I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.
while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?
I get what you are saying. But does it not sound like the horse farmers when the car came out? It sucks, I don’t blame artists for fighting it and for hating it, but isn’t it inevitable that it will happen to most jobs at some point? I work in cyber security, and it would suck a lot once AI gets good enough to start taking me out of business, but I also accept that it is inevitable and the solution of fighting against technological advances has rarely worked historically.
Look where we’re heading as regard to pollution (to which all our engines are not a little factor) and ask yourself: would have we known what we know today, was this ‘inevitable’ path we decided to follow (ultimately it was a choice, nothing more: the choice of using much cheap(er) energy and workforce as a way to gain more power/money faster) was it really the smartest one? Or should we have tried to follow another less obvious path but maybe less destructive? Destructive, like AI is in regard to the OP question but it obviously is not limited to AI.
That’s one of the most glaring lie (not yours, I mean it in a general way) in regard to tech: criticizing it or one of its form is not being ‘against tech’. It’s a critic of tech and/or a refusal of a certain type of tech. The choice is not between '‘using tech’ and ‘being a caveman’. It’s about questioning the way we use tech (to do what? Do we really need machines to do creative work?), how we control it (who decide what it’s allowed to do and how it is trained), and who owns it (who get all the money? Not the artists they were trained upon, obviously). And who controls all of that?
Also, keep in mind that exactly like AI or the smartphone are considered ‘high tech’ today, the horse and the cart were also considered high-tech back in their days. Do you think their users were hostile to tech? I don’t think so ;)
Interesting thought about the lie, I guess sometimes it’s hard to determine what is a criticism against a use case of a tech and what is criticism against the tech itself.