Fuck AI

2708 readers

1604 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1123

"Normaize This Reaction" (Art by Cellspex) (pawb.social)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

85 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Source (Bluesky)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Do you not think fashion is art?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Yeah I've seen this nonsense before. "Yet you live in capitalism, curious". Bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Most people buying clothes aren't looking for high fashion, they're looking for something comfortable in a colour that they like. Those who are looking for fashion tend to get clothes that are originally designed and made by a tailor, and then copied so others may wear them, importantly with the consent of the tailor. These are akin to YCH commissions, since the artist/tailor gets paid for the design.

This doesn't apply to AI image generation, as the artists are almost never asked for their consent before their work gets copied and cloned a million times over. Nor do they get any sort of compensation for their stolen work.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Fun fact, fashion is one of the few artistic media that has literally never been protected by copyright law and has literally always been filled with people having their work copied and cloned millions of times over with no recourse. And this isn’t even considered to be a bad thing. This is just how fashion works as an art.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Most people buying art aren't looking for high art, they're looking for something that they enjoy looking at. Those who are into art are in no way restricted from buying non-AI art if they want to. The whole argument about intellectual theft is bullshit, every single fashion designer steals ideas and inspiration from elsewhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

See, here's my problem. I took some time to think it over.

You don't actually care about art, here. You care about what you do. Which, I'm guessing, involves tailoring.

You brought tailoring into this out of nowhere. Nobody was talking about it but you had to.

This conversation was about AI art and the consequences of it on people trying to make a living, and your retort was sewing machines took jobs too.

You really wanna stand by that? Is that the hill you wanna die on?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

I automate business processes for a living, not using AI (yet). I literally improve productivity for a living.

Making an argument about the consequences of people trying to make a living was exactly my point, but you fail to realize that that argument has been made literally hundreds of times over the last two centuries as new technologies have come out that cause concerns for workers, Including for fabric and sewing.

The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on Luddites:

The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality. They often destroyed the machines in organised raids.[1][2] Members of the group referred to themselves as Luddites, self-described followers of "Ned Ludd", a legendary weaver whose name was used as a pseudonym in threatening letters to mill owners and government officials.[3]

You're just Ludd-AI-tes