• wewbull@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Dumb question: why do you feel you need to defend billion dollar companies getting even richer off somebody else’s work?

    Also Van Gogh’s works are public domain now.

    • Vince@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not defending any companies, just thinking out loud, but I supposed I can see if that’s how it reads.

      I was just asking myself why it feels wrong when a machine does it vs when a human does it. By your argument, would it be ok if some poor nobody invented and is using this technology vs a billion dollar company? Is that why it feels wrong?

      • tjsauce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The issue isn’t the final, individual art pieces, it’s the scale. An AI can produce sub-par art quickly enough to threaten the livelyhood of artists, especially now that there is far too much art for anyone to consume and appreciate. AI art can win attention via spam, drowning out human artists.

      • wewbull@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        A generative AIs only purpose is to generate “works”. So it’s only purpose in consuming “work” is to use them as reference. It exists to produce derivative works. Therefore the person feading the original work into the machine is the one making the choice on how that work will be used.

        A human can consume a “work” for no other reason but to admire it, be entertained by it, be educated by it, to evoke an emotion and finally to produce another work based on it. Here the consumer of the work is the one deciding how it will be used. They are the ones responsible.