It's bad under capitalism. If we had a different system where artists didn't need to work for their livelihood, having them freely give their works to AI development in order to create AI art might be interesting. That's not the world we live in though.
Bringing disabilities into it isn't gonna outweigh the fact that corporations are currently stealing the work of individual people for their gain, without compensation to those people.
I would also say that learning how to art good has very few hurdles in front of it in current year. Most artists I know and have paid for art have never formally studied art at all. You really just need an art program, which are free (for real or for pirates) and either a dedicated art tablet (cheap ones cost less than 100$), or a regular tablet with an art program. Oh and thousands of hours of practice. Which is something you only do if you have the drive to learn, regardless of your monetary situation. Do you think most artists actually impacted by AI art are rich assholes who learned art out of boredom because their family had too much money? That's about as big a group as the amount of rich people who learn carpentry because they have free time. Which is to say: very very few.
But conversely I could point you at dozens of people from developing countries right that I have interacted with, who have been able to live comfortable lives by learning art and doing commissions over the internet. Yea we should really get on task stealing from them so that some Silicon Valley asshole can make another billion dollars. Sterling logic.
Also, is it abelist to say that if someone can't invest those hours, they should not be able to do good art? I don't think so. Like any skill, you have to hone it and get good over time through experience. If you can't put in the time to learn it after you work your day job (literally me), then that sucks, but that's not a disability. And if you do have a disability, I guess it's okay to go to a carpenter and demand they give you some furniture, because you can't make it yourself. Makes total sense. I would support going to Ikea to demand your furniture, but that is where the comparison breaks down, because corporations don't make art.
Also, to tackle this from another angle: There is no creative process involved in telling an AI to make you a picture. Actually ZERO. You aren't being creative by writing "Woman drinking Tea Art Station High Quality Red Hair Name of real artist I want you to steal from" into the prompter and then discarding the first seven outputs because they have too many fingers and the teacup looks weird.
Saying that we should join into the exploitation because it's inevitable under capitalism is just you wanting your treats and working backwards from there. No ethical consumption under capitalism wasn't meant as an instructional manual. You are still meant to not partake in the stuff you don't have to partake in if you can help it.
Independent Artists are not working class. They do not get paid in wages and they control the means of production. They are petit-bourgeoise.
This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific. (And its vaguely shitty though not as bad to use it as an excuse for why its ok for individuals to plagiarize from independent artists).
Like I'm sorry I know that technically under the terms definition an independent artist barely scrapping by on a handful of commissions or patreons who struggles as much as any minimum wage worker to make ends meet is as "petite-bourgiouse" as a jetski dealer who lives comfortably. But there are two things I gather from that
Them technically falling under the same umbrella doesn't excuse treating them the same because the material conditions they are facing are different. One is clearly vulnerable to exploitation, the other simply isnt in the same way.
Honestly? We probably need new terms if these two things fit the same definition as the definition currently stands, because they are materially different in so many ways. I refuse to be a slave to Marxist definitions as they currently stand if they cease to be useful to describe our material reality, and I'd say this is a pretty clear case of them not productively describing our material reality.
Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism. Particularly in the case of a bigger fish being the plagiarizer, whether that bigger fish be AI companies or situations like James Sommerton plagiarizing smaller creators.
I'm not going to respond to most of this because its just completly misguided but I did want to zero in on probably the worst part.
if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs
Are you under the impression that the majority of artists are currently in this position lol? Like is that where your brain is broken on this issue you think most people who draw or write for a living are comfortable?
It's bad under capitalism. If we had a different system where artists didn't need to work for their livelihood, having them freely give their works to AI development in order to create AI art might be interesting. That's not the world we live in though.
Bringing disabilities into it isn't gonna outweigh the fact that corporations are currently stealing the work of individual people for their gain, without compensation to those people.
I would also say that learning how to art good has very few hurdles in front of it in current year. Most artists I know and have paid for art have never formally studied art at all. You really just need an art program, which are free (for real or for pirates) and either a dedicated art tablet (cheap ones cost less than 100$), or a regular tablet with an art program. Oh and thousands of hours of practice. Which is something you only do if you have the drive to learn, regardless of your monetary situation. Do you think most artists actually impacted by AI art are rich assholes who learned art out of boredom because their family had too much money? That's about as big a group as the amount of rich people who learn carpentry because they have free time. Which is to say: very very few.
But conversely I could point you at dozens of people from developing countries right that I have interacted with, who have been able to live comfortable lives by learning art and doing commissions over the internet. Yea we should really get on task stealing from them so that some Silicon Valley asshole can make another billion dollars. Sterling logic.
Also, is it abelist to say that if someone can't invest those hours, they should not be able to do good art? I don't think so. Like any skill, you have to hone it and get good over time through experience. If you can't put in the time to learn it after you work your day job (literally me), then that sucks, but that's not a disability. And if you do have a disability, I guess it's okay to go to a carpenter and demand they give you some furniture, because you can't make it yourself. Makes total sense. I would support going to Ikea to demand your furniture, but that is where the comparison breaks down, because corporations don't make art.
Also, to tackle this from another angle: There is no creative process involved in telling an AI to make you a picture. Actually ZERO. You aren't being creative by writing "Woman drinking Tea Art Station High Quality Red Hair Name of real artist I want you to steal from" into the prompter and then discarding the first seven outputs because they have too many fingers and the teacup looks weird.
Saying that we should join into the exploitation because it's inevitable under capitalism is just you wanting your treats and working backwards from there. No ethical consumption under capitalism wasn't meant as an instructional manual. You are still meant to not partake in the stuff you don't have to partake in if you can help it.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
It's probably best for you to stop talking, because you keep revealing yourself as an idiot.
The enemy isn't anyone with two real in their pocket, the enemy is the people who actually have the money.
Absolutely reprehensible. Just leave and go back to hang out with the Borger King. He shares your views.
deleted by creator
This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific. (And its vaguely shitty though not as bad to use it as an excuse for why its ok for individuals to plagiarize from independent artists).
Like I'm sorry I know that technically under the terms definition an independent artist barely scrapping by on a handful of commissions or patreons who struggles as much as any minimum wage worker to make ends meet is as "petite-bourgiouse" as a jetski dealer who lives comfortably. But there are two things I gather from that
Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism. Particularly in the case of a bigger fish being the plagiarizer, whether that bigger fish be AI companies or situations like James Sommerton plagiarizing smaller creators.
deleted by creator
I'm not going to respond to most of this because its just completly misguided but I did want to zero in on probably the worst part.
Are you under the impression that the majority of artists are currently in this position lol? Like is that where your brain is broken on this issue you think most people who draw or write for a living are comfortable?