This is as lazy of content.
Machine learning is a tool amongst many. That being said, most good art requires more than a single tool, tools should be used with care. If you use enough AI that it becomes part of your artistic identity, it’s unlikely that your work will be impactful.
I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art. I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method. I have a feeling this kind of art would barely reach the mainstream, but it would outlast the slop.
Good take.
Don’t hate the tools, hate what capitalism turns them into and uses them for.
Reminds me of the old panic that photography would be the death of painters. It was shortly followed by an all time boom in art and creativity as painters tried new things and moved on from photorealism.
There’s still so much room left for human art and artists even in a post-AI world, as long as we keep rejecting the slop and supporting actual artists. Then maybe new art forms will emerge. Who knows!
Oops, just wanted to write a quick comment but it evolved into me giving some of my thoughts on AI gen as a means of artistry. Oh well, not deleting this now.
I’m still waiting for someone to make art that requires machine learning and is obviously creative by our standards, instead of using AI to recreate old art.
Most self proclaimed AI artists just type a prompt, maybe do a bit of “prompt engineering” (Read: putting the name of a good artist on the prompt) and then in-paint (Read: re-prompting, but only affects a specific area). That does not give you enough control over the drawing to do anything interesting.
I say this from personal experience. Even small differences is facial expressions, too small to be described with words, can make a big impact. The no. reason artists don’t use AI and dislike it is because it doesn’t given enough control over the final image, because it does not let them put in details which cannot be described through words. You might say we might someday have an AI that (somehow) gives you more control, but that would nullify the whole “advantage” of AI: Not having to spend time worrying about the details. If you are going to spend 4 hours prompting in details… you could have just gotten a better result by just drawing it yourself.
Think of it like making a level in Mario Maker VS making a game in a game engine. Sure, making things in Mario Maker is faster than making a game yourself, but it doesn’t give you the same fine grain control that making a game from scratch would. (But even this is not a perfect analogy has, in Mario Maker you actually get to choose where the blocks go, instead of with AI, where you can only describe how the blocks go and hope the AI gets it right with little hope of editing it yourself.)
Actually, about that “editing it yourself”. In this hypothetical AI Mario Maker scenario, you could go into Mario Maker’s editor mode and edit the level with the same amount of detail a normal, handcrafted, Mario Maker level would, but with AI image gen, you get the image and… Ya, about has useful as any other downloaded image. Artists typically create layers to do their art thing, but AI output puts everything in one layer, making hard to edit. I could go on this, but I don’t have all the time in the world to write this. Someone posted this video on !fuck_ai@lemmy.world , where an AI “artists” quit AI because of these problems of lack of control. (Don’t judge me based on the video, I found it on the aforementioned community here (lemmy.ml link))
I know it’s possible to use this tool in a way that’s revolutionary, but the users and developers seem to have little interest in pushing art beyond replacing the artists.
That’s the multi billion dollar the AI companies are trying to solve, having to pay wages. The far right loves this as they feel like those who worked hard to develop artistic skills are below them somehow. Part of the conservative rhetoric. AI: The New Aesthetics of Fascism by Gareth Watkins.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
I feel like people who want talk and argue about AI should know how the training works at a mathematical level. I swear the number of people who act like it’s magic is way too much. I say this because it would give you a really good idea of how specialized training won’t solve the lack of originality problem. I haven’t had a refresher on this so I might be misremembering some things… Any who, this playlist is pretty good I think.
The problems you describe with control is severely outdated. There are tools specifically to allow you more control outside of prompts. Ipadapters, controlnets, etc… invoke and krita support layers and all sorts of other normal artistic methods for image editing. For people who use ai image gen more seriously, prompting is just the tip of the iceberg.
For the insane amount of slop generated every day though, sure, prompting is all they use.
I want to see someone develop an original ML model with an original training set that can generate something impossible by any other method.
That Machine Learning model will learn… from what?
The training data could be the same as it is today, but maybe something novel could be produced by changing the objective function?
Have you not seen the AI generated QR code embedded in an image ? I don’t think it can be done without AI, Don’t know if you would consider it art, but I do : for example here is the first one I got when googling it https://www.qrafted.ai/img/gallery/girl-3.jpeg
Like all AI things unfortunately the web is flooded with them now…
This is a very cool concept, but has anyone actually gotten this to read as a qr code?
I’ve tried a bunch of apps without any luck.
Yeah. I have the same question.
Embedding the features of one image into another to create an illusion is a task I’d consider AI for, IF the artist performing that task can be propelled by using the output as a base. If it takes far more manual correction by artist to the point that it takes longer to make a finished piece, or if the time spent enjoying the process is diminished, it’s no longer worth it.
