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.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    People talk about A.I. art threatening artist jobs but everything I’ve seen created by A.I. tools is the most absolute dogshit art ever made, counting the stuff they found in Saddam Hussein’s mansions.

    So, I would think the theft of IP for training models is the larger objection. No one thinks a Balder’s Gate 3 fan was gonna commission an artist to make a drawing for them. They’re pissed their work was used without permission.

      • barsoap@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        That won’t get you into art school but it also won’t get you kicked out.

        *adjusts horn-rims* yesyes very neat do you have anything else to say but that you’re whimsical?

        • iopq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          1711235560747236

          There are so many possibilities for AI art, to say it’s all bad is painting it all with one brush