Ask six people to identify the ‘soul’ in a piece of art and you’ll get seven different answers. It’s an entirely subjective concept.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes. Maybe we should stop gatekeeping what art people enjoy and stop brigading them when they dare to like something ‘real artists’ decide they shouldn’t.
I bought an old 1950s/1960s Armin Trosser hand grinder from ebay a while ago and use it every day. Works great and looks lovely in my opinion
Is that not missing an ‘I’? As in
I travelled both though I be one traveller…
Some things to consider with regards to software like this. If music can be heard, it can be scraped, period. Even if you put up barriers on major streaming platforms or embed “anti-AI” tags, all it takes is:
Someone recording the audio with a mic (analog loophole)
A downloader that bypasses the protection (e.g., YouTube-dl)
A source that doesn’t respect the protections (pirate sites, leaks, live audience recordings)
If a human can access it, an AI can be trained on it, even secondhand, and unlike traditional use cases where clean, labeled data is critical, AI models can learn from messy or partial data. Even if you degrade the quality or watermark it, a model can still extract style, rhythm, melody and timbre, just like how humans can recognize a song through static.
Also, you can’t control every upload, every sample, every remix, every bootleg. As soon as someone puts your protected content in a place without safeguards, it’s back in the ‘training pool’.
Even if AI models never directly train on your content, they can still learn your style by training on other artists influenced by you, or on users uploading “in the style of” recreations. Protection doesn’t stop style emulation which is what many people want from AI anyway.
Finally just because AI avoids your data doesn’t mean it avoids imitating you. You may block scrapers, but unless copyright law adapts to handle stylistic theft, there’s no real recourse when AI replicates your sound or vibe.
Ya fuckin’ think there, champ? You reckon? Maybe? Maybe a but naive was it? You think?
Bellend
Tiny Glade vibes!
Removed by mod
Sorry, you know the rules: pics or it didn’t happen.
Removed by mod
Reminds me of one of these: https://www.amazon.co.uk/falling-sand-art/s?k=falling+sand+art
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I use it to create music: https://youtube.com/@codedtone
I also use it to generate the thumbnails and album art for said music.
In addition, I use ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas for various campaigns I’m currently DMing including ideas for encounters, characters, locations etc.
Which seems like a silly method of comparing emissions, given that the human doesn’t exist for the purpose of creating images. The carbon footprint of the human is still present whether or not they are generating art.
Whether it’s creating art with AI or via another means the human must be involved or else the art doesn’t get created. They are a intrinsic part of the process and so their footprint must be included.
For an AI, the emissions are an addition to global carbon footprint
For Digital art (I.e Photoshop etc) the computer use is in addition to global carbon footprint. In Photography the construction of a camera is in addition to global carbon footprint. The list goes on. Either we either include the carbon footprint of all the tool(s) involved in the creation of the piece or we don’t include any.
For the final point, a random social media post isn’t a profit seeing endeavor, which is why it isn’t expected to pay for any images it uses. The normal accepted practice is to just give credit to the source. The same is not true for news articles, which does care about there being a watermark and is expected to pay for image use. Unless of course people start accepting the normal use of ai images in which case disrupts a whole industry to provide worse art.
Whether it’s ‘accepted practice’ or not is irrelevant. Using a watermarked image for anything without permission or license is illegal and fails to reimburse the artist that created it, the very thing you accuse AI of doing.
Re. that 2023 MIT article
Their work, which is yet to be peer reviewed,
Here’s a peer reviewed article from 2024 that presents an interesting counterpoint:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Here is another peer reviewed paper from 2024 that argues that cautious optimism should be used when calculating the environmental and societal impact of LLMs specically:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76682-6
TLDR it seems to be more complicated than simply AI = Bad for the environment
Also I’d point out that your points 2 and 5 are kind of hypocritical. You accuse AI of ‘stealing’ jobs but then suggest someone could use a watermarked stock image without permission or a license, which is arguably a form of theft in and of itself, and could directly impact another artists job.
What do you miss most about the Ukraine? What would you miss most about Korea if you left?
Broken Window Theory in action!
You could say it was one of the websites of all time.