• jqubed@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    That doesn’t sound like a kind of “AI” usage I’m particularly concerned about, but would be willing to listen to reasons of why it is or isn’t a problem

    • ObsidianZed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I just genuinely don’t like the look of most AI generated imagery, also there’s the ever prevalent conundrum that is the lack of supporting actual human artists.

      • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Out of curiosity, did you not like the images before you read that they used AI? Its pretty obvious that it was used as a tool by human artists from the write-up, in the same way that a human artist would use Photoshop.

    • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The AI used was likely trained on sets of data without the consent nor compensation of the people whose works were used.

        • tiredofsametab@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I didn’t take it to mean that the AI was exclusively trained on their own images, but good on them if they are.

      • Belgdore@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’ve never understood this argument in a vacuum. Fair use includes education. And people have been getting inspired by art they don’t own a copyright to for ever.

        There are lots of other critiques of ai that I do agree with.