• orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Art isn’t all about money. That’s the point. AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated (or at least credited??). AI-generated imagery is 100% about profit only. It’s about pushing artists out of the picture—a thing companies have been trying to do for years.

    Artists should at least have a say in where their work goes, even if it’s not about them being financially compensated. It’s about having a fair conversation, instead of billionaires dominating the conversation once again.

      • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?

          • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it? It’s a film made by humans. That’s art regardless of profit.

            Meta and other companies made it about money when they stole work specifically to make a profit. How those artists get compensated is a problem for tech to figure out since it dug this hole. Maybe they can look at how streaming artists earn revenue as an example. Even if I was giving my work away for free, I’d like to be made aware if AI tools are using it—for profit or not—so I can opt-in/out.

            I define art as something made by a being with consciousness. I choose to not define AI-generated imagery as art because in its current state, it’s made under questionable pretense and solely for profit.

              • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                I know someone that does algorithmic art with Python and WebGL. There’s a skill behind it.

                Just like there’s art and skill behind the work that runs modern LLMs.

                Found art is art. So is algorithmic, multimedia, etc.

                Running an LLM and feeding it yours and your friends’ own art to train on? Go for it.

                Art generated solely for profit, by billionaires, through piracy methods they’d sue the fuck out of you for using? Trash.

                  • orca@orcas.enjoying.yachts
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Why don’t you have a talk with the capitalists that made it about profit in the first place. Nobody is saying money makes it art. That’s the fucking point. It’s not. Capitalism forced it to be.

      • prototype_g2@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Desiring that the people who make art not starve to death is too much to ask now? We live under Capitalism! It’s money or death.