Businesses that rely on creatives should probably avoid angering them.

  • ekZepp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This just show how ready and willing are many companies to replace human creativity with cheap AI. If anyone really thought that this wasn’t the direction they were pointing to, he was just deluding himself. New creativity tools “my ass”.

    • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      People will buy the cheapest product that meets their needs. A business not using AI as much as possible is in a disadvantage.

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Maybe for companies that aren’t selling tools for digital artists, but WACOM is literally trying to sell a product that humans use to create these images. To usurp the their customer base and buy an AI image (even unintentionally) shows at best a complete lack of understanding about what kind of art is being made with their tablets and at worst a disregard for a major concern of their customer base.

        • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          The same arguments were made in the 80s when products like Adobe appeared in the design market. Capitalism is about survival of the fittest whether we like it or not, and AI is a tremendous advantage.

  • omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 months ago

    I get why people are upset, but isn’t it kinda futile? Everything that can be replaced with AI will be. From arts to dev and anything else they can think of. It’s only a matter of time until the tech is good enough for any particular problem. Trying up legislate against it doesn’t seem useful either. People will get around it eventually.

    We’re moving towards a world where lots of us won’t have viable jobs in these fields. We’ll either find different jobs or need some form of UBI

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      It is, this is the equivalent of protesting the printing press. It would be most useful to find a way to transition gracefully, but most people are still in the denial stage.

  • soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like anymore, artists just look through companies work just to go point out AI art and whine about it

    • bramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      If artists aren’t producing work and just complaining about AI art, who is AI stealing the work of?

      Your argument literally defeats itself.

      • Shurimal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        No-one. Training a neural network, natural or artificial, is not “stealing”. Or no artist would be able to study the works of other artists to become a better artist themself.

        • bramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Your argument seems to be that we should consider the AI to itself be an artist and to grant it the rights of other artists.

          That’s fair.

          But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works.

          They also are compensated for their work.

          Is OpenAI putting money in a trust for when their product gains sentience?

          • 520@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works.

            But we do allow them to take inspiration from other artists and emulate their styles.

            Much of the issue around AI art seems to be more about the prompter (IE: asking explicitly for copyrighted stuff or real people) than the AI itself.

    • foxbat@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      wacom is a company that produces drawing tablets. you know, hardware tools for artists. it is their job to market specifically to artists.

  • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you become less productive than China then they get the market. You want to fix the problem by making US business owners to pay up, but capital has no nationality. If you succeed then you have to accept that there is no way for the US to have such a big military complex and it’s time to let China be the world’s super power.