#also every single pro-ai argument I’ve seen has just ignored the environmental impact

[transcendragonreblogs]

I really like NotHorses commentary, but also…

I mean. A plagiarized novel is still a novel, but that doesn’t change the ethical issues and overall difficulties.

I think many people are conflating something being art with it being ethical, in terms of people arguing both for and against it being art. The truth is, something being “art” does not make it ethical. The environmental impact and the impact on the community of creators, audiences, and critics of art should be considered. And the majority of artists have made it clear that their work being used in training databases with their non-coerced consent and without compensation is harmful to them.

i mean, its crazy right? it is completely and totally just a matter of bias and preconceived notions and reactionarism pushing people to arrive at the idea that a person using a generative model soley based on their own work intentionally creating a specific piece of art they have already visualized in their mind is "not art" because... well... um...

well they can't even say! they say "it's not intentional" (it is, he already knows what he wants it to look like!), "it's not work/effort" (god i want you people to see how long it takes me to generate the simplest of anime girls in midjourney), or most bafflingly "the prompt is art but the image output isnt". and nobody can actually explain WHY because there ISNT a good reason! they just have this kneejerk hatred and disgust of this new technology and art form and any attempts at prodding at that feeling are met with aggression or blank stares.