4 ms·

This is, in my opinion, attempting to say the right thing with entirely the wrong perspective: The people you say are getting "shafted" always got shafted. The

This is, in my opinion, attempting to say the right thing with entirely the wrong perspective: The people you say are getting "shafted" always got shafted. Their works are the inspiration for all artists and people who lay their eyes on it - maybe they got paid when they made the work, maybe they managed to sell it, but probably not. And still, other artists (and machines) will use remember and be inspired by it, sometimes to the point of verbatim copy (which is extremely common for human artists as well, with verbatim copy and replication being an actual sought after skill). (Those about to shout "LICENSING", that's a very new invention and we're terrible at it. What are you going to do, cut out the part of your brain that formed new connections while touching GPL code?) The person (singular) that is actually getting "shafted" at each use is the artist you didn't hire to do the job of making your new work, because it is their skill that got replaced. A skill build from a lifetime of studying other art and practicing themselves, replaced with a skill build from a machine studying other art and by virtue of some closed loops likely also "practicing" itself. Still, shafting at large, but the obsession with training data is misplaced in that it entirely ignores how society and art worked beforehand. At the same time, for most of the things you're likely using the tool for, there would probably would never have been an artist in the first place. For example, if you're just making your powerpoint prettier, or if your commission is ridiculous as it often is and yet only willing to offer a single-digit dollar sum per work which no artist should take (RIP the poor souls that take such work anyway).

rasKqa 6mo ago
Children can draw without ever having been to an art gallery. The IP laundromats need the entire stolen corpus of human labor. The latter is clearly an infringing derivative work. It will be true no matter who many bribes those who have never created anything pay to Marsha Blackburn (who miraculously reversed her AI skepticism). I wonder how many threats of being primaried have been issued by the uncreative technocrat thieves.
- strulovich 6mo ago
  No they can’t just draw by themselves. It’s extremely bad and random. Their teachers teach them from a very early age how to hold a carton, and how to draw. Maybe some miraculous humans will reinvent all drawing of growing by themselves in the jungle, most people will not. Source: I have kids.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
tsimionescu 6mo ago
You're ignoring the biggest problem here: the concentration and extraction of wealth. The sum total of human artists were previously getting those billions of dollars, and now it's OpenAI (and Anthropic, and Google, and Microsoft, and maybe a handful of other players) getting it. Now, maybe it actually used to be hundreds of millions of dollars, and they've grown it to billions, and maybe they deserve some of that - but they're getting all of it. This is the huge issue with this technology, not so much the fact that it exists but that it is being sold by a tiny, tiny amount of people.
- arghwhat 6mo ago
  That's an entirely different problem to artists getting "shafted". Not saying it's not a worthwhile discussion, but it is a separate concern. Having everyone pay phone/internet, office, streaming, music, etc., subscriptions to large tech companies that are effectively monopolies all do that. It's a bigger, pre-existing issue.
- dwayne_dibley 6mo ago
  The same issue applies to fastfood, coffee chains and taxi services. Capitalism.
- torginus 6mo ago
  I wonder what happened to actual artists though - they seem to be doing fine. I'm sure many people as consumers dabbled in AI art, and reached the conclusion after hours that what they made never looked quite right. Then they found they could commission an actual artist to draw what they wanted for tens or hundreds of dollars, which is a very good price for getting exactly what you want without having to waste your time playing the token slot machine.
  - mrWiz 6mo ago
    How'd you conclude that artists are doing fine? That doesn't match my experience or observations at all.
    - 6mo ago
BeetleB 6mo ago
> The person (singular) that is actually getting "shafted" at each use is the artist you didn't hire to do the job of making your new work, because it is their skill that got replaced. 1% Yes, and 99% No. Over 99% of uses would not have resulted in hiring someone to do the work had these models not existed as you yourself acknowledge.
- arghwhat 6mo ago
  Yes, but this is a bit of an oversimplification. The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Those numbers are also a bit too aggressive - it's easy to miss what kind of gig work exist out there. PowerPoint as a service is a thing on Fiverr for example. A horrible, horrible thing, but a thing none the less. ^1: not at all what art costs, but someone trying to get started might do quick sketches at those prices
  - BeetleB 6mo ago
    > The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Or 3. Something I made and I actually use, but I would never have paid a kid $5 to do. Yes, I know of Fiverr and similar sites. Even planned on using it once. Even know someone in another country who made side money from it. And yes, it does suck for them. But none of that changes the fact that well over 99% of uses are not depriving them of any money.
    - runarberg 6mo ago
      I have seen arguments that a lot of your nr. 3 is basically just addiction. You are making the AI slot machine generate stuff for you and you get to have the sense of accomplishment that comes with thinking you created something without putting in any of the work of actually creating something. To the rest of the world this is indistinguishable from your parent’s nr. 1.

