The article is just talking about selling AI generated 3d models on a marketplace, so maybe for that use case it has no exchange value.

That doesn't mean everything generated by AI has no value. It doesn't even mean that AI generated 3d models have no value, people may be using AI to generate models for themselves and getting value from it, even if they can't sell that on a marketplace.

It'd be like saying a scarf I knitted has no value, I may not be able to sell it because it's not as good as professionally made scarves and has some colors that don't sell well, but it still has value to me because I like the colors and it keeps my neck warm.

Suspiciously wealthy furries have no desire for your mechanical slop.

Because any value from it is just value that has been stolen from someone else.

What the "but it's a useful tool!" people have never realized is that AI is just an attempt to sell existing human output back to us. The models are trained on our output, most often without consent. Ideally, if that output is so useful, then those people whose work is in the training data should be compensated.

Royalties work the same way and on the same principles. But AI models cannot directly query their training data in any way that makes their sources identifiable, and this numbers problem is commonly used as an excuse for why these folks cannot be compensated. That's just a red herring, and it's not the public's problem.

The whole endeavor should not exist. It's a good example of blindly developing something while having absolutely no concept of its negative impact on society.

I wouldn't put it this way. And this comment is about economic points not etical ones:

I wouldn't pay anything AI generated that I could generate myself.
But generating by myself I still save on the artist's work hours.
Same thing AI coding - I bet all paid software now contains code by an AI. So that means it does have a value.

The value is nowhere close what they are trying to sell you on tho.

It has negative value. It steals from human creators to make a worse product that's "cheaper" so a company doesn't have to pay a human.

Save you a click: one online marketplace shows people don't want to buy AI-generated 3D assets. No actual news on what this means for the entire rest of the economy.

In the case of CGTrader, a long-established online marketplace for 3D assets used by video game developers, film editors, and 3D printing nerds, users are sending a clear message. As 404 Media reports, the marketplace is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.

I've been using AI to make a free weather app that isn't cancer. i would never in a million years charge for it. it is a work i am creating for the public using publicly sourced knowledge. the fact it's taken 5 months and hundreds of my own personal hours to produce these projects doesn't negate the fact ALL OF THE CODE has been generated via sources i didn't ask for permission from, indirectly.

I'd have to be some kind of asshole to charge for my programs. I feel bad enough including a donation link buried deep in the UI. (I'm neurodivergent and receiving money makes me feel like dog shit and guilty so really I'm being selfish i guess)

I smell something off here, picking a fight against AI in the 3D world is one the worst possible grounds

If i want a 3d slop model i will prompt it myself.

ALMOST!
So you are saying it has value?

News News News
Latest from Anthropic and Open AI:
Internet site claims AI generated content has value!
Don't get left behind, embrace your AI.