LogFAQs > #973171085

foolm0r0n posted...

The real issue though is, imagine if aliens came from space and gave us a magical box that did the same thing as Midjourney, and the aliens also gave all previous artists $5 mil so they never had to work again. Can people now use the magical box and call themselves artists without an ethical issue? I think people would still feel like something was stolen there, since people feel that the struggle of practicing and creating art is synonymous with humanity itself. The mere existence of this box is a threat to humanity. This is artistry ethics and everything eventually comes down to this.

I generally agree here, though I would note the artists are still free -- in fact freer than ever in this example -- to make art. Their competition would be steeper than ever since on top of the world's writers you now have AI content both competing for audience's attention and filling up gatekeeper's inboxes...but also in a world where they did not have to focus on money anymore, their focus on art does not inherently get lost in that.

foolm0r0n posted...

Problem is that we've been reducing the struggle of art using tech forever. At every step the "defend humanity" sentiment has come out. Photoshop has had AI functions for years, tools that are trained on others' art, and other kinds of automatic algorithms. That's its entire value. But our generation is quite accustomed to those tools since we still perceive that it requires lots of artistry to make something good. That was obviously not always the case, there were big controversies in the past too

Agreed. Is this big AI controversy fundamentally different from ones in the past though?