The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.
The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.
And not every type of gatekeeping is bad.
Thats not the main issue either. The issue is that Corpos rather prompt an LLM than pay for their artists.
Right?
“You must be this tall to ride” isn’t because the amusement park hates short people. It’s a safety issue.
I don’t see how that comparison translates to the topic about AI art.
If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that. I don’t see why you should artificially limit this. If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that’s who the audience is for the remaining human creators. AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don’t see what the issue is.
it can’t create better content though
LLMS limit themselves already, no need to additionally artifical limit it.
Corpos don’t care, ordinary people don’t care. Does it make it still a good thing that Corpos can pump out slop without paying a living wage to artists or atleast royalties to those they took the training data from (with or without their consent)?
It pretty much can’t. It only mix and pattern matches existing photos.
Coming back to my first half sentence:
AI can’t create and when it only trains on it self it collapes, a short to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWvTr5wKGCA