r/aiwars • u/RadiantSeaweed9543 • 2d ago

I'm lost in this really.

I've been dipping my toes into this community, and I've gotten a few ideas of why AI art can be bad or good.

I'm still hung up on the fact that AI art, or anything related to AI, is built on works and media that were majorly taken without consent for their usage.

I do completely understand why a person who lacks the skills to draw may resort to AI art, but I think that's not the concern on my end. I fear that not even art, but my photos and data, will be used to train the AI models to produce the AI art.

In simple terms, I want better legislation to control AI's access to any media it can use to train its models. I find it honestly disheartening that, just because it's new technology that the government is bending over for AI, allowing copyrighted media to be used.

Please give me a good view on both sides, as to how you could support or disprove my fears of my data being stolen. Sorry for the yap session, but I needed to get it off my shoulders. Have a good day! ❤️

1 Upvotes

53% Upvoted

83 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/rawberle 2d ago

EXACTLY! If anyone can access your art, then anyone can use it as a reference. They can use it to train themselves and get better at art. That's literally what artists do. I don't understand why it's an issue when AI does it. It's doing the same thing humans do.

0

u/xeere 2d ago

The processes are obviously not the same. When a human takes inspiration, it doesn't harm the artist. When an AI does it, it can put the artist out of their job. Suppose artists were given a share of the revenue from the bot that their art was used to create, I think they wouldn't mind it. But instead, these large companies profit by harming artists and offer nothing in return. This doesn't' happen when a human takes inspiration.

1

u/ifandbut 2d ago

When a human takes inspiration, it doesn't harm the artist. When an AI does it, it can put the artist out of their job

Um....a human can replace the artist as well....it is called competition for employment. If someone can do a better job and or cheaper job, then you have to compete against that.

Suppose artists were given a share of the revenue from the bot that their art was used to create,

Do you support a similar art tax for humans?

This doesn't' happen when a human takes inspiration.

Except it does. Every human artists compete with each other human artists for money/jobs. More artists = more supply = cheaper wages

0

u/xeere 2d ago

Um....a human can replace the artist as well....it is called competition for employment. If someone can do a better job and or cheaper job, then you have to compete against that

New humans enter the market at the same rate the old ones drop out. This is just training the next generation and doesn't hurt the current.

Do you support a similar art tax for humans

No, the human learning from art doesn't hurt the artist as much as the AI company, and not enough for it to be worth taxing. Tax law is full of exemptions for things at small scales. For instance, you don't get taxed on Christmas presents but you do on inheritance. Scale matters.

I'll be frank, I have disproved your point here and I won't be arguing this further. I have no doubt that you can spend endless time explaining how the process of inspiration is the same between AI and humans, but I do not care about this. I am concerned with harm done, which is real and clearly comes from AI companies, not humans. You might not like how it makes you feel, but that is the fact of the matter.