this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
377 points (87.9% liked)

Technology

59429 readers
3079 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists' permission. And that's without getting into AI's negative drag on the environment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

They didn't say that though? The last paragraph made it clear (to me) that they were saying the end result isn't the only part of at that makes it impressive, but also the effort/skill involved

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I guess you're right. I suppose this last phrase threw me off:

  • i don't need to take time to look at stuff people didn't take time to make

The way I read it this statement stands apart from the rest of their comment. Skill is nice--I agree--but I stand by my original statement: time or effort does not by default result in an artistic product. I suppose I could have read it wrong in that the comment as a whole is a bit disjointed.