Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’m pretty sure that artists are pissed because techbros have taken the artists’ creations without permission and used them to train computers to mimic the artists. This is bad for a host of reasons. One obvious reason is that the thieves can then use this to make money, using the artists’ work but without paying them - ever. Another reason is that since the AI can make work using the ‘style’ of an artist but without the creative direction of the artist, it devalues the style that the artist has worked to create. The new AI created work looks similar, but is not of consistent quality. Another reason is people generally think of art as a creative outlet; where someone’s thoughts and efforts go into creating something. But if the work is done effortlessly, and primarily through the lens of what the AI sees rather than what a person sees - then it just devalues art and artistic creation itself. Art creation is basically the very worst thing to automate; economically, morally, and philosophically.

    • JigglypuffSeenFromAbove@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Sometimes I think we could get to a point where nothing new is created. Like, if everyone is just using prompts and profiting from other people’s work without consent, and this is more lucrative than creating content yourself, what’s the point in creating new things?

      I don’t know how to put this without sounding alarmist, but I fear we might be heading towards a halt in creativity. Trying to come up with something fresh will become less rewarding, so we’ll be feeding from the same source material over and over again.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        It’s always been that “there is little new under the sun.” Whether it’s math, science, or the arts, the “new” is all built on what went before. It’s all just incremental and very often what was old is now new again.

        AI might be good a copying, but the desire to create and destroy is a human drive. It will remain and find a way.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          People will always want to create, but if they can’t make a living creating, that’s going to put a roadblock in their artistic development, because they won’t be able to dedicate themselves to it full time.