Calcedony PrimeDec 2
The thing about AI generated art is if nobody cared to make it why should I care to see it? I have yet to hear a compelling argument for this.
Show threadPseudonymous 

@mrencyclopedia

Playing #DevilsAdvocate for a second: The use case you're thinking of isn't the real use case. Copyright law requires that creative get paid for their work. Most creative output way more content than they can realistically sell. To help them sell their art the (c) is transferrable. That's called "work for hire." If you're someone else and you're doing something else (maybe a magazine or a movie) you can pay the creative to give you both the work and the copyright so you can use their art in something else. Business types want to cut every cost they can, and judges respond to someone waving their hands, throwing sparkles, and saying things like "ai," and "its magic." Then they don't have to pay anyone anymore because the judge was distracted. 

Dec 2 at 1:04amWeb
Show threadCalcedony PrimeDec 2

@VictimOfSimony yeah, it makes sense from a business standpoint. This is how you end up with situations like a local organization putting up a weird AI banner as a holiday decoration. The organization either contracted out to another group or generated the art themselves, then pocketed the money that would normally go toward an artist.

When people start asking questions like "what the hell is this?" It gets quietly removed because nobody involved actually cares, they just wanted an art-shaped thing to put up as temporary decoration. Most of the people involved in this kind of design work only care about participating in the project, and AI image models are great at taking feedback like "make it 20% more festive" from people who don't actually care what it looks like.

So I guess that actually does answer my question. They probably think it's weird that I care, because the people pushing AI couldn't give less of a shit about what art looks like or what it means.