And for some reason the FuckAI peeps love em.

Was inspired to make this after seeing some truly pathetic comments on another post here.

Edit: Wow fuck the anti-AI trolls in this community. I didn’t think it would happen but they actually went as far as trying to dox me posting a picture of my house. What the fuck. That’s beyond not okay.

And for the record, this is a pro-AI post, and this is a pro-AI community on a Pro-AI instance. I am a real leftist and I’m not hiding from that. That’s not something to be ashamed of. You know what’s something to be ashamed of? Impersonating, harassing, and Doxxing people who post AI art. Yeah I said it, Art. AI Art, AI Art, It’s a kind of art, I don’t care if you don’t agree with that you do not get to dox people over that. Ever.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      131·
      1 day ago

      Not when minor creators use it to make a basic living.

      This is more of a bad system being incidentally used for a good thing. Using state violence to restrict dissemination of ideas for profit is morally wrong and frankly dystopian. The real issue here is that artists aren’t properly rewarded for their contributions to society and people aren’t guaranteed a base standard of living despite it being possible to do so. Besides, if the AI debacle is proving anything it’s that copyright, like all law in general, doesn’t apply to the rich, so I’d bet good money even its supposed benefits of to minor creators are mostly theoretical; I certainly doubt your average minor creator has the resources to take megacorps to court over non-blindingly obvious (and probably even blindingly obvious) IP theft.

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          41·
          1 day ago

          Before we talk wide-reaching systemic change, the obvious answer is: The exact same way they do right now? If copying minor creators’ art was profitable megacorps would’ve done it; no way these guys have the money to fight megacorps in court. People pay for art because they want to support creators, not because they’re compelled to by state violence. Your point might have held water if piracy wasn’t already easy as shit, but it is so nobody is being forced to pay for anything. Also as I said before even “original” content can be made with AI, and while the result is usually inferior the difference in quality likely won’t compel someone to pay for it if they don’t want to. For the most part, the law only protects the rich.

            • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
              71·
              1 day ago

              Using a government enforced monopoly to criminalize people sharing art and information is obviously immoral. So pretty much any other option is preferable

                • Unruffled [they/them]@lemmy.dbzer0.comMEnglish
                  12·
                  1 day ago

                  Copyright is only a “good idea” in the context of capitalism. Nobody is arguing for going back to feudalism. If everyone had free housing, food and healthcare then art would be an expression of creativity, not a product to be sold.

                • Mystic Mushroom [Ze/Zir]@lemmy.dbzer0.comOPEnglish
                  93·
                  1 day ago

                  Do you think those ma and pa artists you’re pretending this applies to actually have the funds to drag out copyright disputes in court for years at a time? You have to be wealthy for that. And even if they do end up doing it they can end up bankrupt even if they win, or they can be forced to drop it because they run out of money to keep fighting. The system you are talking about literally favors the wealthy, and it is so disingenuous to pretend otherwise.