Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9653230" data-attributes="member: 42856">The question was "is this desired?" It is, since well, nothing forces people to buy clothes they don't need. So they desire it. There is no reason to expect people's will to consume to align with environmental consideration like the amount of wastes.Also, yes, I do think it's a good thing that people can have more clothes to wear if that's what they want and can own more than one Sunday dress. Having to spend a significant part of their income of clothes and waiting months for them is a thing of the past, which I don't regret. I welcome ready-to-wear, machine-made fashion, even if I recognize that bespoke suits are more comfortable to wear.I share your concern than one-click buying might lead to wasting resources if people start storing huge amounts of clothes they never wear. But it's an excessive use of a perfectly acceptable solution that has led to the reduction of the number of tailors. Excessive use of anything is bad.I didn't miss it. I have noticed that the post I responded to seemed to be mixing two things together:1. Some AI are trained on scraped data, which you oppose.2. This technology might at some point replace a lot of artists (much like tailors disappeared), which you seemed to oppose, too.Claiming that it will hurt (or remove) artists is a different problem than complaining (or, should I say, whining, to quote your language) about how the AI model was made. These are different problems, calling for different solutions.I probably misinterpreted you when thinking that the disappearance of artists was something you opposed.Adobe Firefly was trained entirely on data Adobe owns the rights to. Since they don't fall into the category you mention, they can freely replace artists, which is a posible outcome of AI technology, not that of the fact that many models are trained on scraped data. The "artist not being able to pay their bills" problem is disconnected from the way the AI models are trained. It will stay even if the problem with acquiring data is solved.Also, I guess you're using a generic you, since I only use open-source, free models. I don't see a reason to pay a very wealthy company for anything there. Ironically, giving the artists a share of the revenue made out of free models (which is 0) wouldn't solve any of the two problems.Nice. I agree with that, by the way, except that I consider the EU TDM directive (or other legally-mandated exception to copyright applicable in other parts of the world) to be an example of a proper licensing, among other methods: acquiring the rights from each individual artists, a collective rights management system, and so on... but the principle is the same, we don't have a problem with the technology, as long as the data used for training is properly obtained.I am paradoxically more concerned about finding a solution to the technology-driven job replacement since I feel most jobs might end up replaced by technology at some point. We were lucky that the agricultural revolution allowed people to work in other manual craft, that the industrial revolution freed people to work in service, but I am concerned that we might end up without new needs for people work in the future and we still have a significant part of our wealth-distribution system based on work.</blockquote>

Verification