Except no one is entitled to talent either, and that’s the unspoken presumption unpinning all of this. The fact that the entire technology is built off of the unethical use of other’s art just reinforces the entitlement of it all.
The fact that the entire technology is built off of the unethical use of other’s art
No it’s not, the technology is built on datasets for training, where and how the data for the datasets is obtained is where things can be ethical or unethical.
There are datasets out there solely built with data that was either owned or had express permission to be used in that manner. Adobe’s AI offerings for example is probably the biggest case of GenAI being built with “ethically sourced data” (for now anyways, Adobe being Adobe it would not surprise if it were to come out in the future they were lying the whole time)
You’re arguing their point, though. The issue has always been whether or not the data is sourced ethically, and the intent behind creating said technology from that data. Gen AI from the very beginning has been about divesting the effort and skill of workers to avoid having to pay them for it. The fact that the general public can use stuff like ChatGPT is merely creating additional profit for them while letting people partake in that same exploitation of the working class.
Not to say that you can’t have ethically sourced data and create great tools from that. There’s a company that I think Procreate has partnered with this past year that has commissioned artists (who also get paid royalties, I believe) to create training data for their Gen AI in their website design suite. That’s great: the artists get paid, and nobody has to spend all day making buttons for a shitty website’s UI.
But, even your previous statement falls into the trap of not wanting to pay people what they’re due for their skills. You said yourself that without Gen AI, you wouldn’t be able to create what you want because paying an artist is too expensive. Art is and always has been a luxury. Our society has simply devalued the skills of artists to the point where people believe that they’re entitled to those skills. Until such a time as artists are paid what they’re due, I can’t support the use of Gen AI. When that situation changes, it’ll be a different story, but right now, it’s like buying fast fashion from China because luxury fashion brands are too expensive.
People are so caught up in obtaining the end result of “art” that they don’t understand that the process is just as important, if not more, than the end result. And that the art is the result of years of working, not just the hours put into one drawing.
The ethical sourcing of the data was your biggest argument against it, everything else is just… Classic “people of ol” arguments when technology progresses. Niche skills dying out when tech advances is a part of life and people will always always seek out and pay a premium for things that are made “with process”. There are no more blacksmiths in every village, but they still exist AND charge an ass load for their skills. The same will happen with AI when things simmer down
ETA:
Gen AI from the very beginning has been about divesting the effort and skill of workers to avoid having to pay them for it
No actually, GenAI has been worked on for years now by researchers, we’ve got papers all the way back to like 2010. Companies are trying to take the technology now and wield it like that, but it certainly didn’t start that way
I had this whole thing written out about how ethical sourcing is the one issue with Gen AI and that was my whole point, because Gen AI does not work without artists making content for it to train off of and how art isn’t going anywhere, capitalism just doesn’t think that it’s a skill worth paying for.
But I realized that you’re one of those people who has missed one of the key components to art that has been lost as part of the century-long campaign to devalue the arts, and there’s no real conversation to be had without that component.
Art is more than just the product. Creating something is part of how humanity processes our experiences and the world around us. That’s why art therapy exists. The act of creating art is as much a part of the human experience as discussions about things like philosophy. Doesn’t matter what your skill level is or what you use to make art. It could be AI or a burnt stick. It’s the process of creation that we like.
Nobody wants to spend their days toiling away to make some soulless corporate art for an ad. If artists were free to make art for themselves all day, every day, you’d be able to hear the cheering from all over the world. But they can’t regardless, because they need to make money to put food on the table. So they leverage those passions and skills into a job.
This isn’t a “photography will ruin oil painting” situation. It’s a situation where the demand for artists is very much still there (and probably increasing as these programs demand an endless stream of non-AI art to learn from so they don’t eat themselves and become useless), but nobody is willing to pay to meet the demand. People are demanding artisan level products at hobbyist level wages - if that - and in the meantime, outright stealing the labor to meet the demand.
TL;DR: Pay artists to create training data and stop stealing it. That is the one and only issue anybody with at least half a braincell cares about. Everything else is just AI assholes thinking their generative programs make them better than other people.
