“`html
Concerns are rising within creative industries regarding teh โuse of artificial intelligence (AI) to generate artistic content,specificallyโ in response toโ instances where professional work appears to beโ replicated by AI tools without consideration for the cost or time involved in original โขcreation.
The debate centers on whether the valueโค of human artistic labor is being undermined byโข readily available AI-generated alternatives. โข A key point โขofโ contention โis whether โขthose โcommissioningโ or utilizing AI-generated work are factoring in theโค equivalent โขcost of hiring a series cartoonist or โother professionalโ creator, or accounting โฃfor the โextended โtime a humanโค artistโ would require to complete the same task. โThe author suggests this isโฃ not happening.
The author expressesโข a desire to foster discussion on this issue across various platforms, highlighting โa perceived devaluation โof professional creative work in an eraโฃ where anyone can produce โขvisual content โusing AI toolsโ like ChatGPT. โ The accessibility of theseโ tools, allowing individuals of all ages to quickly generate images and text, isโฃ seen as contributing to a flood of content that diminishes the perceivedโค value of skilled artistry.
A centralโ argument โis that the use of AI in this mannerโ is unethical, characterized as “ugly”โ and “Schtรธggt” (a Norwegian intensifier of “ugly”). The author โcontends that the foundation of theseโ AI models rests on โtheโ large-scale, unauthorized use of existing creative works – a “cultural theft of โthe century.”
The author emphasizes the comprehensive nature of the data scraping used โto train these AI models, statingโค that “the whole internet” was utilized. This raises notableโฃ copyright and intellectualโ property concerns, as artists and creators were not consulted or compensated forโฃ theโ use of their work inโข developing these technologies.
And โคit is still not just ugly, but Schtรธggt.