← Back to context

Comment by stego-tech

2 days ago

Yeah nah. The core reason they’re pissed is the blatant theft of their work to train these models without compensation or permission (the age old “if it’s on the web it’s free to use” bullshit argument), with “artistic merit” being a distant, but still critical, second.

If you can actually write stories or create art, you can see the “seams” in generative content and it gets to be quite nauseating. The fact it was trained on your own output by a trillion-dollar megacorp via theft while you scrape money for rent is the injury to the former’s insult.

3 comments

stego-tech

Reply
mikkupikku  2 days ago

Yeah, no. The example of Adobe neatly illuminates what's actually going on. Arguments about copyright are the Motte; a seemingly defensible position people can fall back to when challenged. Instead of defending the position of opposing non-infringing models, which Adobe created, AI opponents ignore that argument and fall back on copyright (you just did this, ignored the point about Adobe and reiterated the Motte arguments.)

Now, as for "seams" in generated out: insofar those seem are visible to the general public and not only those with artistic talent of their own, the seams are reassuring to artists concerned about tge future commercial value of their talents. But insofar as those seams are only apparent to the artistically trained, that concerns artists because if the buyers of art won't necessarily perceive it.