I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.

while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?

  • makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    This response assumes an artist wants to be a professional artist, that wants to make a living from it. There are MANY artists, that have no interest of turning their source of joy, into a source of income, and all that comes with it.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      Exactly. I have no intention of selling my art and I object strongly to it being used by some company for their own profit. That’s mine, wtf makes them think they can use it, regardless of its current monetisation status?