• BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’ll be a massive victory for artists and a failure for all the sham AI prompt generators.

    There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s not a single downside to requiring all material used in training to be licensed.

      It destroys the open source/hobbyist sector. The only AIs that would be available for artists to use would be corporate-controlled, paywalled, and filtered. That’s a pretty huge downside.

      • BURN@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not my problem

        Art is not generated by machines. Nothing of value is lost.

          • BURN@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Nothing of value is lost. Generative AI does not create anything new.

            It’s exclusively a benefit to artists

            • FaceDeer@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nothing of value to you is lost. We already know you don’t care about other people, no need to keep repeating that.

              • BURN@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                AI does not generate anything of value

                I care about artists and the protection of their work. Not the AI models or their creators.

                • FaceDeer@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There are artists who use AI tools as part of their workflow. You don’t care about them.

                  • BURN@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    And they can allow their art to be used to train AI. It just shouldn’t come at the expense of everyone else who wants to do things the traditional way.

                    Why should my work be open for anyone to use to train AI? I don’t care if it’s a hobbyist or an open model or google. I don’t want them using my work for training their models. Artists currently have rights over their work being used commercially, and I expect AI arguments to go that way as well. If it is to be used then it must be with the permission of the creator and a licensing contract written out. Art can be shared license free or AI permissive licenses, but would not be required to be.