I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.

while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?

  • alcoholicorn
    2·
    9 hours ago

    I get what you’re saying and I make that same criticism sometimes, but

    1. works don’t exist in a vacuum, context is part of any work of art, and sometimes that means reading the plaque next to a painting, sometimes that means looking something up on wikipedia.

    Nobody outside of historians would be able to interact with like 80% of historical art if supplemental information wasn’t valid.

    1. You don’t have to be moved at the first moment you look at a piece of art for that art to be moving.

    I’m not prepared to say that death of the author is entirely invalid, or even that the viewer has to accept the author’s intention, only that understanding or at least sensing that is a vital aspect of art.

    • isyasad@lemmy.world
      2·
      8 hours ago

      I mostly agree although rather than saying author intention is a vital aspect of art I would say it can be, but that the raw, uninformed experience is almost always more important