Except no one is entitled to talent either, and that’s the unspoken presumption unpinning all of this. The fact that the entire technology is built off of the unethical use of other’s art just reinforces the entitlement of it all.
No it’s not, the technology is built on datasets for training, where and how the data for the datasets is obtained is where things can be ethical or unethical.
There are datasets out there solely built with data that was either owned or had express permission to be used in that manner. Adobe’s AI offerings for example is probably the biggest case of GenAI being built with “ethically sourced data” (for now anyways, Adobe being Adobe it would not surprise if it were to come out in the future they were lying the whole time)
You can have an ethically trained GenAI model
You’re arguing their point, though. The issue has always been whether or not the data is sourced ethically, and the intent behind creating said technology from that data. Gen AI from the very beginning has been about divesting the effort and skill of workers to avoid having to pay them for it. The fact that the general public can use stuff like ChatGPT is merely creating additional profit for them while letting people partake in that same exploitation of the working class.
Not to say that you can’t have ethically sourced data and create great tools from that. There’s a company that I think Procreate has partnered with this past year that has commissioned artists (who also get paid royalties, I believe) to create training data for their Gen AI in their website design suite. That’s great: the artists get paid, and nobody has to spend all day making buttons for a shitty website’s UI.
But, even your previous statement falls into the trap of not wanting to pay people what they’re due for their skills. You said yourself that without Gen AI, you wouldn’t be able to create what you want because paying an artist is too expensive. Art is and always has been a luxury. Our society has simply devalued the skills of artists to the point where people believe that they’re entitled to those skills. Until such a time as artists are paid what they’re due, I can’t support the use of Gen AI. When that situation changes, it’ll be a different story, but right now, it’s like buying fast fashion from China because luxury fashion brands are too expensive.
People are so caught up in obtaining the end result of “art” that they don’t understand that the process is just as important, if not more, than the end result. And that the art is the result of years of working, not just the hours put into one drawing.
The ethical sourcing of the data was your biggest argument against it, everything else is just… Classic “people of ol” arguments when technology progresses. Niche skills dying out when tech advances is a part of life and people will always always seek out and pay a premium for things that are made “with process”. There are no more blacksmiths in every village, but they still exist AND charge an ass load for their skills. The same will happen with AI when things simmer down
ETA:
No actually, GenAI has been worked on for years now by researchers, we’ve got papers all the way back to like 2010. Companies are trying to take the technology now and wield it like that, but it certainly didn’t start that way
I had this whole thing written out about how ethical sourcing is the one issue with Gen AI and that was my whole point, because Gen AI does not work without artists making content for it to train off of and how art isn’t going anywhere, capitalism just doesn’t think that it’s a skill worth paying for.
But I realized that you’re one of those people who has missed one of the key components to art that has been lost as part of the century-long campaign to devalue the arts, and there’s no real conversation to be had without that component.
Art is more than just the product. Creating something is part of how humanity processes our experiences and the world around us. That’s why art therapy exists. The act of creating art is as much a part of the human experience as discussions about things like philosophy. Doesn’t matter what your skill level is or what you use to make art. It could be AI or a burnt stick. It’s the process of creation that we like.
Nobody wants to spend their days toiling away to make some soulless corporate art for an ad. If artists were free to make art for themselves all day, every day, you’d be able to hear the cheering from all over the world. But they can’t regardless, because they need to make money to put food on the table. So they leverage those passions and skills into a job.
This isn’t a “photography will ruin oil painting” situation. It’s a situation where the demand for artists is very much still there (and probably increasing as these programs demand an endless stream of non-AI art to learn from so they don’t eat themselves and become useless), but nobody is willing to pay to meet the demand. People are demanding artisan level products at hobbyist level wages - if that - and in the meantime, outright stealing the labor to meet the demand.
TL;DR: Pay artists to create training data and stop stealing it. That is the one and only issue anybody with at least half a braincell cares about. Everything else is just AI assholes thinking their generative programs make them better than other people.