• Xanthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

      • vonbaronhans@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          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.