AI in art should be about automating the tasks that require scale or repetition, like how 3D graphics took much of the mathematical work from artists, letting them focus on sculpting their forms precisely.
Time freed from automating one task should be spent by the artist on another task, such that the work is done faster AND is appealing in a clear and obvious way.
The most “creative” way I’ve seen this done so far is using separate prompts for different 2d image elements in still painting, which appears to take longer to make less consistent results.
It feels like prompters rely on the divided tastes of the internet to convince people that their art looks good to someone, just not the current viewer.
Brian Eno, Terry Riley, and John Cage are names that come close to doing what you are describing. The idea of “generative” or “stochastic” or “aleotoric” music has been around for longer than this current AI boom has.
I also found this fascinating bit of music on wiki:
There are possibilities, but there are 99 lazy and uncreative people who just want to press the “make music now” button for every 1 person that wants to spend hours building and training their own models/sequences. (Those 99 have absolutely ruined the lofi/study beats on YouTube…)
That would be possible, in an abstract way.
Let’s say the artist, first creates all the input that is fed to the AI for training.
Let it be sounds, films, objects, drawings, literature. Everything has to be created by the artist exclusively.
This will be a model that only knows the artist’s work and will generate output based on the work by the same artist.
Now, let’s do that in a community. Everyone is free to share their models with others. Every art created from there would list all models used.
Maybe someday we will have something like this. But we will only have this, if someone actively works on it, based on the way AI needs input. Something we are still learning and will sure change. We have to think of the AI we have now, like the first steps of humans actually building a functioning flying object. We are now at the step of the first set of wings, that keep us for 1 minute in the air, before failing and falling. That’s a long way until the first passenger airplane takes off.
I have a feeling that we will have to come up with new definitions of copyright in the future.
It’s true. AI images ain’t art. It’s a best guess amalgamation by a computer, made with the stolen remnants of actual art created by actual artists, while not compensating them at all.
It runs on a platform none of us can even afford to run. Cost prohibitive and limits who has access to it.
It’s made by capitalists striving for profit and nothing else. So it’s built with the wrong intentions in mind. Intentions that are immediately at odds with what art is. Yet another limitation of who can participate in it.
Its current state can’t exist without the theft of tons of other actual art to try and imitate, while having no actual context or idea what anything is.
It’s not producing art; it’s producing a way for capitalists to fire and not hire artists so that they can pocket the extra money for their yachts and summer homes.
It’s absolutely everything art isn’t nor ever will be. Art is for everyone. AI is for rich, talentless corporate ghouls.
Not to mention the ecological damage.
it uses less power than a refrigerator. are you going to stop using your refrigerator?
Perhaps I need my fridge more than I need AI generated art.
what if a small artist uses AI to make the money to keep the power for their fridge on?
Being able to food on the table is a priority for all of us and I use a computer for that as well.
The argument was about ecological damage which is also true, especially for running all this hardware to run these models to create said art.
if we’re arguing about ecological damage, then the answer is simple - we need to purge roughly 2/3 of humanity from the planet. don’t you want to save the planet? get to work.
Maybe a conversation for a different time. Have a good one.
Curtis Yarvin is that you again?..
That’s my secondary issue with it.
My issue is less with AI and more with how capitalism has mucked up an opportunity.
The same people saying shit like “if buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” are calling training AI on publically available data “stealing”
Because obviously pirating games & shows for personal use does the same amount of harm as a corporate entity stealing the work of hundreds of thousands of writers and artists in order to turn a profit
How is it stealing though? Do the artists not have the art anymore?
This is the same braindead logic as people saying downloading someone else’s NFT is stealing.
It’s the same logic as saying someone tracing another persons art and passing it off as their own to make money is theft because that’s essentially what they’re doing. Except they’re scraping the internet in order to feed millions of artists’ works without their consent to a machine that approximates what “art” is supposed to look like.
This is the same braindead logic as people saying downloading someone else’s NFT is stealing.
If someone stole an artist’s work and passed it off as an NFT as has happened many times that’s also an example of theft. I know that’s not the strawman you’re presenting but that is the actual NFT equivalent of what we’re discussing. But yes, conflate it with downloading an image so you can call me braindead instead of formulating an argument.
It’s fine if you personally enjoy slop, there’s plenty of it out there now. But if you’re gonna try to morally grandstand about it you may as well just say you don’t think artists deserve to be paid for their own work and be done with it.
Always funny to me how the people who are vehemently anti-AI never actually understand how AI works.
