I agree that they are not mutually exclusive, which is why I usually side against AI. On this particular occasion however, there's a palpable difference, since no artist is materially harmed.
Well yeah, I don't care about IP rights. Nothing has been materially stolen, and if AI improves, then the result could some day in theory be indistinguishable from a human who was merely "inspired" by an existing piece of art. At the end of the day, the artist is not harmed by AI plagiarism; the artist is harmed by AI taking what could have been their job.
You're posting on lemmy.ml; we don't care much for intellectual property rights here. What we care about is that the working class not be deprived of their ability to make a living.
But this proposed data center is so big, it would have its own dedicated energy from gas generation and renewable sources
Very unfortunate, as this could have been an opportunity to advance the green power agenda. Solar, wind, and nuclear are all more efficient than fossil fuels -- so why build new fossil fuel plants?
If I drew something myself, those artists would also not be paid. I can understand a deontological argument against using AI trained on people's art, but for me, the utilitarian argument is much stronger -- don't use AI if it puts an artist out of work.
Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner
I hate it when AI is used to replace the work an artist would have been paid for. But uh, this is a random open-source forum; there's no funding for artists to make banners. Rejecting AI art -- which was voted for by the community -- just seems like baseless virtue signalling. No artist is going to get paid if we remove it.
But like if you want to commission an artist with your own money, by all means go ahead. You'll still most likely need another community vote to approve it though.
are you imagining this woman pees standing up..?