Technology

60123 readers

2669 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

375

Redditors Vent and Complain When People Mock Their "AI Art" (futurism.com)

submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

218 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists' permission. And that's without getting into AI's negative drag on the environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

The people “obsessed” with it are, by and large, independent and industry artists

I'm not sure that's true unless Lemmy has an incredibly strange community of whom a significant proportion are tech focused professional artists. But regardless the point I'm making is more about the mindset where people become vociferous defenders of an unjust system that benefits large corporations because they are fighting for the few scraps that they get out of it, rather than considering alternatives.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I get my impressions from outside Lemmy as well, mostly sites with a large concentration of artists (ArtStation, Tumblr, DeviantArt) and personal friends who work in the industry. I also moonlight as an artist, though not yet good enough to worry about losing income from it.

Also, what is the unjust system you're referencing? People aren't advocating for Disney level copyright protection, but these are living artists with brand new works being collected for training with no say in the matter. Most certainly they are not on the same side as corporations, which are embracing AI art wholeheartedly despite the disputed status of copyright laws surrounding it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

People aren’t advocating for Disney level copyright protection

No they aren't, they are arguing for making copyright even stronger than the system created by Disney, where not even distributing copies of a work lands you falling foul of the rights of property holders.

Generally the position that I've seen being advocated is taking copyrighted works, distilling that information (the plagiarism machine etc) and then using that to create new works would be violating the property rights of people who made the original works, despite a copy of them never being distributed. That is a massive expansion of IP rights that you not only have rights to the original work but also to derivative works.

Most certainly they are not on the same side as corporations, which are embracing AI art wholeheartedly despite the disputed status of copyright laws surrounding it.

"Corporations" are not a monolith on this, what Disney or a publishing house wants is not aligned with what an upstart AI company wants. Which means that change from the property holder centric system is possible for the first time in a century or more as there are powerful interests lining up both for and against it rather than being puerly on the side of the status quo.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago

No they aren't, they are arguing for making copyright even stronger than the system created by Disney, where not even distributing copies of a work lands you falling foul of the rights of property holders.

Charging for those copies in a competing market is definitely against current copyright law, and many the owners of the models are charging for access while some users are selling the results. Obviously this is new territory legally, but an argument can be made that these do not fall under fair use.

"Corporations" are not a monolith on this, what Disney or a publishing house wants is not aligned with what an upstart AI company wants.

Where do their desires differ?