This post has content warnings for: ai art discourse.
i'm the guy with bueller
- he/him/they if you want idc
- guywith.dog/
hi hello i post dog. this guy, specifically:
he loves you, and hopes you love yourself too. i want him to be a candle in the dark, i.e. not really doing much, sure, but still there. something to hold onto if you need it.
You must log in to comment.
in reply to @Codarobo's post:
The funniest thing about that synthesizer preset argument is, like, some early FM synths like the Yamaha DX7 are so bloody impossible to code for that almost everybody just use the presets and, guess what? The e piano 1 patch became so instantly iconic that nobody thinks of it is just overabusing a preset.
But yeah, implication of the capital trying to exploit artists is almost always bad, but it has little to do with the fact that it’s specifically AI. I feel like a lot of people who look at bad art, and say that it is merely not art would not have very progressive opinions on somebody like Kasimir Malevich or Lawrence wiener.
It feels like if the concern was really “making art now doesn’t require enough manual effort, we need it to be more manual to be real” we should be just as upset at the existence of the unity asset store (ok “asset flip discourse” was a thing but i think we can all agree that was stupid and the only people who cared about it were the kinds of people who bring up “ethics in gaming journalism”) or Hatsune miku for taking away work from 3D modelers and vocalists for certain kinds of work that doesn’t inherently need an individual artist making bespoke assets. drum machines for putting drummers out of work. And so on.
(Obviously ai models that contain contemporary copyrighted works is a unique aspect here that is less applicable to those other examples, but that is the actual thing i think it’s reasonable for people to focus on and be upset about, because it IS what makes this exploitative, not simply the fact that making art is technically easier now on some level)
in reply to @guy-with-dog's post:
This is very close to my own perspective. I think there’s a whole frontier of just trying to research why the fuck it does what it does, and figuring out -what else- it can do, that deserves to be explored, and we deserve to be able to explore it! I also don’t believe that we have to accept the abusive ways people choose to use it, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t boycott it out of the hands of bad actors, nor can you just starve it of attention until it stop being viable (unlike crypto!) so finding -good- ways to use it might be the best we can actually do, apart from pushing on regulation and legislation to curb the worst from the biggest offenders. I’m absolutely for making it illegal for companies like OpenAI to offer products that use datasets for model training containing significant amounts of recent copyrighted works and personal data of real people who didn’t consent to being included, and I’m really hoping we see some legislative movement on that next year. That to me is one of the biggest legitimate arguments against these tools and it is genuinely fucked up that the industry just rushed into offering them to the public before fully establishing how they’d actually protect people from abuse. This is a particularly bad instance of “moving fast and breaking things” and I should acknowledge more that people have a moral right to be upset about that.
Also: i think Mickey Mouse should be public domain -and- we should have a machine that gives us whatever Mickey Mouse we want. Fuck eternal copyright hoarders like Disney
Pinned Tags