Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • JigglypuffSeenFromAbove@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sometimes I think we could get to a point where nothing new is created. Like, if everyone is just using prompts and profiting from other people’s work without consent, and this is more lucrative than creating content yourself, what’s the point in creating new things?

    I don’t know how to put this without sounding alarmist, but I fear we might be heading towards a halt in creativity. Trying to come up with something fresh will become less rewarding, so we’ll be feeding from the same source material over and over again.

    • bluewing@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s always been that “there is little new under the sun.” Whether it’s math, science, or the arts, the “new” is all built on what went before. It’s all just incremental and very often what was old is now new again.

      AI might be good a copying, but the desire to create and destroy is a human drive. It will remain and find a way.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 months ago

        People will always want to create, but if they can’t make a living creating, that’s going to put a roadblock in their artistic development, because they won’t be able to dedicate themselves to it full time.