You forget all the images that “AI” models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
You forget all the images that “AI” models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
All artists train themselves on others artwork, most probably unpaid.
Wow. All artists throughout history just facedesked at that comment.
I look at art without paying anyone, I guess I’m stealing.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
You should read this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow.