I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.

  • Susaga@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    14 days ago

    “AI is just a tool” is not how anyone uses AI. They treat AI like a free employee who will do the work for them. Note how people don’t say it replaces a paintbrush, but that it replaces a commissioned artist.

    “AI is not going away” is just a lie, making it seem inevitable so you stop fighting it. Just like how bitcoin is going to revolutionise currency, and now NFTs are the future.

    I see complete justification in banning the garbage output from the world-burning nazi-built plagiarism machine.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      01·
      13 days ago

      ‘People say it’s a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!’ … what?

      How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?

      Most things that could be commissioned - aren’t. The money is never spent. The money isn’t real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it’s instead of, is the thing not happening.

      You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’

      Any visions of this blowing over should’ve vanished when it became a porn faucet.

      ‘Nobody anywhere wants this because I personally feel icky.’ Okay good luck with that. But it’s not a coherent opinion.

      This software is obviously fucking desirable, or people wouldn’t be using it. And posting it, and following it, and commenting on it, and on and on. There’s a lot of people besides you.

      After the dot-com bubble, the internet didn’t “die off.”

      This topic gives me flashbacks to arguing with creationists. Y’all invent whatever sweeping absolutes must be true, for your next sentence to matter. So there is only one possible reason for art! and if that reason’s different from comment to comment then ehhh who cares. False! Okay true but only if. Anyone who disagrees isn’t a true Scotsman. It wasn’t a ranking, my guy. “Better than” isn’t relevant.

      And now it’s not even a tool. That’s a neat trick. It’s the only mechanism ever invented that’s immune to human intent! It becomes a legal person whenever that’s convenient to someone spitting at it. No mere user is responsible for some horrifying combination of fetishes in one image, no matter how long they spent tweaking the controls for this software. A picture is worth infinity words, so any resemblance to ideas a human being wanted and worked toward is utter coincidence.

      And it’s snake oil!, despite visibly functioning as advertised. To such a degree that you’re worried that artists will starve. It’s okay, they’ll come back to life, once this constantly-improving new class of software vanishes on account of mumble mumble hey look over there.

      Hate getting lock-sniped on a high-effort response.