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.

  • Gakomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yeah, sure, you can’t replicate someone style to that extent. It not like people made fakes of famous paintings to sell them as originals just because the originals are expensive. Please tell me how humans can’t replicate someone’s style some more!!!

    • vert3xo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      First of all, you can’t make a perfect copy. Second of all, faking paintings and advertising them as original just so happens to be illegal. Can you give me a reason why it should be acceptable when AI does it?

      • Gakomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        My point is humans do it, and not even AI can do a perfect copy as it is impossible due to how old those paintings are. I never said it should be legal for AI to do that but if you ask AI to do some painting you want but to do it the style that Rembrandt did his painting that’s not illegal that something that people do too and those kind of request are normal for painters so why should AI not be allowed to do it. ?