I agree that the “fruits” of neural networks come from the proletarian artist, because without them, there cannot be any content made of this magnitude. The stunning images created by AI inherently rely on the labor of artists, so its commodity-value—its visual appeal—is thus identical to the labor-value that was scraped into its dataset. In layman’s terms, the artists made the art, and AI imagery looks good because it was taken from that art.

  • thantik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    AI art just does what humans do with normal art. It qualifies and regurgitates it.

    Imagine what human art would look like from a blind person. Without all the ingestion of other people’s art, it wouldn’t evolve into what it becomes.

    • Xeroxchasechase@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      You’re looking at this in terms of the end product, but the difference is that machine all it does is create products while human (maybe only outside of the US, idk) make creations, wheather it looks similar to other creations or not.