this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
19 points (100.0% liked)
GothβIndustrial
1008 readers
40 users here now
An inclusive community for discussion of all things
- Industrial
- Goth
- EBM
- Darkwave
- Coldwave
- Horror Punk
- Aggrotech
- Noise
π’Treating the labels with very broad strokes here, don't hesitate to post.
Share anything you've discovered that tickles your hardware. New Releases, or any upcoming relevant event information you find!
If you are an artist, feel free to self promote within reason.
π’This community will not accept or tolerate any forms of bigotry, including (but not limited to) sexism, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, transphobia, ableism, ageism and classism.
ππππππππππ
RELATED COMMUNITIES
postpunk@lemmy.world
πππππππππ
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they're open about the use, audio or visual I'd say let it stay. We had an artist post here that did some gen AI for a video. Video making not their expertise and unable to afford someone to write direct edit etc.
Even audio to an extent as long as it's openly identified as such. The tools are only going to get better, and not going away. Good honest creative use can still be enjoyed and useful. But it needs to be honest. I think a lot of the backlash is the disingenuousness and manipulation. Rightfully so. No one wants to be lied to or misled generally.
I also feel the use of artists' creative works in the training data for the major models is unethical. I doubt all those artists consented to their work being used that way.
Well. Future generations train on the creations of the past. The unethicality is more the intent of those that use it. To devalue and displace those that created the things for a machine that can spit out scrambled up facsimiles of the thing. It's the Luddites vs the looms. Luddites didn't hate them. The Luddites rose up to destroy them because the textile shop owners intended to use them to take away the workers means of supporting themselves.
There are AI tools that are ethically trained as well. Though they aren't the majority of what's being used for sure. But adobe for instance has done that for photoshop's AI tools.
Absolutely no to labels manufacturing AI artist etc to undercut or push out real artists to increase their profits. But AI as a tool for better or worse it's not going anywhere. I can at least respect those that are honest with their audience.
I always thought using the term Luddite as an insult completely missed the point π
I think that's a nuanced difference, or at least, I see it that way. Artists are inspired and influenced by what came before them, but they are also awarded both rights to and responsibility for what they create. If an artist plagiarises someone else's work, they can be held accountable.
Gen AI muddies that. An artist using a gen AI model has no knowledge of what that model was trained on. The organisation that provides the model does, but they are at a remove from any process that results in an output, and the major AI platforms are openly hostile to being held accountable for the output of their models. What about the model itself? if we accept it's using a creative process to produce output, should it be afforded rights and responsibilities to what it produces? that opens up a whole ethical debate too.
I think a lot of the backlash is due to: 1) most/all of the LLMs were built with data that was taken without permission, 2) the GenAI companies are pushing "AI" as a solution where it's not needed 3) the negative environmental impact, 4) the dangers of the AI economic "bubble" (bonus: driving up RAM and SSD prices). For more info see !fuck_ai@lemmy.world and !sneerclub@awful.systems.
The thing is. If I draw or sketch, I'm influenced by what I've trained on as well. I've absolutely done sketches in the style of Ed Roth's Custom Culture Creatures. Imitation is the greatest from of flattery.
All modern art and culture builds on the past. So I'd disagree somewhat on that point.
All the other points are more the real meat of the issue. The who, the why and the how. Though, I would point out that plenty are working on more efficient dedicated inference hardware. So the how and it's environmental impact becomes more an issue of the who and why. And absolutely when it comes to who and why. Fuck each and every one of them.