rasKqa 6mo ago

Children can draw without ever having been to an art gallery. The IP laundromats need the entire stolen corpus of human labor. The latter is clearly an infringing derivative work. It will be true no matter who many bribes those who have never created anything pay to Marsha Blackburn (who miraculously reversed her AI skepticism). I wonder how many threats of being primaried have been issued by the uncreative technocrat thieves.

strulovich 6mo ago
No they can’t just draw by themselves. It’s extremely bad and random. Their teachers teach them from a very early age how to hold a carton, and how to draw. Maybe some miraculous humans will reinvent all drawing of growing by themselves in the jungle, most people will not. Source: I have kids.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

tsimionescu 6mo ago

You're ignoring the biggest problem here: the concentration and extraction of wealth. The sum total of human artists were previously getting those billions of dollars, and now it's OpenAI (and Anthropic, and Google, and Microsoft, and maybe a handful of other players) getting it. Now, maybe it actually used to be hundreds of millions of dollars, and they've grown it to billions, and maybe they deserve some of that - but they're getting all of it. This is the huge issue with this technology, not so much the fact that it exists but that it is being sold by a tiny, tiny amount of people.

arghwhat 6mo ago
That's an entirely different problem to artists getting "shafted". Not saying it's not a worthwhile discussion, but it is a separate concern. Having everyone pay phone/internet, office, streaming, music, etc., subscriptions to large tech companies that are effectively monopolies all do that. It's a bigger, pre-existing issue.
dwayne_dibley 6mo ago
The same issue applies to fastfood, coffee chains and taxi services. Capitalism.
torginus 6mo ago
I wonder what happened to actual artists though - they seem to be doing fine. I'm sure many people as consumers dabbled in AI art, and reached the conclusion after hours that what they made never looked quite right. Then they found they could commission an actual artist to draw what they wanted for tens or hundreds of dollars, which is a very good price for getting exactly what you want without having to waste your time playing the token slot machine.
- mrWiz 6mo ago
  How'd you conclude that artists are doing fine? That doesn't match my experience or observations at all.
  - 6mo ago

BeetleB 6mo ago

> The person (singular) that is actually getting "shafted" at each use is the artist you didn't hire to do the job of making your new work, because it is their skill that got replaced. 1% Yes, and 99% No. Over 99% of uses would not have resulted in hiring someone to do the work had these models not existed as you yourself acknowledge.

arghwhat 6mo ago
Yes, but this is a bit of an oversimplification. The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Those numbers are also a bit too aggressive - it's easy to miss what kind of gig work exist out there. PowerPoint as a service is a thing on Fiverr for example. A horrible, horrible thing, but a thing none the less. ^1: not at all what art costs, but someone trying to get started might do quick sketches at those prices
- BeetleB 6mo ago
  > The "99%" tends to be either: 1. Pointless throwaway content which we can just ignore as a new source of noise, 2. Something that could have ended up being a $5 commission[^1] to a kid somewhere out there but now never will be. Or 3. Something I made and I actually use, but I would never have paid a kid $5 to do. Yes, I know of Fiverr and similar sites. Even planned on using it once. Even know someone in another country who made side money from it. And yes, it does suck for them. But none of that changes the fact that well over 99% of uses are not depriving them of any money.
  - runarberg 6mo ago
    I have seen arguments that a lot of your nr. 3 is basically just addiction. You are making the AI slot machine generate stuff for you and you get to have the sense of accomplishment that comes with thinking you created something without putting in any of the work of actually creating something. To the rest of the world this is indistinguishable from your parent’s nr. 1.