Almost like the hatred always comes from a place of ignorance.
It’s the same logic as saying someone tracing another persons art and passing it off as their own to make money is theft because that’s essentially what they’re doing
Not at all. Unless you purposely overfit the model to 1 image or a handful of images, you’re not doing the equivalent of tracing. Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art… which people do all the time and you guys don’t get mad at them for that.
If someone stole an artist’s work and passed it off as an NFT as has happened many times that’s also an example of theft
Except that using art for training data isn’t remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You’re the one relying on strawman arguments here.
It’s fine if you personally enjoy slop, there’s plenty of it out there now. But if you’re gonna try to morally grandstand about it you may as well just say you don’t think artists deserve to be paid for their own work and be done with it.
The irony, lol. Talking about moral grandstanding, when you’re just being smug about how ignorant you are of how a computer program works.
Also I don’t like most AI content that gets churned out, the difference is I don’t use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
Except that using art for training data isn’t remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You’re the one relying on strawman arguments here.
So they’re profiting off of the works of others with no credit given, no financial compensation offered and no consent from the actual artists. What would you call that if not theft?
Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art… which people do all the time and you guys don’t get mad at them for that.
Which is because they’re using a reference to create their own art. I’m not sure how you think machine learning works but I can tell you there is no actual “learning” involved. What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it’s trained on. If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you’re attributing human traits to AI in a way that shows you fundamentally misunderstand the capabilities of image generation models as well as all current AI.
I don’t use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
Meanwhile two comments ago…
The same people saying shit like “if buying isn’t owning, piracy isn’t stealing” are calling training AI on publically available data “stealing”
If I was wrong on any topic I’d love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and “no, you’re actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!” At the point that’s what you have to result to in order to “win” a debate I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics. 👍 Have a lovely day
So they’re profiting off of the works of others
Not directly no.
What would you call that if not theft?
Idk, life. Like I’m a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who’s book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
I’m not sure how you think machine learning works
Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I’m a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
but I can tell you there is no actual “learning” involved.
That’s a very philosophical debate, lol
What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it’s trained on.
Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It’s only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn’t store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that’s the general concept of stable diffusion.)
If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you’re attributing human traits to AI
Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you’re making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I’m saying.
Meanwhile two comments ago…
Me pointing out the flaws in other people’s arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
If I was wrong on any topic I’d love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and “no, you’re actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!”
Well it’s hard to give you a good argument, when you don’t make any actual arguments to begin with when you’re just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics.
Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
i know people who have used AI art to produce something not possible for a human artist in a short time frame. it was part of a larger product which was more than just art, and wouldn’t have had nearly the same impact without the art. it actually does empower small artists if they think outside the box about how to use it.
I think as long as you can keep it at arm’s length and don’t let it permeate your entire process, it can be valuable in triggering things during that ideation and creative process. That’s ultimately how I think tools like this should exist. They should be at your side filling a small percentage of need, with the human artist building something larger from it.
That said, the timeframe for producing things continues to shrink because of unrealistic capitalist demands. So anything that brings a 12-hour process to 1 hour is heralded in as progress by execs, even if it demoralizes the creative team and reduces their personal footprint.
it can also be used just give human made art visual cohesiveness, making multiple images have a unified style.
I like the idea of feeding your art into it to see various styles side by side. Reminds me of the Photoshop editing days.
Check out the youtuber “Neural Viz”. Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters. As @tjsauce pointed out, it ultimately comes down to how much you care about what you publish. You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific. That’s where the artist becomes a designer: someone who not only creates, but curates with intention. Most people aren’t thinking that way.
Using multiple AI tools, he has built an incredible universe of consistent characters.
He hasn’t, though. He’s done some rudimentary work and then turned the lion’s share of the design/development over to an algorithm that supplants his designs with work harvested from other professionals.
You can spend hours trying to get AI systems to produce the exact effect you’re aiming for—but few people are truly searching for something specific.
I think part of the problem with the “AI is Art, aktuly” discourse is that people who aren’t professional artists really believe art is a commodity and meeting volumetric need is the artist’s end goal. This isn’t about an individual synthesizing personal memories, ideas, and technique to produce an experience for an audience. This is about individuals within an audience stating their desires, and some random assortment of artists throwing out tropes that fall somewhere in between their collective demands.
There is no concept of originalization. Everything is just a commercialized composite of prior works, created first and foremost to meet an immediate stated economic demand. Execs barking “I want a guy who looks like the Halo guy, but with long hair and a sword instead of a rifle” instead of some guy with family in the military and a talent for 3D rendering envisioning what a futuristic commando would look like.
