“Energy intensive art” lol
It’s tone deaf as fuck. From the article: “If you can’t hire an artist to do advertising, I highly doubt you’ll do it with independent developers.”
This is the only point that matters. Even if AI is here to stay, that’s fine, you just don’t use it when specifically highlighting the demographic most threatened by its usage. The post was just a bad business decision; they should have known how it could come across. It’s their job to know that kinda stuff before hitting Post.
If an independent developer is threatened by AI, then they’re using it wrong.
From a development standpoint, it is so nice if you are someone who is good at coding but bad at art to be able to use AI to help with the visual design of the game. It’s easy to say “just hire an artist” when so many indie devs are literally one-person operations who can barely afford rent, let alone wages for an artist.
The art and images that image AI’s are based off of, are stolen. They diffuse them as a legal loop hole. That’s the main issue. I want to see AI pushed forward, but not when they’re scraping data and not crediting artists. The amount of data required for an image AI is crazy; we have to figure out a way of legally and respectfully requiring that data.
Text AI’s are marginally better, because a lot of the data acquired was opt in. It was just people talking. There is the issue with them ripping books, though.
It does make it different by virtue of sheer scale and efficiency.
A single human artist, no matter how good and fast they are, could ever singlehandedly damage the livelihoods of millions of other human artists. But a machine can. That’s a meaningful distinction.
Granted, your point is valid in its purest sense. If we lived in a world where everyone could benefit from AI art without the real-world downsides, I’d agree with you, full stop. But we do, and those ramifications matter.
SLAMMMED!
I hate this trend of saying “SLAMMED”, or “HOUNDED”, or “ATTACKED” etc in news articles where the stories are just “a couple of people with a dozen followers between them posted slightly negative tweets about topic xyz”.
My parents were bitching about how Adele was “HAMMERED” online because she said “I am proud to be a woman” or something. Turns out it was just two complete nobodies tweeting about how that’s trans exclusionary or something with 1 heart each.
This is why we need a rule that if you incorporate your logo into AI art, your logo becomes public domain.
This is technically already legal precedence in USA, copyright requires human expression and without sufficient human creative control in ML generated works they’re effectively public domain
Edit: why downvotes?
Yes, for the imagery itself, but their logo is still under trademark. What I’m saying is if you put your logo on AI generated imagery and release it to the public, you no longer own a trademark for your logo.
That’s not how courts are going to treat it. Public domain (lack of) licensing is not “infectious”. Instead you can just cut out the trademark and reuse ML images because under current legal precedence they’re in public domain but the trademark isn’t
They have their own Bing Image Creator. Obviously they’d prefer to use their own tool instead of hiring artists. Everyone with two working brain cells saw this coming. (I’m not defending it, it was just obvious the day Bing Image Creator was launched.)
