this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
18 points (100.0% liked)
GothβIndustrial
1008 readers
47 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
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.