You must log in or # to comment.
digital art became worthless in the early 00s
No and the hyperbole around this gives AI authority that it does not deserve. I love art, and one of the things that has peeved me off in the last 10-15 years is how many times I have stood in a gallery and all around me are people with a phone out snapping a pic to say I have been there.
There is only one of that item. One, and in real life if you take the time to view, you can appreciate the delicate lines, the brush strokes, the variation of colour and technique, the grain of the canvas that have stood the test of centuries, and you can marvel that it was once held by its creator. It has the ability to stir something inside you.
Pure art still holds. as another posted alluded digital art is where it changed. It is nothing more than endless reproduction, I am not criticising digital art, it is a movement, and and employer but with it you lose uniqueness and compromise authenticity. It’s hard to hear but its the nature of the format. AI is just another form of mass production and I would argue a graduation of the movement.
In short, anyone who thinks this needs to step inside a gallery and assess if AI content can achieve and hold credence.
No. They’re giving AI too much credit this way.
Depends. Are they still making negative money with it? If so, then I’m gonna say no.
It’s kind of like robbing a bank, killing everyone inside, then running out without taking anything, dropping your wallet in the process
So, something is only theft if it is profitable?
That’s a wonderfully liberating new definition.
The whole business model of tech startups is to lose money until you cornered the market and make unfathomable amounts of money. By the time you realize „well shit, it really was the biggest heist in history“ it‘s already too late. They are too powerful to be punished for it. So this definition of yours plays right into their cards. The only saving grace here is that AI will never be profitable. But people said the same thing about Youtube and now it looks like Google might swallow Disney soon.
*and also burning everyone else’s money at the same time.
art isn’t something you can generate as such. having a model that can copy the Mona Lisa pixel perfectly hasn’t stolen the Mona Lisa. it’s the shitty kids’ movies and TV ads and company logos that are at stake.
art is about effort and ingenuity and is centered around people and places and times and can’t be simply replicated by an industrial process, as much as Disney wants that
Arriving to the Louvre in a lifted F350, snapping flash shots and not paying the cover charge.
My kids are growing up in this environment and they already have an eye for ai slop. I suspect it’s the same thing that led to OpenAI’s TikSlop “product” is getting canned. After society had gotten over the sugar rush excitement of new and shiny toys I suspect the interest will fade and people will crave the connection you get from real art made by real people.
At least I hope that is what will happen. We might have to do something to hold the tech companies accountable for their dopamine trigger machines though.
Yes. They stole everything and are diverting markets to their newly acquired storehouses. Many many many markets. All AI companies are criminal operations. If you’ve built a body of work and had it scooped up by a billionaire to have it output simply by referencing your name… its easy to see this point. Of course the non-creator’s voice, who has no work absorbed by these corporations, will be the loudest to defend AI.
piracy isn’t theft.
This isn’t piracy though.
They aren’t consuming media. They are reselling it.
They aren’t downloading a film to watch or “illegally” accessing a text.
They are using the unpaid labour of other humans as their product and will gouge the rest of society for it through entertainment media, civil infrastructure and healthcare.
Whilst your pithy, cliched statement is fun to throw around when we talk about torrenting a marvel movie, it’s completely useless in this context.
But surely something has to be said for taking ones work, repackaging it, claiming it’s yours, and selling it as a product, no?
Point being that I think just calling it “piracy” seems a bit reductive…
most people who “pirate” aren’t doing it for a massive profit, unlike these AI companies. it’s morally reprehensible that AI companies are taking other people’s work, often copyrighted, and selling their stolen data for a massive profit. if fuckerberg can pirate TERABYTES of ebooks, my downloading of some movies should not be illegal.
I agree, you downloading some movies should not be illegal, especially if they are more than a few years old.
That it is illegal doesnt make training a network theft, nothing was taken away from anyone. Other than their expections of rental income from “IP”.
yup
no
even accusing AI of theft is a puerile misattribution of copyright infringement that was tossed aside in the late 90s, so let’s just get over that bullshit right now.
deleted by creator
What a puerile take lol
