• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    62 months ago

    No?

    People are paying for those pictures, either as a subscription or per-use basis. They’re paying a rate to reflects work; photographers, models, rights - all kinds of different costs up front. None of that exists with AI.

    It’s sort of like sitting down to a restaurant, ordering and paying, and then getting served food from your own home. Some horseshit Kraft mac and cheese and fish sticks.

    • @I_Has_A_Hat
      link
      1
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      A better comparison would be if the menu at the restaurant had AI art on it. It doesn’t matter, I’m not there for the menu art. The menu is not the main product I’m there to consume. It’s the food. The menu art is there to give a quick visual and because it looks marginally better than a blank piece of paper, nothing more. Whether it was painted by an artist or created in 2 minutes by someone with Stable Diffusion makes no difference in the food quality.

      If people are really losing money because others no longer want to use their work for meaningless article headers, I don’t know what to say. Maybe get in line with phone operators and VCR repair men?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        I wasn’t really arguing for the artist. I was arguing that Adobe is ripping people off by selling horseshit when the prices they’re charging are for a different product entirely. A more expensive one.

        If they want to make AI stock photos available they should have a different tier. It should be cheaper. They shouldn’t just mix it in with their regular stock photos. It’s a different product and it’s a hell of a lot cheaper.