105
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2023
105 points (70.6% liked)
Games
32695 readers
576 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The art and images that image AI's are based off of, are stolen. They diffuse them as a legal loop hole. That's the main issue. I want to see AI pushed forward, but not when they're scraping data and not crediting artists. The amount of data required for an image AI is crazy; we have to figure out a way of legally and respectfully requiring that data.
Text AI's are marginally better, because a lot of the data acquired was opt in. It was just people talking. There is the issue with them ripping books, though.
It does make it different by virtue of sheer scale and efficiency.
A single human artist, no matter how good and fast they are, could ever singlehandedly damage the livelihoods of millions of other human artists. But a machine can. That's a meaningful distinction.
Granted, your point is valid in its purest sense. If we lived in a world where everyone could benefit from AI art without the real-world downsides, I'd agree with you, full stop. But we do, and those ramifications matter.
I think basically every industry has been dealing with automation for 100 years now. Art is only unique (imo) in that they've been avoiding it for awhile. That's why I only ride in vehicles where every part is hand made and assembled.