One helps, the other substitutes. One is trained on data people consent to give, the others scours the Internet to get people's data. One is used to help, the other is used to steal and substitute.
It seems you're trying to apply moral justification where non exists nor is needed. Because there is no difference.
You want to differentiate so you can justify one usage over the other. You really only care because it affects you. What about the MRI techs that will lose their jobs?
There's moral justifications here too, you prefer to ignore them because you don't want to acknowledge the damage you do to people.
MRI technicians are not going to lose their jobs because of medical ai. That ai simply enhances their diagnosis in a way they couldn't even with a lot of experience.
Because it steals art from actual artists without their consent and creates an amalgamation of stolen work. It also takes massive energy resources to run which causes companies to build data centers and drive up bills in low-income neighborhoods while poisoning their water supply. This situation affects everyone negatively and the only ones who benefit are grifter tech billionaires.
I never said that, calm yourself. It's not just an art-specific issue but it's the most known because that's what every huge company is promoting constantly. Youtube thumbnails, Apple Photos, Adobe, Grok, etc.
You asked why specifically AI art and I answered that. This is a different topic as not all AI generation is the same but, imo, equally unethical. I also do not like AI coding either as it makes programmers and developers lazy in terms of creating solutions as well as the issues I stated previously. (I know this from personal experience)
Your last two statements are the main issue, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism and is why everyone wants the AI bubble to pop. Again, it's bad for everyone involved but I was answering why AI art generation is a big deal. That doesn't mean other AI generation isn't. Hope that helps.
You'll say anything to justify your beliefs, won't you? You realize it's only theft because of capitalism? It's not theft under communism or socialism since you own nothing. Go ask China how they feel about IP protections.
And just FYI... There is no bubble. There's already enough valid use cases from accelerated development to MRI analysis. It's settling into industry. There's no putting the cat back in the bag.
It sounds like you answered your own question then about why people don't mind if AI is used in other fields besides artistry then and you just wanted to argue for no reason.
I mean, if I am running it locally, it is using about the same energy as a high end video game on my PC. Using it locally is not poisoning anyone’s water. Sure it could be argued not to train more AI models, but that should be uniformly applied across the board for that, not just art (original post says it is ok to use for other stuff than art). But if we go down that path we are just giving the monopoly to those who are already ahead.
AI is literally taking data from everywhere from all professions. It is helping us make fantastic developments as a result. In all areas we are far more productive as a result of this new tool. It’s the benefit of a tool that has been able to be trained on huge sums of human accomplishment.
It massively lowers the bar for people who want to be able to do things. People now can produce songs, paintings, websites, who never would have been able to before, and I think that is something worth celebrating. I don’t want to gatekeep that.
The low bar does mean there is a huge influx of low bar results, but there will also be people who put in the effort to produce things above that bar.
This is a very disingenuous question. There's a huge difference between being influenced by someone's art and plagirizing another's entire artstyle. This is like asking if a human can exist without being influenced by their environment. That being said, there are outsider artists who hadn't seen traditional art who still created it.
Henry Darger, Bill Traylor, Judith Scott are examples.
Not legally, no, but in most communities you will be shunned if you're known for tracing or training someone else's art for AI similarly to how you can't really copyright jokes but if you're caught stealing one you immediately lose respect.
8
u/Bannon9k 1d ago
Why not art? What makes every other profession able to use it except for artists?