Okay, I guess I just don’t connect to that argument because intent and understanding the artist is rarely a thing I look for in day to day art. 99% of the images I see that make me feel anything do so because of the imagery itself plus sometimes my own experience that might come to mind from it.

Interesting thought about the lie, I guess sometimes it’s hard to determine what is a criticism against a use case of a tech and what is criticism against the tech itself.

Thank you, out of all of these replies I feel like you really hit the nail on the head for me.

It would suck, but I wouldn’t blame others for enjoying a service that they perceive as convenient. Of course I would blame you for theft/piracy, as I think artists should against illegally trained models.

I get what you are saying. But does it not sound like the horse farmers when the car came out? It sucks, I don’t blame artists for fighting it and for hating it, but isn’t it inevitable that it will happen to most jobs at some point? I work in cyber security, and it would suck a lot once AI gets good enough to start taking me out of business, but I also accept that it is inevitable and the solution of fighting against technological advances has rarely worked historically.

Because it means nothing to me. sorry to disappoint but I don’t even understand that argument, I saw plenty of AI images that looked full of life to me, so what does that even mean that it is lifeless? Maybe explain it instead of just being condescending about it.

Wow, thank you, I think this is the first argument that clicked for me.

But it does raise for me 2 questions:

• If the technology ever gets to a point where it does not degenerate into static by creating its own feedback loop, would it then be more like an excavator?
• What if this is the start of a future (understandably a bad start) where you have artist who get paid to train AI models? Kind of like a an engineer that designs a factory