I'm seeing more and more people, especially non-artists, saying things like 'My AI art skills are really improving,' as if AI is a discipline such as drawing, painting or whatever.
Like people in 1981 who pricked the cellophane on their frozen-ready meals, popped them in the microwave and said 'My cooking skills are really improving. Maybe I'm a chef now.'
@Richard_Littler I bet people made the same arguments about cameras.
@LouisIngenthron Nascent camera technology did not exploit (non-consensually or otherwise) the work of other artists for its essential functionality.
@Richard_Littler You can absolutely take a photo of the work of other artists.
Just as you can train a generative AI algorithm on non-exploitative material.
Neither is inherent to the medium.
@LouisIngenthron Ah, the 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' argument.
@Richard_Littler Yes, precisely. Do not ascribe motive or intent to inanimate objects.
AI isn't taking jobs. CEOs are replacing jobs with AI.
@LouisIngenthron @Richard_Littler Lot’s of similar arguments have been made about loudspeakers, synthesisers and VCRs. This is more comparable to sampling, but not the same, since traditional sampling requires you to assemble the outcome: doing beat matching, lining up samples, etc. It would be a more fruitful discussion, though, since the same arguments of theft are present there as well. And I’m not really sure the comparison would be in “AI”’s favour.