I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.

while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?

  • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    361·
    8 days ago

    AI feels like a Lovecraftian horror to me. It’s trying to look authentic, but it’s wrong on a fundemental level. Nothing’s the right shape, nothing’s the right texture, nothing’s consistent, nothing belongs together… But somehow, nobody else has noticed what should be blatantly obvious! And when you try to point it out, you get a hivemind responding that it’s good actually, and you’re just a luddite.

    But let’s assume AI stops being awful in a technical sense. It’s still awful in a moral sense.

    Artists are poor. That’s a well known sentiment you see a lot and, given how many times I see commission postings, it’s pretty accurate. That artist needs to work to live, and that work is creating art.

    AI is deliberately depriving these artists of work in order to give the AI’s owner a quick, low quality substitute. In some cases, it will copy an artist’s style, so you’re deliberately targetting a specific artist because they’re good at their job. And it’s using the artist’s work in order to replace them.