LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s legitimate to question why we would want to replace human artistry with AI. Somebody might have asked the same question about replacing hand tools with power tools - I wouldn’t be a longtime woodworker if all I had to work with was hand tools. The work would be far too time consuming and the learning curve much too high. Or ask content creators who are able to get their ideas in front of the public without learning HTML, CSS or Javascript. Enabling millions of people to jump traditional entry barriers is a good thing, even if it means we no longer look at the creative process as being reserved for people with natural talent or years of training. TBH you might as well object to Bob Ross teaching people easier ways to paint, or to people who teach breadbaking on YouTube - it turns out bread is dead simple btw, you should try it.
But more to the point, the genie is out of the bottle, and no amount of objection is going to stuff it back in.
spujb@lemmy.cafe 2 weeks ago
False :( look how bad Google search has gotten, overrun by AI blogposts and advertising slop. Enabling millions of people to jump traditional entry barriers dilutes the hard, real, work that people do.
We regulated the assembly line and gave laborers compensation and safety rights when power tools increased their capacity. So too, we could force OpenAI et al to compensate the copyright holders from whom they scraped data. No one is calling for the genie to got back in, only for the capitalists to stop being the ones with all the wishes.
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Fuck expanding copyright’s power in any way. Effort better spent on making AI content illegal to sell or another way of ending corporate profit off of it