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?

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    Physical artists won’t, especially those doing plastic art.

    Why would they be safe with 3D printers being a thing?

    • Lucy :3@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s kind of its own category of art: designing 3D-Printed stuff.

      I mean stuff like cutting wood or doing something out of bricks etc.

      • Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        What difference does the medium make? The people who think AI pictures are good enough or even better than art made by humans will be perfectly fine with generating 3D models and printing them if they want any kind of sculpture.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think he meant painting and the like when saying “plastic arts”, not doing art with plastic.

      Or so I guess.

      • Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Plastic arts is sculptures, three dimensional things like statues. Nothing to do with plastic, the material. It just so happens that 3D printing is a type of plastic art that uses types of plastic as its medium.

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

            If that’s the case, it’s a language barrier thing. The equivalent to “plastic art” in my native language excludes paintings.

            • Valmond@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              24 hours ago

              Fair enough!

              English and french seems to include it.

              What’s the language? Maybe it’s more literal and fr/en has some historical etymology…

              • Lumidaub@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                20 hours ago

                In German, it’s “plastische Kunst”. The adjective “plastisch” basically means “three dimensional”, as in “not flat”.

                Plastische Chirurgie is plastic surgery - it’s not primarily putting “plastic” into bodies ;) but sculpting a three dimensional form.

                • Valmond@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  Interesting, in french, latin, greek before that, it seems it’s about plasticity, the possibility to modulate materials.

                  Stumbled onto wilipedia and Kant coining the modern expression, with, if I understood it correctly, painting in the definition. Guess it didn’t stick in his homeland :-)