Comment on Not everything needs to be Art

• Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.

  Why not claim it’s yours? You wrote the prompt. See Pet Rocks above.

  Because, unlike pet rocks, AI generated art is often based on the work of real people without attribution or permission, let alone compensation.

  Not use it and instead hire a professional? That argument died with photography. Don’t take a photo, hire a painter!

  So what if AI art is low quality. Not every product needs to be art.

  Do you know what solidarity is? Any clue at all?

  Seems like the concept is completely alien to you, so here you go:

  Image

  source

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Do you know what solidarity is?

    Do you know what a luddite is?

    The simplest argument, supported by many painters and a section of the public, was that since photography was a mechanical device that involved physical and chemical procedures instead of human hand and spirit, it shouldn’t be considered an art form;

    …wikiversity.org/…/History_of_Photography_as_Fine…

    That a particular AI could have used copywrited work is a completely different argument than what was first stated.

    source

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Do you know what a false equivalence is? If not, just reread your own comment for a fucking perfect example.

      I’m not wasting any more time and effort trying to explain the blindingly obvious to your willfully obtuse ass. Have the day you deserve.

      source

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Insults because you have no response.

        source
  • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Copyright and intellectual property is a lie cooked up by capitalists to edge indie creators out of the market.

    True solidarity is making AI tools and freely sharing them with the world. Not all AIs are locked down by corporations.

    source

    • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Those capitalists support AI because it would allow them to further cut out all creators from the market. If you want solidarity, support artists against the AI being used to replace them.

      source

      • pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Please explain to me how open source AI allows a corporation to cut creators out of the market.

        source
  • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Solidarity with you bourgeoisie fucks is like the solidarity of the turtle with the scorpion

    source

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Yeah, nothing is more bougie than independent artists, most of whom are struggling to make ends meet even WITH a day job… 🙄

      source

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Boo-fucking-hoo they have a “day” job? Wow so do I! It’s called being working class. Newsflash you don’t get paid for hobbies, be they drawing or sleeping.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Says the person supporting capitalist corporations pushing AI as a replacement for real human artwork?

      source

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        When have I ever defended corporations, capitalism, or replacing human artwork?

        You motherfuckers are as delusional as the great replacement people.

        Boo-fucking-hoo you cannot draw for a living. For most of us it’s already true, it’s called being working class.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I agree, except you’re the one showing solidarity with the bourgeoisie.
      AI is a too of the bourgeoisie to suppress the working class

      source

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        No, it is a tool of the commons to subvert the intellectual property regime of the petit bourgeoisie artists.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Ah yes, how dare artists make $5 an hour instead of $0 while you pay a corporation a subscription fee instead. That’ll show those lazy artists that they’ve had it too good for too long.

      source

      • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I don’t pay subscription fees for anything, speak for yourself lol.

        source
• TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

  Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

  Not use it and hire a professional? If you use AI instead of an artist, you will never make anything new or compelling, AI cannot generate images without a stream of information to train off of. If we don’t have artists and replace them with AI, like dumbass investors and CEOs want, they will reach a point where it is AI training off AI and the well will be poisoned. Ai should be used simply as a tool to help with the creation of art if anything, using it to generate “new” artwork is a fundamentally doomed concept.

  source

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. Your comment is off base enough to veer into the territory of misinformation.

    source

    • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      These articles feel like they aren’t really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I’m not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.

      source

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        Copyright is being used more by companies to sue artists or even just individuals, than it is protecting your art.

        It is an archaic grasp of control created by Disney to keep people from drawing a mouse with 2 round ears.

        The help it supposedly provides you doesn’t come close to the amount of sacrifices you have to make to gain it.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        They go over that, you should give them another read.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.

  I didn’t know that pet rocks were made by breaking stolen statues and gluing googly eyes on them.

  source
• turtletracks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  If your AI was trained entirely off work you had the rights to, sure. But it was not.

  source

  • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Why is it valid for you to be trained off of art you didn’t have rights to but not for an open source program running locally on my PC?

    It would not be a copyright violation if you created a completely original super hero in the art style of Jack Kirby.

    source

    • turtletracks@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      What’s the equivalence you’re trying to make? The program itself may be open source, but the images the model’s been trained on are copywritten.

      And if you personally hand made it, sure. By nature, nothing an LLM makes is “completely original”

      source

      • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        The equivalence is that nothing human artists make is “original” either. Everyone is influenced by what they have seen.

        You are arguing that if you created a completely original comic book character in the art style of Jack Kirby, you committed a copyright violation.

        source

        • -> View More Comments