2026-07-15 16:55 UTC
@alessandro@cosocial.ca And someone buying, or looking at, art used to be able to take it as a given that what they were seeing was in fact what it claimed to be. And being on guard, now, that takes away a little of our enjoyment of art.
Even worse, someone who doesn't know when a particular piece was created could assume it was slop. What was previously, "Oh, what a pretty picture" (or whatever) turns into "Oh, I bet that's slop."
It has literally been devalued. 3/4
@leeloo@c.im @astronomerritt@hachyderm.io
Replies (1)
-
@kagan@wandering.shop 2026-07-15 16:55
@alessandro@cosocial.ca The proliferation of "AI" art *did* take something away from the original creation. And that's why the analogy with unauthorized duplication is invalid. (This runs parallel to my other argument, I guess. Along the way in that one, I found some other things, but this is the one for why the copytheft analogy is flawed.) 4/4 @leeloo@c.im @astronomerritt@hachyderm.io