I clarify my question:

How do you feel about the fact that art created by AI this year is not much different from art created by humans? I think those who have seen it themselves understand what I mean.

How do you feel about the fact that now and in the future, AI will do most of the creative work 80-90% instead of authors and humans, doing it at the highest level better than any human, and people will just train their AI models and create content with prompts?

  • Libb@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    2 days ago

    I’d argue that in some applications, this is fine.

    It sure can be. Like I said, a bit like an address book has its purpose. But even if it has pages and printed text in it, an address book is not a book anyone would want to read, it’s just a stack of pages.

    I have not considered UBI to be honest, maybe I should give it more consideration.
    What I worry a lot more about is the way ‘creativity’ (as the OP tried to frame it) is being hijacked and privatised by very few corporations/private interests. The same that pillaged so many of our art history and creations in order to make their own version of it they want to sell us back.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.socialEnglish
      3·
      2 days ago

      and privatised

      Completely agree with you here. If the technology was being developed and made available to everyone for non-commercial use, while they charged for the commercial use cases, I’d have less of an issue with it (aside from the obvious and serious objection that they’re functionally stealing creatives’ work and profiting off of it - but again, I think this objection could be invalidated with UBI.)