First and foremost, "AI" doesn't exist.

Generative models are known as AI colloquially, if you're trying to communicate something to a wider audience, it's better to use a known term for the sake of communication.

Secondly people complaining about "IP" are missing the point. We shouldn't be fighting to maintain a capitalist system of oppression. We should be fighting for a world where artists don't need to sell themselves in order to survive.

You need to start somewhere, and smaller scale advocacy like this can be used to push for further change.

Yes, I don't like capitalism but we're living under it for the foreseeable future. Ceding any protections for smaller artists because capitalists also benefit from it sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You don't have to embrace all new technology, but you don't have to hate it either. The value of technology is determined by its use. The problem is that R&D is entirely driven by profits and the violent enforcement of privilege.

Can I hate some new technology? As a treat? 🥺

Generative models generally suck at what they do. They suck for the users, they suck for people who have to then read and see the shitty outputs, they suck for the environment, etc.

Worries about "skynet" are just phony hype that promotes the "AI" bubble.

It's pretty clear that that part is an exaggeration for comedic value. The impact on jobs is real, and again bad for everyone except capitalists.

The idea that "AI" art is somehow inherently worse than "human" art is extremely suspect

Generative models by definition cannot make art, as art is by definition made by humans.

You don't go look at a sunset and think about how great art is, or what the sunset might mean. In the same way, there is nothing behind a generated image.

Apart from this guy, nobody actually cares if people use "AI" art in the right context.

I care, it's fucking ugly, and it makes me think you're at the very least lazy and don't care about the thing you're putting out.