The art and images that image AI's are based off of, are stolen. They diffuse them as a legal loop hole. That's the main issue. I want to see AI pushed forward, but not when they're scraping data and not crediting artists. The amount of data required for an image AI is crazy; we have to figure out a way of legally and respectfully requiring that data.

Text AI's are marginally better, because a lot of the data acquired was opt in. It was just people talking. There is the issue with them ripping books, though.

[+] I_Has_A_Hat@startrek.website -9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It does make it different by virtue of sheer scale and efficiency.

A single human artist, no matter how good and fast they are, could ever singlehandedly damage the livelihoods of millions of other human artists. But a machine can. That's a meaningful distinction.

Granted, your point is valid in its purest sense. If we lived in a world where everyone could benefit from AI art without the real-world downsides, I'd agree with you, full stop. But we do, and those ramifications matter.

[–] ferralcat@monyet.cc 5 points 10 months ago

I think basically every industry has been dealing with automation for 100 years now. Art is only unique (imo) in that they've been avoiding it for awhile. That's why I only ride in vehicles where every part is hand made and assembled.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago

We're far past the era of cottage industries. We live in a world that exists because of automation. Be angry at the game (capitalism), not the players.