Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    I don’t see how it’s that different from someone using photo-editing software built with dozens of algorithms instead of a ‘pure’ drawing pad, or someone using a drawing pad instead of a pencil, or someone using a pencil instead of chalk. It’s a tool, and a great one at that in comparison to many digital tools for artists.

    It is different because a person isn’t involved, it’s a machine outputting the information without intent whatsoever (as machines do)

    • Keith
      link
      fedilink
      English
      39 months ago

      That’s not true though— extensive effort is put into prompting, parameter tweaking, etc.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        09 months ago

        Compared to how much effort it takes to learn how to draw yourself? The effort is trivial. It’s like entering a Toyota Camry into a marathon and then bragging about how good you did and how hard it was to drive the course.

        • @The_Vampire
          link
          English
          39 months ago

          It’s commendable to be good at something that requires a lot of effort. Making a hut with your bare hands is a lot more impressive than making a hut with all the construction tools of the modern day at your disposal. However, so what? I’d still rather have a house made with modern tools because it’s cheaper and more efficient for everybody involved.