AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…

[Scribe]

... art. To paraphrase Ken Kesey, what place does bad art have in a free society? It is real bad having to sift through a bunch of art, and get time and money stolen when you buy it by accident. The thing about artistry is that it does take talent, and when artists use the tools one can tell. Having a zillion ai pieces flooding places is like vandalism, people have to show some self control.

People, and companies including the largest in the RPG space, currently pay for worse. If the tools were useless for creating images of any kind of commercial value, nobody would care, and no investment would be taking place, and there are literal billions being invested, for a reason.

 

[dragoner]

People, and companies including the largest in the RPG space, currently pay for worse. If the tools were useless for creating images of any kind of commercial value, nobody would care, and no investment would be taking place, and there are literal billions being invested, for a reason.

People do better as well, so see, the system works.
Though I would also disagree we need more bad art foisted off on us anyways.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

People, and companies including the largest in the RPG space, currently pay for worse. If the tools were useless for creating images of any kind of commercial value, nobody would care, and no investment would be taking place, and there are literal billions being invested, for a reason.

It might not create Great Art (a truly subjective concept at the best of time) but then, neither do commercial artists (most of the time). What it CAN do is create useable art, which is more than good enough for most practical purposes.

As an aside: Many, many years ago automation was touted as something that would create the "20-hour Work Week". That it didn't is a fault of society, not a fault of automation. The problem here is GREED. The problem is that artists aren't being paid a living wage at the best of times. No wonder any threat to their alread-unstable careers are reviled. It's a lot easier to blame the tool than it is to change the System.

 

[lynnfredricks]

If we've learned anything over the last 50 years, its that we never manage it in an informed way, and rather just rush it to market.

And you know what? We're still fine.

So maybe, just maybe, this idea to manage it in "an informed way" is the flaw in your logic?

But we aren't just fine.

There isn't a day that goes by in which some technology that maintains vital information or, manages some critical business, is hacked. That's the result of pushing out new tech without any consideration of security first (except in the case in which its mandated by government, and even then, not always very good) or, at best, a few inside innovators look ahead.

In the case of the USA, there are Superfund sites still being managed and addressed dealing with toxic crap left over from 100 years ago, as well as troubles caused since.

Most urban households carry a load of zero day vulnerabilities that are hidden away but not unknown by bad actors.

I am all for innovative technology, including AI. I don't like the idea of regulation of innovation. IRL, I have brought a number of innovative technologies to different markets over the last 30 years and deeply involved in data focused technologies especially.

However, AI has some deeply troubling applications and vulnerabilities and both federal law and government run systems struggle with technology that originated in the 90s. AI is an order of magnitude far, far beyond predecessor technologies we've used for various types of automation since its evaluation methodology grows and changes behind a curtain. That's not the same thing as Photoshop evaluating one or more pixels against a profile.

 

[trappedslider]

As an aside: Many, many years ago automation was touted as something that would create the "20-hour Work Week"

and the paperless office

 

[Scribe]

The problem here is GREED. The problem is that artists aren't being paid a living wage at the best of times. No wonder any threat to their alread-unstable careers are reviled. It's a lot easier to blame the tool than it is to change the System.

When we have greed, the ruling class, and corporations (I wonder if there are links...) defeated, let me know.

What it CAN do is create useable art, which is more than good enough for most practical purposes.

Exactly, and all this other fluff about doesnt really matter, because it doesnt need to be on par with the great masters, because that isnt who is going to end up replaced.

 

[lynnfredricks]

I think that's backwards and can cause irreparable harm to those artists. First, rein in the tech. Then work on the controls (copyright).

The controls though, specify legal applications. Controlling the tech is even more complicated.

The position of the copyright office that AI art is not protected by copyright is based on AI not being a person. That in itself is a protection.

If say, a client comes to me and says 'create an image for me of a love sick robot' and I involve AI, whatever I give them will be legally compromised. Not being covered by copyright, there's no copyright to transfer. If the AI happens to pick up a mix of designs derived from IP or legalistically protected sources, the client could well find themselves a target for lawsuits. And if my agreement with the client holds any real weight, I may have made promises in it that are contrary to law - so the client might easily find a way to sue me.

An artist is a person, and person-hood is one protection in the market of art.

 

[Zardnaar]

When we have greed, the ruling class, and corporations (I wonder if there are links...) defeated, let me know.


Exactly, and all this other fluff about doesnt really matter, because it doesnt need to be on par with the great masters, because that isnt who is going to end up replaced.

We can really only moan here aby solutions are basically banners.
Buttlerian jihad time.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Now Let's start crossing into gate keeping. Let's say for example: Bob for whatever reason can't make art (be it for physical reason, money reasons etc) but he can use midjourny and other AI tools to be the brush, paints, studio space, easel etc. Now is it bad that Bob was able to do this and on the off chance sell the outcome?

Absolutely yes. Because Bob is profiting off of the work others' did and they weren't compensated for it. I've heard this "But I'm just a small one guy shop, I can't afford art." excuse and it's not a good one. For a couple reasons. Firstly, the baseline assumption that it's OK to take something that someone else did and not pay for it because you can't afford it. That doesn't fly in any other context. Secondly, even if you could, it's not true. I'd tell Bob to do what every other wanna be publisher (including myself) did when we started before AI art was a thing. There is a ton of free public domain art out there. And I just wish I had the cheap stock art options 25 years ago that we have now.

So sorry Bob, I don't buy that excuse at all. And I'd have more pity if you weren't using a program that exploits others just for your own personal benefit.

 

[Bohandas]

For what it's worth, I work at a warehouse. I spend all day going to alphanumerically coded locations and retrieving the items from those locations. That's literally the same thing that a coke machine does and I still have a job.