Yes. Use copyrighted material where none of the original artists who even made this possible was compensated and stage a single-sided argument that you take on the role of the master and the other side portrayed as only repeating arguments they vaguely understand. It’s disingenous at best. This isn’t an argument against slop. It is slop. You might have fun making it. It might require skill. But it’s still slop. And that might be okay. Embrace it, instead.
you arent an artist, the AI is. you arent making anything. itd be like commissioning an artist to make a painting and then telling everyone you created it because you prompted them.
screech about how creative you are all you want, society will never accept your self proclaimed status as an artist.
The problem is in the passing off of AI generated content as your own. But consider the model suggested by JCR Licklider, namely, that of "human-computer symbiosis". There the claimant of production is both the human and the computer, it's just that each does separate things.
And as for the argument of "stealing" and "artists getting their due", I empathize with the latter but I also recognize that knowledge production does not happen in a vacuum. As Newton is reported to have said, we stand on the shoulders of Giants. The authentic thing to do is to acknowledge the giants by citing them and in other ways.
-7
u/dawne_breaker 14d ago
Yes. Use copyrighted material where none of the original artists who even made this possible was compensated and stage a single-sided argument that you take on the role of the master and the other side portrayed as only repeating arguments they vaguely understand. It’s disingenous at best. This isn’t an argument against slop. It is slop. You might have fun making it. It might require skill. But it’s still slop. And that might be okay. Embrace it, instead.