4 ms·
I'm confused how your thought process is working here - your saying corps have the ability to actually do this themselves and they are the only ones that really
by NemoNobody 3y ago
I'm confused how your thought process is working here - your saying corps have the ability to actually do this themselves and they are the only ones that really could.
do you think after they do invest in their own version, no infringement - you think they will still hire thumbnail artists???
Your essentially advocating for ONLY big corps to have this tech, then everyone will still be out work
- Tanoc 3y agoI'm not advocating, I'm saying that's exactly what's going to, and what's already happening. And I'm saying they won't hire thumbnail artists. Meaning the people who refuse to use AI out of principle or who wouldn't be able to tank the legal and reputational hit will be left to pay more for the work, while the artists themselves get paid less. Right now the average rate for a large news article is $50 for the thumbnail and $1 per word. The total cost for the output on a regular article then would be $650 on an average article. With all resources internal and the sheer size to absorb the damage, the corporation pays nothing. Meanwhile the people who have to rely on other real people are out $650 per article, or $600 if they cut out the thumbnail artist. This is more likely for sources, because the AI the corporation uses has to regurgitate and reassemble the information from somewhere else.
- NemoNobody 3y agoRight... but RN I can go on Bing and access this tech. If the NYT wins their stupid ONLY Msft, Google, and other like them will have access - WE will ALL be left out Some people are going to get cut out - that is happening no matter what. I want to have access still.