Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8758826" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Sure. But the rewards of the work will go to the tech company, generally speaking. Unless you mean to say that journalists and authors are a large portion of people working inside Google and other AI platform places....which I highly highly doubt. Part of the problem is that you don't need to be an artist to train an AI on other people's art.Again the issue is not the provenance. I am in fact actually very much in favor of reducing copyright term limits. My issue is that these tools are almost guaranteed to get used by greedy corporations that want to cut costs wherever they can. If you can generate halfway decent art using DALL-E at one-tenth the cost (and time) of hiring an actual living artist, you do it, hands down, no question. Because the bottom line is everything, as we have seen from numerous problems arising over the past 30-50 years.Automation can be a lovely thing. I made a comparison between a proposed "flat colors" tool and a washing machine earlier and I very much meant it. Washing machines have saved millions, perhaps billions, of people thousands of hours of labor over the course of their lives. Such tools are a good thing.My concern is greedy corporations abandoning an industry that they already treat extremely poorly and exploitatively, chasing lower costs no matter the human cost, and as a result giving us more limited, samey, cookie-cutter art liable to be plagued by racist tropes and presentation because AI just use what we give them and there are major racist biases in both the data provided and the ways that data is used. (See: the image sharpener AI that turned pictures of black people into white ones. Including Barack Obama.)</blockquote>

Verification