I think the discourse around AI Images as to whether they are art is irrelevant.
AI generated images are images. Images can serve a purpose and use. Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
Even without commercialization, people make AI generated images for their own personal use. No money has to exchange hands at any point for someone to make use of generated AI images.
AI generated images are images.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
Whether its “art” should never have been the point people attempted to defend.
It’s a shorthand to describe basic quality. Because AI slop can be manufactured so quickly, and because it can reasonably approach human art at first glance, the fundamental problem it presents is one of sifting. How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
Even without commercialization
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work. Even then, its haphazard and poorly implemented. But there’s just so god damn much of it. The media equivalent of smog clouding up your windshield and clogging your lungs.
Artistry is not simply the assembly of images. And good artistry requires intention and expression, typically in order to communicate a novel idea.
How does that refute my statement? I never claimed an assembly of images = art.
How long do I need to analyze a piece of material to determine whether it is a real message or a procedural generation? How do I discern real conversations from automated prompts my partner never meant to send? How do I manage my own response to a deluge of clumsy attempts at manipulation?
This isn’t an issue of AI content being “art” or not. This is an issue of AI content being industrially generated spam content.
I don’t think even the people who unironically call themselves “AI artists”, as delusional as they are, would defend using AI to manipulate people or generate ad spam with it. (maybe some of them would)
This stuff doesn’t exist without commercialization precisely because of the volume of material and resources necessary to make it work.
I think again you are missing what my point was. I was talking about this at an individual usage level. A person could load up a local model as is and generate some stuff for use at home. No transactions occurred.
As for how generative AI got to this point, I don’t think even then commercialization was an inevitable requirement for its existence. That’s how it played out to a certain degree, but technology frequently is created by massive government grants historically. The internet itself is an example of this.
This is Lemmy, all AI is evil and useless.
I thought we left the echo chamber bullshit behind on the other website
-.-
Can’t people discuss stuff without it being derailed by other people who don’t want to discuss?
Pretty sure they’re making a joke
This is Lemmy, nothing is a joke.
Huh?
Correct! 🥰
Unironically celebrating your disdain for nuance! 🥰
Me when I think the resource intensive slop machine is nuanced
Lol, bluff called 🥰
I’m confused. I know this is getting a bit sidetracked, but since you’re just sealioning anyway at this point idgaf. I looked at your post history and it’s got me wondering what a shitlib like you is doing on an anarchist instance??? Do you just like the aesthetics of solarpunk but lack any actual desire to create such a world, or any understanding of what doing so would entail?
So we’re clear, your position that all AI is inherently evil and useless is absurd.
It’s made all the moreso by the fact that you’re clearly just parroting talking points you don’t actually understand.
How many resources does it use?
OK but now do that without stealing other people’s art.
In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people’s art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it “feels” more original.
I’d argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.
Which does not mean that we can’t disapprove of literal copies of other people’s work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it’s more or less a complexity scale.
“People get inspired from art therefore lifting someone’s entire portfolio as training data is OK actually”
Is it hard to type with your head that far up your own ass? Or did you just copy paste what chatgpt told you when you asked it to defend ai generated images?
No need to attack me like that when I’m just sharing my viewpoint.
I’m not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.
I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.
Like sampling?
Me: “Oh? Show me some of your original art.”
Artist: “ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE! ONE ART PLEASE!”
Me: “What… what are you doing?”
Artist: “Sorry, my artistic tools aren’t working properly. Let me try refining my prompts.”
“I am a photographer!”
“So you just push a button and steal people’s privacy? Not real art!”
Photography involves shot composition and timing. You don’t just point and press a button. That’s why people typically hire photographers for things like weddings - it’s an actual skill, and not something you want to just trust some random who doesn’t know at least stuff like the rule of thirds with. What to include in the frame, not cropping things out awkwardly, dealing with moving people, trying to catch flattering angles…
That’s not even getting into post processing and editing.
Your example would only make sense if someone was going around claiming they were an “artist” because they went around a museum taking full frame pictures of the pictures.
That is exactly why I said it
If you open up your camera app and spin around and take a picture, 99% of the picture will be garbage.
If you boot up a AI art program and type in a random prompt, 99% of that will be garbage.
Photographer have specialize lenses and choices of FOV that affects how the pictures look. Ai artists have specialized weight and loras that affect how the picture will look.
Photographer don’t just take pictures at random. They set and frame the scenes - doing prep work and framing. AI artist can use base pictures instead of random noise to bias the outcome (image to image).
With live subjects, photographer can either give no guidance, or direct the subjects (think “look at the camera and say cheese”, only more nuanced). With AI art, there is a whole subfield of prompt engineering l which is akin to this.
