[drumhead]

I've never heard the argument that AI art is immoral. I know it scares of lot of people because it's going leave them with less work. But that's just what technology does, kills some industries and gives birth to new ones. It's not immoral, it's just economies work.

[MattRix]

Being “inevitable” does not preclude something from being immoral. Technologies and economies can be immoral too. The idea that all technological progress is inherently good is bizarre.

As for AI art specifically, the problem isn’t really that artists are being replaced. The problem that their own work is being used to replace them, and yet they are not getting credited or compensated by midjourney (etc).

[swores]

I can appreciate arguments for and against AI art being immoral, however:

> It's not immoral, it's just [how] economies work.

Do you believe that every aspect of "economies" (or, to simplify the question, let's say just current day capitalism to exclude things like communism and historic economies from the equation) must automatically be moral, or perhaps amoral since you only said "not immoral"?

Seems to me like either a badly thought out claim, or a bad faith argument to justify your main claim about AI art, rather than an actual justification for believing AI art is not immoral.

(Side note - from the POV of my comment anyway, though I suppose technically my comment is the side-note and this is back on the main topic: if you genuinely haven't noticed any debate over the morality or not or AI art, you've not been following AI coverage in mainstream & tech news publications, nor reading the huge number of HN threads where people disagree over whether or not AI image generators training on human art without compensating the human creators should be considered immoral IP theft or should be considered the same as a human studying great artists while working on improving their own art).

[yieldcrv]

Adobe’s AI image model uses their own licensed photo set and Adobe Stock

Same with Getty’s

is that the approved use then? or does the goal post move

[swores]

I'm not the best person to ask, you may have noticed from my comment that I didn't argue that any type of AI art is or isn't immoral, I just pointed out that many people have been arguing on both sides. Among other reasons, because I don't have a fully formed opinion either in general or in specific cases.

But thanks for assuming that I'm arguing in bad faith despite not making an argument for either side!

[yieldcrv]

I didn’t assume that, I asked two questions.

Thanks for your contributions

[swores]

Apologies for misunderstanding your comment, then

[mensetmanusman]

AI Art is just information photography in a digital space. Prompting is setting up the camera and pushing 'click'

[MattRix]

If you take a photograph of someone else’s copyrighted work, that doesn’t make it a new piece. For example, look at how Valve is rejecting games that use AI generated art: https://twitter.com/simoncarless/status/1674285134374404096

[mensetmanusman]

That's true, which is why the photography analogy holds.

It makes sense you can't clone exact types of art, but mixing and mashing two or more to make something totally new and derivative is fine.

[MattRix]

Ok but how mixed and mashed does it need to be before it’s not considered derivative? And how do you know that the thing the AI generated isn’t a clone?