I just want to make funny Pictures.
Nearly nobody is arguing against using AI for personal fun.
People are arguing against AI destroying entire career segments without providing benefit to society, especially to those displaced. People are arguing against how it so easily misleads people, especially when used as a learning aid. People are arguing against the enormous resource usage.
Armand1@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Hey, as long as you don’t try to
not too fussed.
nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 2 months ago
Also don’t call yourself an engineer. You’re a prompt monkey.
pigup@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So because I use chatgpt for help coding data analysis scripts, I am no longer a mechanical engineer?
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 months ago
I made my avatar with AI gen. Shit’s perfect for things like that.
Still would pay a real person to make something closer to what I imagine though. I mean … if I had money that is.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.
Why not claim it’s yours? You wrote the prompt. See Pet Rocks above.
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.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Because, unlike pet rocks, AI generated art is often based on the work of real people without attribution or permission, let alone compensation.
Do you know what solidarity is? Any clue at all?
Seems like the concept is completely alien to you, so here you go:
Image
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 2 months 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.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
I didn’t know that pet rocks were made by breaking stolen statues and gluing googly eyes on them.
turtletracks@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
If your AI was trained entirely off work you had the rights to, sure. But it was not.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Why wouldn’t you though?
Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
Remember when corporations tried to claim that money you didn’t spend on their product was theft ? This way of thinking has been recycled by the anti-AI bros.
Turns out all the money you don’t spend on struggling artists is not only theft, but also class warfare. You stinking bougie you.
saltesc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Because then artists aren’t getting paid but you’re still using their art. The AI isn’t making art for you just because you typed a prompt in. It got everything it needs to do that from artists.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Because that’s a harm to society and economy.
It’s gutting entire swaths of middle-class careers, and funneling that income into the pockets of the wealthy.
If you’re a single-person startup using your own money and you can’t afford to hire someone else, sure. That’s ok until you can afford to hire someone else.
If you’re just using it for your personal hobbies and for fun, that’s probably ok
But if you’re contributing to unemployment and suppressed wages just to avoid payroll expenses, there is a guillotine with your name on it.