After a photographer take pictures, they do minor touch ups and photoshoping to clean up parts that didn’t come out right. So too with AI artists.
And with both, you can get 100s if not 1000s of pictures of a subject. The photographer and the AI artist true test is being able to pick from those thousands the one or two good shots.
Yes there is a bunch of legal and copyright problems with AI art. When the camera was first invented, people argued that you couldn’t take pictures of crowds without getting everyone’s concent, nor could you take picture of other people’s property with out breaking the law. That the legal realities around photography weren’t settled didn’t mean those taking picture back then weren’t artists, and it doesn’t mean that people doing AI art today aren’t artists. AI generators are like camera in that you get out better results depending on how much work you put it.
Real :3
“ai bad, updoots to the left”
I think this is really rivaling AI generated images for lack of substance
People who unironically call themselves “AI Artists” are easy targets.
Keep fighting the good fight. If we can just be a little bit more elitist and haulier than thou I’m sure we’ll make AI art go away.
Oh no, we made talentless duschebro sad by dissing his favourite slop creating forestburner. Whatever we will do
Exactly. If you just insult people enough, they will surely chabge their mind!!!
We are not trying to change your mind. We are making fun of you.
Cool. I’ll keep that in mind next time you cry about AI “”“stealing”“” art and making artist redundant.
That’s why we’re making fun of you
If we’re just a bit nice to those fascists they’ll change their mind 😢
Ah yes, people that use a computer program to make pictures are fascists. Very intelligent take.
No wonder you like slop generators that can hold context of exactly one sentence this much. You basically are one.
Even basic LLMs can take in context of your entire conversation history. Not that a braindead luddite would actually know anything about AI.
But ya know, keep being an insufferable cunt because people use a computer program you don’t like, like the fucking loser you are.
can take in context of your entire conversation history
Well, you can’t, so how would you know
Isn’t weird how all the fascists and Nazis push for AI? Does it make you hesitate or think a bit maybe?
you are trying to gate-keep the terms ‘art’ and ‘artist’ pretty hard-core.
i’m extremely anti fascist and this is not a true statement.
No you’re not lmao you voted for genociders.
And hitler was a vegetarian, so I guess all vegetarians are fascists.
Also FYI, I’ve been arrested for physically assaulting neo nazis at a counter protes, so go fuck yourself keyboard warrior.
Nah go fuck yourself. I can list all my accolades too but i don’t need to do that. You techno-fascists are the same.
Sorry, bozo, facts don’t care about your feelings. If you want people to be nice, be nice to them first.
Lmao the irony.
I bet you can’t recognise irony even if it hits you in the face. Which is actually did right now.
And now the projection, lol.
But yeah, next time you cry about AI “stealing” something. I want you to remember “sorry bozo, facts don’t care about your feelings”
You continue using words without having a slightest idea what they mean.
Dude. DUDE. Really?
Yes. The smug elitism about AI art is just stupid.
Haulier, even.
I like the tech and I want it implemented in an ethical way by someone who cares. I got into technology because I love it, I want to see humanity reach ever greater feats of knowledge and have the benefits accessible to as many people as possible. I think LLMs and image generation have enormous potential and it’d be a shame to not it see so much of it fulfilled in my lifetime.
That said, god, I hate the absolutely insane arguments used by AI fans. Look at this comment section. It’s just the worst, most nonsensical comparisons, over and over again. Use the fill tool in paint but don’t like it when someone compares a fill algorithm with massive art theft by corporations enriching billionaires? Hypocrite. Use anything you’ve ever seen as reference but don’t think software and human beings are comparable? Hypocrite. Take pictures with a camera? Believe it or not, hypocrite.
Can’t we agree that Sam Altman and his friends don’t have our best interests in mind? That what has been done to artists, authors, journalists, and all sorts of creators, is immoral and shouldn’t be ignored? Shit, they’re the only reason the tech is even possible! We would not enjoy such powerful image generation if not for the decades of material they’ve provided humanity and AI companies have taken without permission.
Why are you so cruel to those who made it all possible? To frame the shoulders you stand upon, those of creators whose work was stolen and whose livelihoods are at risk, as of Luddites and elitists, then claim their protests should be ignored, is beyond disrespectful.
Angry and scared people often lash out, and nobody likes being on the receiving end of that, I get it. I would also like it if we could talk this out calmly… But they’re the ones being kicked down. I think a bit of anger is to be expected, it’s understandable. What it isn’t, is an excuse to keep trampling over humanity’s creative workers because someone was mean to you.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
