that AI does not in fact "steal" when training, as I've always been adamant about and known.

Despite how much some may disagree.

But to remind people, this is sheerly for the training aspect, not the storage of content in datasets which is a different thing entirely.

91% upvote ratio by the way, people are clearly mad. 😂

I don’t precisely like her, neither precisely hate her. I’m not completely against AI but neither I completely support it. Say, I stand a middle ground.

And I will leave a bit of my opinion: I don’t hate AI art despite everything, but I just can’t see what’s amusing about it. Still, i’m not saying it’s slop, but a machine just never will have the tiny mistakes of a human hand and the brain behind it.

Hope y’all like it :)

Let’s be honest for a second: the online crusade against generative AI was never really a high-minded philosophical debate about the sanctity of human art.

High-tier studio veterans, art directors, and commercial production leads aren't spending 14 hours a day doomposting on Twitter — they are either already quietly integrating these tools into their pipelines or adapting their workflows.

The loudest moral outrage comes from a very specific, fragile niche: the micro-commission economy.
It’s the mid-to-entry-level ecosystem of $50 D&D character portraits, anime fanart, furry OCs, webcomics, and $30 bedroom "type-beats."

Strip away the pseudo-philosophical veneer, and this isn't about ethics. It's about cold, hard economics:

1. The Collapse of the Technical Moat
   For decades, basic motor skill (knowing how to blend in Procreate, draw anatomy from reference, or mix an 808) served as a practical barrier to entry. Casual clients didn't wait three weeks and pay $80 because they deeply venerated the "human struggle" — they paid because they physically lacked the manual interface to get the image out of their head. They had no other option.

2. Decoupling Intent from Mechanical Labor
   Generative models decoupled creative direction from manual rendering. Generating pixels and audio frequencies is rapidly becoming a commodity with near-zero marginal cost. Suddenly, an everyday person can direct and realize their concept in minutes without paying a toll to a gatekeeper.

3. The "Theft" Scapegoat vs. Reality
   Notice how the narrative laser-focuses on "theft" and "scraping"? It’s a convenient legal proxy to mask the real panic. Even if an AI model were trained purely on 100% ethically sourced, public-domain art, the outrage would remain virtually identical. Why? Because the outcome is the same: their skill set is no longer scarce.

4. The Bursting of the Entitlement Bubble
   An entire subculture built its identity on the belief that learning the mechanical skill of rendering guaranteed an automatic, lifelong exemption from "normal jobs" and granted moral superiority as a "creator." AI didn't destroy art, it popped the illusion that manual execution alone entitles anyone to a permanent, rent-seeking monopoly.

The bottom line:
Nobody broke into your house and stole your pencils, your Cintiq, or your DAW. You can still sketch, paint, and compose to your heart's content.

What died isn’t "human creativity" - it’s the entitlement to monetize basic technical execution in a world where execution is no longer scarce. Portrait painters survived the camera, scribes survived the printing press, and session players survived the synthesizer.

Art isn't dying. The tollbooth just got bypassed.

Found this strange sticker. Your mind only goes soft if you fully outsource your thinking which I don’t. Making art for fun doesn’t make my mind soft. Especially when I come up with the ideas, plan out how I want the design to look and then edit the images since ai images can be wonky at times.

I'm not even sure if this is worth posting since this scenario probably didn't even really happen. It's just... you clearly think you like this person because you searched for a mug they liked, and then you proceeded to act like they insulted you just because they asked you a question. I guess McDonalds is evil for asking me what I wanted to drink. After seeing this post, the answer is vodka.

Like, oh my god, the amount of people who actually think it's making games look like slop and shit, is insane. I just can't. Some people just, won't listen to folks who actually know what it is.

My gosh! I can't believe the nerve of some people, that won't listen. It's not worth it, but I tried, and I left.

To Add On: It's also misunderstood, and all the examples of it looking bad are done on purpose. Mind you, this version of DLSS 5 was from an early build of NBA 2K27, and the examples that I found often change the settlings to make it look awful on purpose, and that's what they're using to attack it.

It makes no sense

"You photographed this? That took no effort. You just angled a device and clicked a button. You're not a REAL artist."

"You painted this? I bet you didn't make those pigments yourself you freeloader."

🙄

Back in the day before AI art was all about drawing nicely and doing things by the book. But now once a program manages to perfect the book, they get mad and cry about the "lack of soul" or "no human ass cheeks touched this art!" The funniest thing is that these luddites would've praised the image if you hadn't told them it was AI generated.

Seriously it's just a bunch of luddites with a pen up their ass who want to hold technological advancement down because the technology is replacing them. I understand that one day every/most jobs will be replaced by AI+robotics, but fighting against the inevitable is dumbest thing imaginable.

At least they could've tried to plan for a new system or question who owns/benefits from the technology instead of going full cave-brained luddite mode.

I think it's so crazy that you simply can't share a.I generated art! Like what is the big deal if I create a concept I'd like to see of young goth storm from X-Men in the next X-Men film? But because I used a.i it MUST be removed. But if I drew two stick figures with a skirt it would be okay. 🫩

Someone posted about an ai toothbrush that sprays into gaps in your teeth/has a camera, and the idiots are rambling they’re putting robots in their mouth.

A sensor and camera nor software are AI or an LLM. Machine learning/basic pattern matching is not AI