553
submitted 3 months ago by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Vince@lemmy.world 4 points 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 4 points 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.

[-] TheRealKuni@lemmy.world 1 points 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.

This is literally what people said about photography.

And they were right, painting became less prolific as photography became available to the masses. People generally don’t get their portrait painted.

But people also generally don’t go to photo studios to have their picture taken, either, and those used to be in every shopping mall. But now we all have camera phones that adjust lighting and color and focus for us, and we can send a sufficiently decent picture off to be printed and mailed back to us. For those who want it done professionally that option is available and will be higher quality, just like portrait painting is still available, but technology has shrunk those client pools.

Technology always changes job markets. Generative AI will, just as others have done. People will lose careers they thought were stable, and it will be awful, but this isn’t anything unique to generative AI.

The only constant is that things change.

[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 2 points 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.

this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
553 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

59562 readers
2348 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS