Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    7 months ago

    I don’t think saying “if you put random words together with no context, you’re not an author” is gatekeeping. It’s defining a term.

    And I absolutely gatekeep the idea that anyone’s three-year-old is an artist or an author. Those are things that take skill.

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      My friend always said “if you can’t see it live with instruments it’s not music and they’re not musicians” and I disagreed with that for the same reason I disagree with you saying making art takes skills. I hope that makes sense. Making good art and popular art might take skill, but anyone can be an artist, anyone can be an author. “Anyone can cook.”

      We can agree to disagree.

        • hansl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Sure, why not. Art teachers always defined art as the expression of an idea, and playing the saxophone for the first time is definitely that. Talent, time, skill and knowledge does not enter in this label as far as I’m concerned.

          Now you’re not John Zorn but, hey, maybe you’ll be later with some perseverance and dedication. Edit: Or maybe you’ll become Duke Silver and you’ll be happy enough doing that. We need both in the world.