this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2026
93 points (97.0% liked)

PC Gaming

14820 readers
544 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 56 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (2 children)

Every single generative model in existence was produced by stealing the work of artists for training data.

There is no nuance to this. Never mind the argument about generative AI taking away potential future work from artists. The training of these models is theft now. To use these models is to be complicit in the theft.


Edit: the people who downvote this while making no counterargument are doing so because they wish to remain in denial, so that they do not have to admit to themselves that they are complicit in the theft.

[โ€“] victorz@lemmy.world 12 points 21 hours ago

That edit: yuuup ๐ŸŽฏ

[โ€“] iamthetot@piefed.ca 2 points 16 hours ago

Not to mention the amount of water and compute required to generate those temporary assets. Meaning they are complicit in killing the planet for something they don't even intend to continue using.