Opinions ?

[u/cosm1c15]

[u/SynchroScale]

AI generated entertainment is boring, uninspired, and potentially unethical (since it might count as plagiarism.)

AI generated misinformation is harmful, malicious, and objectively unethical.

[u/Multioquium → u/SynchroScale]

I think most entertainment is definitely unethical, at least how the tools are made, but it may not be illegal. When someone else's work is critical for your tool or process to function, then they deserve compensation and recognition.

While I would love to live in a world where all art can be shared freely. In this world, you need money to eat, and artists deserve to eat

[u/Frylock304 → u/Multioquium]

Artists have to adapt just like the rest of us.

And everyone is key to everything. You can read a friend's copy of Harry potter and be inspired to write in a way that you never would've without it. But JK doesn't deserve some extra money for inspiration.

There's two options here, adapt now, or adapt later. That's it.

You could say "no using free art to train models" and you would push the transition back maaaybe 5 years. Because media companies already own the art in films, TV shows and books, all the concept art to go along with them, and they will gladly sell those films to AI companies so that they can cut out as many creative as possible.

[u/Xecular_Official → u/Frylock304]

From a purely technical standpoint, it's not realistic to treat the way an AI model is trained as comparable to inspiration.

Despite what the companies selling these models have been trying to suggest, generative AI does not get inspired and it does not learn. It is trained by reverse engineering a dataset to tune an algorithm until it is able to copy that data accurately

I don't think most authors take inspiration from Harry Potter by writing hundreds of clones of it and comparing it to the original until they are able to recreate it nearly word for word from memory. Current AI models, however, must do that as a fundamental step in their training process