You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
1 point

They are scared for the future, not the present. And considering the growth speed, it’s a warranted fear

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The problem on why so in its current state won’t match the human creativity is that the generative models aren’t really generative, more like compilational. They can’t generate anything special, they can’t create new genre, artstyle, etc. It would require a GAI to do that, and we are one of even a few revolutions apart from it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

I don’t see anything hurting individual human creativity long-term. ‘Good’ stuff will sell, no matter if you use AI or not. And it’s a choice, not an obligation, to use it.

If people feel like they are forced to use it because of its higher output, it’s not a problem of AI, but of capitalism.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

It is likely that we will reach a point where these ML things will recognise patterns across creative works, see what sell and use them to make similar stories using those same patterns.

Which is clear they will sell more since they will be cheaper, faster to make thus flooding the market with engaging-but-unoriginal stories.

Imagine: a GOT in space, a GOT in fantasy, a mix between Star Wars and GOT, and so on. And they will always sell cause GoT is engaging, but none will be original but a soulless copy of the original GoT (for which Martin won’t see a buck).

Tbf, i think it would be better to ban this kind of “AI” - like ChatGPT, or the ones for the art et similia - from “producing” creative work - at least creative work to be sold - but capitalism gotta capitalise I guess.

EDIT: to be fair right now the main concern is about copyrighted creative work, but probably it’s the easier to ascertain if it’s been copied or not: take for example programming code, there are very few ways to know if a copyrighted code has been used and it will probably show how copyright is SO dumb and fallacious for technical and whatnot fields

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

It is likely that we will reach a point where these ML things will recognise patterns across creative works, see what sell and use them to make similar stories using those same patterns.

Which is clear they will sell more since they will be cheaper, faster to make thus flooding the market with engaging-but-unoriginal stories.

Before, humans used to do the exact same. Why is it be different now with AI? It’s just more and faster imo.

Why would anyone read GOT in space when they can just read GOT? The people opting for GOT in space will most likely already have read GOT anyhow. And that already takes long af. So it’s a smaller fan base closer to fanfiction, which btw already existed before AI became a thing. It will never surpass the original. Also copyright should never forbid someone to write in the style of someone else. How would you even proove it?

Why should we ban AI, a really useful technology, also for co-collaboration within the Arts, just because some people will make money with it? Art has been constant copypaste remixing anyhow.

I’d rather have us get rid of capitalism instead lol, which is the actual reason why commercial artists are scared. Hobby artists don’t give a damn lol.

Edit: There’s technique in art too, which some would define as style. Copyrighting a style should therefore not be an option.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Books

!books@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for all things related to Books.

Rules

  1. Be Nice

Official Bingo Posts:

Related Communities

Community stats

  • 638

    Monthly active users

  • 156

    Posts

  • 1.8K

    Comments