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.

  • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m sorry my opinion upsets you, but it’s not art. Period. You’re not changing my mind. If a robot isn’t an athlete for throwing a football, or a computer isn’t a musician for generating preprogrammed beats….

    Punching info into a computer program made by other people…. Isn’t art.

    I’m not arguing this with you.

    • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      You caused me no distress, I was just inspired by your comment to share my perspective.

      If a machine isn’t an athlete for throwing a football, there are no athletes. If a computer can’t be a musician, there are no musicians. The line you’re drawing where a computer is worthy of being called an artist, is whether or not it was created by evolution. But there’s no technical differences between the two. Or at least there won’t be soon.

      I understand you’re under a different opinion and I thank you for it. I have no need to change it.

      • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Thanks. Sorry for being aggressive. Just so used to being attacked for my opinion.