zlacker

>>dredmo+(OP)
Surely, if the next Stable Diffusion had to be trained from a dataset that has been purged of images that were not under a permissive license, this would at most be a minor setback on AI's road to obsoleting painting that is more craft than art. Do artists not realise this (perhaps because they have some kind of conceit along the lines of "it only can produce good-looking images because it is rearranging pieces of some Real Artists' works it was trained on"), are they hoping to inspire overshoot legislation (perhaps something following the music industry model in several countries: AI-generated images assumed pirated until proven otherwise, with protection money to be paid to an artists' guild?), or is this just a desperate rearguard action?

>>4bpp+65
Imagine you are an artist and you have developed your unique style.

Would you mind if AI starts creating art like yours?

What if your clients tell you they bought the AI generated art instead of yours?

>>Tepix+N5
Imagine you are a startup business owner and you have developed a unique product or service.

And then someone comes along and competes with you?

—

No one is bothered by competition in markets.

Why do we have more or less empathy of this type for some professions?

>>Brushf+a8
The appeal of art is the artist. Unless computers gain sentience they cannot replace the humanity and ego of artists.

Ever wondered why artists have to show up at gallery parties to sell their stuff?

>>MomoXe+ZB
No, the appeal of the artist is the artist. The art does offer a means to connect with the artist. It does not follow that the art may not offer its own appeal besides.