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?
Why would you need an argument beyond AI art is lifeless?
I disagree strongly on that argument. I’ve seen many examples of AI generated images that have genuinely made me stop, and shake my head in amazement.
Give us some examples of moving AI generated images.
The thing, even with human-made art, is that what’s “moving” is highly personal. Maybe accept that their experience is different from yours?
Art is a form of communication, to hear that someone can be moved by expressionless AI slop is kinda like hearing someone had an enlightening conversation with a dog.
Like sure I can imagine someone can interpret a dog’s barks to mean something, but it’s still a bizarre scenario that says more about the person than it does the art.
When you can’t tell if a machine made it, and it moves you personally, then what invisible metric are you defining, and judging it on?
Same metrics anyone judges art by, what it says to them. This is incredibly context dependent.
Show me the art and if just showing it to someone is insufficient, explain it to me.
