this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2025
288 points (85.5% liked)

Asklemmy

49803 readers
630 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn't been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn't it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] guyoverthere123@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

How else would someone have been able to get all those chipmunks in one photo?

[โ€“] Capricorn_Geriatric@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture.

I don't think AI is inherently bad. What's bad is how we (or well, the corpos) use it. SEO, vibe coding, making slop, you name it.

About training material being stealing: hard agree here. Our copyright laws are broken, but they are right about AI - training is strong in a retrieval system, which is infingement. Shame they aren't enforced at all.

What fascinates me is the similarity between AI and photography. That is, both are revolutionary tools in the visual medium. Imagine this thread being an opinion column in an 1800s newspaper, and replace all instances of 'AI' with 'photography'. The arguments all stand, but our perspective to them may change.

My PFP is actually AI generated with a local model (Stable Diffusion 1.5) thanks to my producer, Neigsendoig (who goes by Sendo). Personally speaking, both Sendo and I are into generative AI, and use it with proper disclosure.

Most people should do that whenever they use generative AI for anything, provided that AI is an integral part of the production.

[โ€“] Asswardbackaddict@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You should definitely support artists! You know how good it feels to support someone you know? I'm personally going to give my music away for free. I think intellectual property is meant to be shared, but I do recognize that we gotta eat in this parasitic system, yo. How about this? We support artists with our commonwealth? It's fucking important, man. Culture matters. No need to shift the blame to the individual when it's the system that's rotten. Two more ideas, then I'll fuck off. Guaranteed dignity in death, and defensive, non-coercive, no entanglements protection of holy sites. I'm a deterministic atheist through and through, but man, we gotta heal our fucking souls.

[โ€“] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 0 points 6 days ago

If that's what it seems to you, you might want to reread their comment. You're way off base.

[โ€“] GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk 69 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Honestly, it's because it went in early days.
When ML generated art was a novelty, and people hadn't had a chance to sit down and go "wait, actually, no".
And it's an absolute arsepain to replace, because you'll get 1001 prompt engineers defending slop.
feddit.uk banned generative AI content to make this process easier, and still needs to sweep through and commission new art for a few communities.

load more comments (5 replies)
[โ€“] jsomae@lemmy.ml 65 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wouldnโ€™t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner

I hate it when AI is used to replace the work an artist would have been paid for. But uh, this is a random open-source forum; there's no funding for artists to make banners. Rejecting AI art -- which was voted for by the community -- just seems like baseless virtue signalling. No artist is going to get paid if we remove it.

But like if you want to commission an artist with your own money, by all means go ahead. You'll still most likely need another community vote to approve it though.

[โ€“] sanguinepar@lemmy.world 59 points 1 week ago (47 children)

That doesn't change that real artists who made real art will have had their work used without permission or payment to help generate the banner. I'm with OP.

load more comments (47 replies)
[โ€“] beyond@linkage.ds8.zone 36 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Intellectual property is made up bullshit. You can't "steal" a jpeg by making a copy of it, and the idea that creating something based on or inspired by something else is somehow "stealing" it is quite frankly preposterous.

The sooner we as a society disabuse ourselves of this brainworm the better.

Edit: I have very mixed feelings about so-called generative AI, so please do not take this as a blanket endorsement of the technology - but rather a challenge on the concept of "stealing intellectual property," which I unequivocally do not believe in.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next โ€บ