In a post-scarcity solarpunk future, I could imagine some reasonable uses, but that’s not the world we’re living in yet.

AI art has already poisoned the creative environment. I commissioned an artist for my latest solarpunk novel, and they used AI without telling me. I had to scrap that illustration. Then the next person I tried to hire claimed they could do the work without AI but in fact they could not.

All that is to say, fuck generative AI and fuck capitalism!

  • ___@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 个月前

    I need a cover for my novel. Hold on real quick while I get this 4 year degree and spend $80k to send an fu to the AI overlords and design it myself.

    After that I’ll throw my shovels away and use spoons instead.

    • Incblob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 个月前

      Or you could pay someone… There’s a bunch of starting artists who work for cheap. There, saved you $79.5k Sadly your novel won’t sell because it’s been buried by an avalanche of ai generated books. (amazon recently limited the number of books you can self publish to only five per day… Your argument works both ways, why should I study and practice for years to learn to write my own novel (or pay you) when Ai can just generate it for me?

      • ___@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        6 个月前

        I recently commissioned a logo because AI is terrible at it. Once that becomes good enough, I don’t see myself paying another $100 when I can generate it for nearly free. I had submissions for the logo that were clearly AI generated. It’s the same problem with search, you won’t know what’s human unless you dig. It harms artists, but technology improvement always leaves a trail of industries obsoleted. The technology is here, it makes some work more efficient. If you cripple it now to save jobs, you’ll limit the investment and any future gains due to fear of repeat. I think the key is to look at it as a tool, not a replacement. It can certainly help you flush out your ideas and write a better book.

        • Incblob@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 个月前

          Gains for who? If Ai does all the art and books and all the artists are broke, the only ones left are the corporations making money, and the ones selling AI/hardware. The rest are left with generic art, and ironically, innovation in art will stall because Ai cannot innovate.

          And it’s not being used as a tool, you yourself said that you’ll use it instead of paying an artist. As I said, there’s already a ton of Ai books being churned out, flooding the market. Are you fine with yourself being replaced by Ai because it’s cheaper?

          • ___@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 个月前

            I think at the point AI can “replace” artists, the individual becomes the artist. A much less exclusionary field if you don’t have the drawing ability. It becomes just another advanced paint brush.

            The true creatives will still find a way to stick out. The definition of “art” will change.

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 个月前

            the only ones left are the corporations making money,

            So at worst by your logic there is no difference. I have no preference for artist capitalists over chipmaking capitalists.

            • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 个月前

              What means of production do you think artists hold?? It’s absolutely deranged to put artists (who 99 times out of 100 are not wealthy) and CEOs in the same class.