Comment

Comment on Data poisoning: how artists are sabotaging AI to take revenge on image generators

It has nothing to do with AI venture capitalists. Also not every profession is entitled to income, some are fine to remain as primarily hobbies.

AI art is replacing corporate art which is not something we should be worried about. Less people working on that drivel is a net good for humanity. If can get billions of hours wasted on designing ads towards real meaningful contributions we should added billions extra hours to our actual productivity. That is good.

source

Sort:hotnew top

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Also not every profession is entitled to income

Yes it is. Otherwise it is not a profession. People go to school for years to become professional artists. They are absolutely entitled to income.

But hey, you want your murals painted by robots and your wall art printed out, have fun. I’m not interested in your brave new world.

source
- drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I’m literally a professional artist lol
  
  source
  - FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    So you think you’re not entitled to income from your work? That doesn’t sound like something a professional would say. “I’m obsolete, don’t pay me.”
    
    source
    drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Nah I understand what’s going on. AI is not replacing real artists. It’s replacing sweatshops. And even when it will eventually replace most of art grunt work we’ll find something more interesting to do like curate the art, mix, match, add extra meta layers and so on.
    
    This closed mind protectionism is just silly. Not only it’s not sustainable because you will never win it’s also incredibly desperate. No real artist would cry and whine here when given this super power.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
The ratio of using AI to replace ad art:fraud/plagiarism has to be somewhere around 1:1000.

“Actual productivity” is a nonsense term when it comes to art. Why is this Image less “meaningful” than this? Image

Without checking the source, can you even tell which one is art for an ad and which isn’t?

source
- drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I’m not sure what’s your point here? Majority of art is drivel. Most art is produced for marketing. Literally. If that can be automated away what are we losing here? McDonald’s logos? Not everything needs to be a career.
  
  source
  - TrickDacy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    What a shitty shitty shitty take
    
    source
    drmoose@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Nah. In literally being proven right real time. You can set a reminder or something :)
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- sukhmel@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  I would assume the first to be an ad, because most of depicted people look happy
  
  source