[plastic_enjoyer]

>I can believe serious artists actually take pet in this luddite theatre.

I think more people should participate in the luddite theatre. Luddites weren't against automation and technological advances per se but that the profits of increased productivity weren't shared. The people that are profiting off AI generated art today don't want to participate in distributing their profits more widely, despite generative models being based on the works of other people, some of whose art was used for the training without permission.

[keybored]

I’m tired of the “they’re Luddites” middlebrow dismissal, ignoring all of the history and lessons of that time.

Yeah, Industrialization was a completely painless and smooth process. No one was ever inconvenienced. That’s why we can make fun of the then-naysayers now.

[sjfjsjdjwvwvc]

That is fair. I mostly wanted to express that it’s not going to accomplish their goal. Image generators are here to stay no matter how hard and long you fight against them.

Of course technological progress is never a painless process, it’s in fact extremely violent and brutal. On the other hand, industrialisation made it possible to feed 10 billion humans and eradicated much of the everyday pain humans had to deal with since the Stone Age. This would not have been possible otherwise.

[keybored]

> That is fair. I mostly wanted to express that it’s not going to accomplish their goal. Image generators are here to stay no matter how hard and long you fight against them.

What’s fair? You’re just repeating what you already said.

Image generators are here to stay? No kidding. Kind of like the machines of Industrial Revolution? Yeah, obviously. And people fought back when they in turn started to be treated like cogs in the Machine. And a lot of that worked. Even worked so successfully that we can dismiss those old fogies as backwards and simple. So privileged are we that we don’t have to know the history of what they did for us.

> Of course technological progress is never a painless process, it’s in fact extremely violent and brutal. On the other hand, industrialisation made it possible to feed 10 billion humans and eradicated much of the everyday pain humans had to deal with since the Stone Age. This would not have been possible otherwise.

What on the other hand? Why do you think we have the quality of life that we do? Because people sat on their hands and trusted the invisible hand of progress to sort things out for them? No, it is exactly because they fought back that things are working so well for us today.

But whatever. I’ve got my microwave oven and my fridge. Suck on that, stupid Luddites.

[indigo0086]

Hardly comparable. The fact that people can generate work doesn't mean they're owed labor because their work is being automated away. The physics of work is not a creative endeavor and even though I think ownership of creative works is grey matter the idea of having to share profits after generating more work with machines is just blindingly illogical

[namlem]

Is anyone reaping great profits off AI art? After all, it's not even copyrightable.

[simondw]

I think the idea is to profit off the generation of it, not the output works themselves.

[rf15]

Have you seen stock photo sites lately? Many of them happily claim they're real photos, too.

[denton-scratch]

People made money from creating art long before copyright was a thing. Copyright is not a pre-requisite for creative work.

[kazinator]

Copyright was made necessary by the emergence of the means of mass reproduction (printing presses, lithography).

[kazinator]

Rain doesn't have to generate money in order to kill your gig of delivering bottled water to the desert.

[polski-g]

Don't "want to"? Nobody wants to. If you want to make them, then lobby your representatives to pass a tax law targeting AI-derived revenue.

[glimshe]

But why do they have to participate in the profits? How musicians participate the profits of digital audio workstations that allow people to make music without real musicians? How did older artists profit from current artists that learned, and oftentimes virtually copied their style? The solution for artists is to embrace these tools to make even better art.