• data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    For one, AI datasets often break copyright law, frequently appropriating from artists. Executives are also trying to use it to eliminate the jobs of artists, and I feel it’s wrong to try and obsolete something people love doing.

    In addition, they take a lot of power, not helping in the way of the needed changes to follow climate goals.

    Clarification: Copyright laws can be annoying, and I don’t always agree with them. However, it also protects smaller artists. I think there are many cases where piracy is totally fine, though, like if a company vaults an animated streaming show and gets rid of all other ways to watch it.

    • delirious_owl@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      Interesting. I am an artist, but I find it helps me make better art. Faster too.

      But all my work is copyleft and I give zero shits about so-called “copyright infringement”

    • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      3 months ago

      Normal people boycotting AI models will not stop executives from being hostile to artists.

      Especially people who would have otherwise not paid for art.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I do break copyright law every single day of my life. And so far the only harm I’ve done is avoiding Disney a free pass to kill my wife.

      Copyright law is bad. Sharing is caring.

      Also I’ve make AI images with Stable Diffusion self hosted on my N100 server that takes way less energy than a normal computer being turned on for hours using Photoshop, so I saved the world by doing AI images instead of manually painting them.

    • Brickardo@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Executives are also trying to use it to eliminate the jobs of artists, and I feel it’s wrong to try and obsolete something people love doing.

      Luddism, much?

        • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          The lesson of the Luddites is to fight the industrialist who wants to take away the pleasures of being human in the name of enriching said industrialist. Time and effort saving mechanisms should benefit the laborer, and no one else. That their movement has been labeled as being resistant to human progress or uninformed of the benefits of industrialization tells on our society’s propaganda mechanisms and our failure to teach our own history

    • monobot@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      I fail to see how is traing AI on publicly available images hurting small artists?

      You don’t have to write if you don’t have time, link to explanation is good for me.

      I basically use generated images in places that would not have any ilustrations before. There is no budget. When I have money for an artist I hire an artist.