And yet everything in your comment was about who is “benefiting” from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after “art isn’t all about the money” is:
AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated
Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?
I am not corporate America, and yet the only language you’ve been using with me has been “money money pay money.”
This was originally about whether AI art was actually art. You started this with:
AI images ain’t art.
And
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art.
But the only actual argument you’ve come up with so far is that some artists are not being paid for it.
Okay, so let’s imagine a magical world where that happened. Every time an AI generates an image, the fraction of a penny that the image costs is shaved into millions of thin slices and distributed to everyone who holds copyright over anything that was used to create the model. Bigger pieces of that penny are going to companies like Disney or Getty, a few atoms of copper are going to randos on Deviant Art, it’s all nice and fair.
Does AI-generated art now count as art in that world, as far as you’re concerned? Did it pay enough to buy the title?
I don’t think art has to have a price tag on it in order for it to be art, personally. If I went to the Pirate Bay and downloaded a copy of a beautiful movie, let’s say Koyaanisqatsi, and didn’t pay one cent for it, would it not be art?
Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it? It’s a film made by humans. That’s art regardless of profit.
Meta and other companies made it about money when they stole work specifically to make a profit. How those artists get compensated is a problem for tech to figure out since it dug this hole. Maybe they can look at how streaming artists earn revenue as an example. Even if I was giving my work away for free, I’d like to be made aware if AI tools are using it—for profit or not—so I can opt-in/out.
I define art as something made by a being with consciousness. I choose to not define AI-generated imagery as art because in its current state, it’s made under questionable pretense and solely for profit.
Why don’t you have a talk with the capitalists that made it about profit in the first place. Nobody is saying money makes it art. That’s the fucking point. It’s not. Capitalism forced it to be.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
And yet everything in your comment was about who is “benefiting” from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after “art isn’t all about the money” is:
So it’s not about the money, but gimmie money.
Desiring that the people who make art not starve to death is too much to ask now? We live under Capitalism! It’s money or death.
Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?
I am not corporate America, and yet the only language you’ve been using with me has been “money money pay money.”
This was originally about whether AI art was actually art. You started this with:
And
But the only actual argument you’ve come up with so far is that some artists are not being paid for it.
Okay, so let’s imagine a magical world where that happened. Every time an AI generates an image, the fraction of a penny that the image costs is shaved into millions of thin slices and distributed to everyone who holds copyright over anything that was used to create the model. Bigger pieces of that penny are going to companies like Disney or Getty, a few atoms of copper are going to randos on Deviant Art, it’s all nice and fair.
Does AI-generated art now count as art in that world, as far as you’re concerned? Did it pay enough to buy the title?
I don’t think art has to have a price tag on it in order for it to be art, personally. If I went to the Pirate Bay and downloaded a copy of a beautiful movie, let’s say Koyaanisqatsi, and didn’t pay one cent for it, would it not be art?
Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it? It’s a film made by humans. That’s art regardless of profit.
Meta and other companies made it about money when they stole work specifically to make a profit. How those artists get compensated is a problem for tech to figure out since it dug this hole. Maybe they can look at how streaming artists earn revenue as an example. Even if I was giving my work away for free, I’d like to be made aware if AI tools are using it—for profit or not—so I can opt-in/out.
I define art as something made by a being with consciousness. I choose to not define AI-generated imagery as art because in its current state, it’s made under questionable pretense and solely for profit.
Your whole argument so far has been that AI art isn’t art because the copyright holders of the stuff the models were trained on weren’t being paid.
Ah, finally a different argument. Though it now simply transfers the question to how one measures “consciousness.”
Found art isn’t art, then? Or algorithmic art? Photography?
I know someone that does algorithmic art with Python and WebGL. There’s a skill behind it.
Just like there’s art and skill behind the work that runs modern LLMs.
Found art is art. So is algorithmic, multimedia, etc.
Running an LLM and feeding it yours and your friends’ own art to train on? Go for it.
Art generated solely for profit, by billionaires, through piracy methods they’d sue the fuck out of you for using? Trash.
We barely got through one exchange before you wound up right back at “you have to pay for it to be art.”
So much for the involvement of consciousness.
Why don’t you have a talk with the capitalists that made it about profit in the first place. Nobody is saying money makes it art. That’s the fucking point. It’s not. Capitalism forced it to be.