I think "plagiarism" refers to taking credit for the work of others. Using other people's work to make your own isn't "plagiarism" if you give credit. This doesn't mean AI is good, just that "plagiarism" isn't the correct word.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

How many songs credit every sample and loop?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

What I said was

[It] isn't "plagiarism" if you give credit.

This is different from saying "If you don't give credit, it's plagiarism."

Put another way: it is sufficient for something to not be plagiarism if all materials are credited, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything that doesn't do that is plagiarism per-se. It is beyond the scope of my musings to reckon the minimum requirement of non-accreditation for something to qualify as "plagiarism".

[–] arken 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

AI plagiarism is on an industrial scale, comparing it with artists borrowing elements from other artists or making pastiches is disingenuous. Open plagiarism has always been frowned upon in art.

[+] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] arken 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Sampling is sampling, it's very different from plagiarism.

Just because you can't trace what elements have been cobbled together to make the image does not mean it wasn't stolen without the artist's explicit consent. (And I'm not talking strictly legal, "click the box to accept our terms and conditions" consent here.)

Your third paragraph is just irrelevant to the ethical question here - and a tiresome and illogical argument. "Some people in the past were wrong about some new technology, so everyone critical of some aspect of a new technology is obviously wrong". But I'm not taking the Luddite stance, in this particular argument at least, so it's not a relevant criticism anyway.