Unpopular Opinion

6297 readers

28 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!

How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.

If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.

Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)

If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].

Rules:

1. NO POLITICS

Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.

2. Be civil.

Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...

Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.

5. No trolling.

This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.

Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Claiming AI art isn’t ‘real’ art is just gatekeeping (lemm.ee)

submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by [email protected] to c/unpopularopinion

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that. I don't see why you should artificially limit this. If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that's who the audience is for the remaining human creators. AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don't see what the issue is.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that.

it can't create better content though

I don’t see why you should artificially limit this.

LLMS limit themselves already, no need to additionally artifical limit it.

If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that’s who the audience is for the remaining human creators

Corpos don't care, ordinary people don't care. Does it make it still a good thing that Corpos can pump out slop without paying a living wage to artists or atleast royalties to those they took the training data from (with or without their consent)?

AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don’t see what the issue is.

It pretty much can't. It only mix and pattern matches existing photos.

Coming back to my first half sentence:

AI can't create and when it only trains on it self it collapes, a short to this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWvTr5wKGCA