Businesses that rely on creatives should probably avoid angering them.

  • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    If you become less productive than China then they get the market. You want to fix the problem by making US business owners to pay up, but capital has no nationality. If you succeed then you have to accept that there is no way for the US to have such a big military complex and it’s time to let China be the world’s super power.

  • omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I get why people are upset, but isn’t it kinda futile? Everything that can be replaced with AI will be. From arts to dev and anything else they can think of. It’s only a matter of time until the tech is good enough for any particular problem. Trying up legislate against it doesn’t seem useful either. People will get around it eventually.

    We’re moving towards a world where lots of us won’t have viable jobs in these fields. We’ll either find different jobs or need some form of UBI

    • wahming@monyet.cc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      It is, this is the equivalent of protesting the printing press. It would be most useful to find a way to transition gracefully, but most people are still in the denial stage.

  • ekZepp@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    This just show how ready and willing are many companies to replace human creativity with cheap AI. If anyone really thought that this wasn’t the direction they were pointing to, he was just deluding himself. New creativity tools “my ass”.

    • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      People will buy the cheapest product that meets their needs. A business not using AI as much as possible is in a disadvantage.

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Maybe for companies that aren’t selling tools for digital artists, but WACOM is literally trying to sell a product that humans use to create these images. To usurp the their customer base and buy an AI image (even unintentionally) shows at best a complete lack of understanding about what kind of art is being made with their tablets and at worst a disregard for a major concern of their customer base.

        • RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          The same arguments were made in the 80s when products like Adobe appeared in the design market. Capitalism is about survival of the fittest whether we like it or not, and AI is a tremendous advantage.

  • soulfirethewolf@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I feel like anymore, artists just look through companies work just to go point out AI art and whine about it

    • foxbat@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      wacom is a company that produces drawing tablets. you know, hardware tools for artists. it is their job to market specifically to artists.

    • bramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      If artists aren’t producing work and just complaining about AI art, who is AI stealing the work of?

      Your argument literally defeats itself.

      • Shurimal@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        No-one. Training a neural network, natural or artificial, is not “stealing”. Or no artist would be able to study the works of other artists to become a better artist themself.

        • bramblepatchmystery@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Your argument seems to be that we should consider the AI to itself be an artist and to grant it the rights of other artists.

          That’s fair.

          But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works.

          They also are compensated for their work.

          Is OpenAI putting money in a trust for when their product gains sentience?

          • 520@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            But other artists aren’t allowed to profit off reproducing other’s works.

            But we do allow them to take inspiration from other artists and emulate their styles.

            Much of the issue around AI art seems to be more about the prompter (IE: asking explicitly for copyrighted stuff or real people) than the AI itself.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Several days later, and after this article was published, the company issued a contrite statement saying that the images in question had been purchased from a third-party vendor and had evaded being flagged by the online AI detection tools it used for vetting.

    Despite this, the company shared a new marketing campaign for its Magic: The Gathering card game on January 4th that was quickly scrutinized for containing strangely deformed elements commonly associated with AI-generated imagery.

    The company initially denied AI was involved, insisting that the image was made by a human artist, only to back down three days later and acknowledge that it did in fact contain AI-generated components.

    AI detectors are notoriously unreliable and regularly flag false positives, and other methods like the Content Credentials metadata backed by Adobe can only provide information for images created using specific software or platforms.

    Some creative professionals argue these are simply tools that artists can benefit from, but others believe any generative AI features are exploitive because they’re often trained on masses of content collected without creators’ knowledge or consent.

    Wacom and WotC eventually provided similar responses to their respective situations: that the offending images had come from a third-party vendor, that the companies were unaware that AI had been used to make them, and that they promised to do better in the future.


    The original article contains 1,181 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!