4 ms·

Excuse me? What moral and economic planet are you living on? Enjoyment is an important drive behind any creative person, so much is true. But at least part of t

Excuse me? What moral and economic planet are you living on? Enjoyment is an important drive behind any creative person, so much is true. But at least part of the enjoyment comes from other people appreciating, acknowledging and, yes, remunerating that creative work. The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange.

ativzzz 3y ago
> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange. The entire software industry is built on open source software written for free by other software devs
- nologic01 3y ago
  the sustainability of open source projects that are not corporate-backed is, famously, a major issue. In analogy, if creative production was to be paid by a benevolent patron that doesn't care if the work is then released in the public domain the economic equation changes. But this mode is not how things work at present.
bawolff 3y ago
But yet there are a great number of amatur artists where none of this is true and yet they still keep creating.
marcinzm 3y ago
You seem to have a very limited view of artists. The vast vast majority of artists are not professionals and make no money from their art. The vast majority of them also get very little publicity for their arts. Yet they still create. There'd be less art and probably lower quality art however to think people would outright stop making art due to any reason is strange (to use your words).
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange. I make a painting. I display it. My neighbor sees the painting, studies it for a while, goes home, and makes a painting based on what he learned from mine. People still enjoy my painting, still credit me with making it, and if they like it might still pay for a copy. My neighbor, having devised a way to make paintings really quickly, sells paintings for cheap. Can I send him a bill because he's making money based on something he learned from me? Granted, a lot of this boils down to whether AI learns or copys/remixes; if it only creates what copyright law would consider derivative works, then that's another matter.
- Sprocklem 3y ago
  > Granted, a lot of this boils down to whether AI learns or copys/remixes; [...] I mean, it certainly isn't learning in the same way humans learn. Human learning involves some degree of understanding, which is wholly absent in AIs. There is, to my mind, no good reason to treat them the same because of this difference.

ativzzz 3y ago

> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange. The entire software industry is built on open source software written for free by other software devs

nologic01 3y ago
the sustainability of open source projects that are not corporate-backed is, famously, a major issue. In analogy, if creative production was to be paid by a benevolent patron that doesn't care if the work is then released in the public domain the economic equation changes. But this mode is not how things work at present.

bawolff 3y ago

But yet there are a great number of amatur artists where none of this is true and yet they still keep creating.

marcinzm 3y ago

You seem to have a very limited view of artists. The vast vast majority of artists are not professionals and make no money from their art. The vast majority of them also get very little publicity for their arts. Yet they still create. There'd be less art and probably lower quality art however to think people would outright stop making art due to any reason is strange (to use your words).

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

> The idea that authors, artists and other creatives will keep pumping original work as part-time love affairs so that AI bros can grab it and mint a dime is... strange. I make a painting. I display it. My neighbor sees the painting, studies it for a while, goes home, and makes a painting based on what he learned from mine. People still enjoy my painting, still credit me with making it, and if they like it might still pay for a copy. My neighbor, having devised a way to make paintings really quickly, sells paintings for cheap. Can I send him a bill because he's making money based on something he learned from me? Granted, a lot of this boils down to whether AI learns or copys/remixes; if it only creates what copyright law would consider derivative works, then that's another matter.

Sprocklem 3y ago
> Granted, a lot of this boils down to whether AI learns or copys/remixes; [...] I mean, it certainly isn't learning in the same way humans learn. Human learning involves some degree of understanding, which is wholly absent in AIs. There is, to my mind, no good reason to treat them the same because of this difference.