Asklemmy

49785 readers

674 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

286

OK, not to be runde or anything, but why is your banner AI generated (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by BennyTheExplorer@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

245 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn't been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn't it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Yeah, but if you drew it yourself then they wouldn't expect to be paid. Unless you plagiarised them to the degree that would trigger a copyright claim, they would (at worst) just see it as a job that they could have had, but didn't. Nothing of theirs was directly used, and at least something original of theirs was created. Whereas AI images are wholly based on other work and include no original ideas at all.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're posting on lemmy.ml; we don't care much for intellectual property rights here. What we care about is that the working class not be deprived of their ability to make a living.

[–] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Agree with that. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive though?

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 3 points 6 days ago

I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, which is why I usually side against AI. On this particular occasion however, there's a palpable difference, since no artist is materially harmed.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago

You haven't explained how it would be different in any way. Human artists learn by emulating other artists, and vast majority of art is derivative in nature. Unless a specific style is specified by the user input, AI images are also not plagiarised to the degree that would trigger a copyright claim. The only actual difference here is in the fact that the process is automated and a machine is producing the image instead of a human drawing it by hand.