Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • @adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    143 months ago

    I’m not afraid of AI and I’m certainly not a luddite my friend. I used to lecture about technology in art on several university courses.

    I’ve used algorithms to generate work that has been shown on an international stage, and used computers to run massive participatory art shows.

    I currently work in publishing, and I can’t express how much AI has already impacted the landscape through generative text. It doesn’t compete with traditional authors, it just smothers them through sheer volume. It clogs up submission processes and it fills open calls… And nearly every one using generative methods thinks they should be called an “author” just because they put a few words into a prompt.

    There really is a reason I hold this point if view and it is based on experience and education as well as being part of an industry that this is already having an impact on.

    If you want me to take you seriously, I’m going to need some real discussion around the firm that goes beyond name calling and vague statements.

    • @Cringe2793@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -53 months ago

      I honestly don’t give a fuck whether you take me seriously or not. As a luddite and technophobe, your opinion means less than nothing to me.

      Doesn’t change the fact that you’re afraid of AI though. It is gonna change things, and just because you’re afraid of it isn’t going to stop it. I suggest you learn to adapt.