|
|
|
|
|
by orbital-decay
1318 days ago
|
|
This is a bit of a red herring. Nobody in their right mind will just copy another artist 1:1 and make money with it. That would be plagiarism, and that won't have value anyway. Even imitators (check out how much of those the artists like Ilya Kuvshinov have on Artstation, for example) vary their style a bit. That doesn't save them from being samey and boring, though. Some imitators like those of Jacek Yerka are less boring, yet they still have no message to tell. Artists have been driving themselves out of the industry for decades, without any ML. What can be easily automated with the current tools (which is not a lot) isn't worth saving at all. I suspect that most people perpetuating the panic never actually dived into AI art, learning what the tools are and aren't good for; they mostly enter a prompt, think it's magic, and start doomposting on Twitter. This is probably how artists felt with early 3D CGI, except we didn't have Twitter back then. |
|
These AI companies are wholesale scraping art without permission, payment or credit. You just have to look at how they act in other, more litigation heavy industries to see what they're getting away with.
I'm not sure how your argument relates to businesses not paying for artists?