←back to thread

125 points akeck | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.553s | source
Show context
ta8645 ◴[] No.33580501[source]
Artists are no different than all the people who tried to destroy the cotton gin or the automated loom. We're all going to have to live in a world where these technologies exist, and find a way to live a fulfilling life regardless. Just as chess players today enjoy the game even though computers have surpassed our chess abilities.

It seems odd to complain that computers are using human's artwork to inspire their own creations. Every human artist has done the exact same thing in their lifetime; it's unavoidable.

replies(10): >>33580588 #>>33580624 #>>33580644 #>>33580673 #>>33580687 #>>33580701 #>>33580722 #>>33580832 #>>33580867 #>>33582176 #
greenthrow ◴[] No.33580673[source]
It's not even remotely comparable to the cotton gin or the dishwasher or any kind of normal labor that has been automated.

We are talking about creative works being shuffled together and remixed as a legal protection for theft. That's all it is. There is ample evidence that these algorithms merely regurgitate what goes in and cannot create something entirely new. Which, is of coursw what you'd expect if you understand what is going on under the hood. But it is not what is being sold.

replies(1): >>33580729 #
1. Gigachad ◴[] No.33580729[source]
This is basically what the majority of artists do already. They pull in a bunch of reference images and blend them together in to a single piece.
replies(1): >>33581315 #
2. wiseowise ◴[] No.33581315[source]
They don’t do it on industrial scale.