To me it’s especially clear that using AI to make art is immoral when you use it for a purpose that you would have previously hired a human artist for. Harvesting work from artists without permission and then using that to replace them is pretty scummy.
Same with Getty’s
is that the approved use then?
Now back to the morality of the Getty and Adobe models: did those artists know their work was going to be used for training AI art models? From what I understand there are many artists who licensed their art to Adobe Stock who are upset that their work is being used for this purpose.
Keep in mind this is a usage of the art that literally didn’t exist when the artists licensed their art to Adobe. I would argue it’s a fundamentally different use case.
As for AI art specifically, the problem isn’t really that artists are being replaced. The problem that their own work is being used to replace them, and yet they are not getting credited or compensated by midjourney (etc).
> It's not immoral, it's just [how] economies work.
Do you believe that every aspect of "economies" (or, to simplify the question, let's say just current day capitalism to exclude things like communism and historic economies from the equation) must automatically be moral, or perhaps amoral since you only said "not immoral"?
Seems to me like either a badly thought out claim, or a bad faith argument to justify your main claim about AI art, rather than an actual justification for believing AI art is not immoral.
(Side note - from the POV of my comment anyway, though I suppose technically my comment is the side-note and this is back on the main topic: if you genuinely haven't noticed any debate over the morality or not or AI art, you've not been following AI coverage in mainstream & tech news publications, nor reading the huge number of HN threads where people disagree over whether or not AI image generators training on human art without compensating the human creators should be considered immoral IP theft or should be considered the same as a human studying great artists while working on improving their own art).
Same with Getty’s
is that the approved use then? or does the goal post move
But thanks for assuming that I'm arguing in bad faith despite not making an argument for either side!
It makes sense you can't clone exact types of art, but mixing and mashing two or more to make something totally new and derivative is fine.
