As an artist, I think it is a net negative for us. Disregarding the copyright issue, I think it’s also consolidating power into large corporations, going to kill learning fundamental skills (rip next generation of artists), and turn the profession into a low skill minimum wage job. Artists that spent years learning and perfecting their skills will be worth nothing and I think it’s a pretty depressing future for us. Anways thoughts?
under capitalism: will probably lead to more unemployment
under socialism: useful, but probably still disheartening for artists (not necessarily enough of a reason to stop developing it, but rather to make a distinction between human-made art and computer-generated art)
Maybe under socialism (and under capitalism too, ideally) it shouldn’t be developed and released as an artist-replacement tool, but as an artist-aiding tool
I think development should be focused on aiding artists, but if some team did manage to create an AI that generates really high-quality images, I don’t think it should be withheld
Even if it was trained with copyrighted artwork without the original artists’ permission and it’s capable of outputting untouched images with the right prompt?
I was thinking of a socialist system where copyright isn’t a factor. Under capitalism or a very early stage of socialism, AI art generators will absolutely be abused by large corporations to use the works of smaller artists who can’t feasibly sue them
For a practical solution, limiting the input data to photos would remove the issue of stealing artists’ work (excluding photographers)
Fully agree.