WotC So it seems D&D has picked a side on the AI art debate.

[Aldarc]

I'm going to politely withdraw from this discussion because it is getting personal, and the response that I would like to give would not be appropriate.

You kinda shoot yourself in the foot by saying you want to politely withdraw while also saying that your response would otherwise be inappropriate. If you are going to withdraw, it's better to keep silent about it and do it without making passive aggressive remarks.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Well, yes, the exploitation of human labor does tend to improve the quality of life of the beneficiaries of that labor. Naturally, getting art for free is going to benefit you, at the expense of the people who did the work that went into creating that art.

What "expense" exactly?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

If the imagery or writing was taken and compiled without consent of the original authors and artists, its unethical regardless of how its used.

I reject this argument. Once you share something with the world, it belongs to everybody.

Copyright isn't property, it's a time limited monopoly on exploiting a work, a legal construct created to encourage people to create and share works. Violating copyright is unethical only if it deprives the copyright holder of rightful income.

 

[Charlaquin]

What "expense" exactly?

Having their work taken and repurposed without compensation, permission, or even notice, and long-term, most likely the dissolution of a market for their original works.

 

[Charlaquin]

I reject this argument. Once you share something with the world, it belongs to everybody.

Perhaps it ought to be so, but for the time being, we live in a world where people have to commodify the products of their labor in order to aquire the means of living.

 

[Emberashh]

. Violating copyright is unethical only if it deprives the copyright holder of rightful income.

Yes, and this is  precisely why people take an issue with what AI developers are enabling by using actual artists work without consent or compensation.

As said earlier, this should  not be a controversial issue. Get consent and compensate the artists if necessary.

Continuing to argue against that in any capacity whatsover says everything about the ethics you're operating on, vis a vis their total non-existence.

 

[tetrasodium]

Yes, and this is  precisely why people take an issue with what AI developers are enabling by using actual artists work without consent or compensation.

As said earlier, this should  not be a controversial issue. Get consent and compensate the artists if necessary.

Continuing to argue against that in any capacity whatsover says everything about the ethics you're operating on, vis a vis their total non-existence.

Consent was given by the artists. It wasn't a simple google search used to generate the training image data.

 

[Emberashh]

Consent was given by the artists. It wasn't a simple google search used to generate the training image data.

The sky is purple.

 

[tetrasodium]

The sky is purple.

I wasn't joking when I corrected your factually incorrect statement. The source of that training data & eula involved was linked earlier in 124 & 136. Here is a section

Spoiler

If you choose to post content, you give us permission to use it to provide and improve Pinterest. Copies of content shared with others may remain even after you delete the content from your account

 

[Umbran]

Humans don't need to see another persons artwork to make art.

Except for every art class. And except for every picture we see hanging on walls, every billboard, every magazine cover, every movie or TV show we watch, every song we hear on the radio. We are inundated with art through most of our lives.

I don't think human art process is much like current AI process, but we should not think that we are making art from a place of not having been exposed to a whole lot of art, or that exposure not having a major impact on our own creations.