UnknownCircle

I’d be interested in petting doggos and hanging out if that’s what you mean by tailored, but not any traditional therapy. Going affects my employment opportunities, which I care about far more than my mental health. If I wanted to not suffer everyday of my life I’d shift my priorities, expectations, push my boundaries or off myself. Since I haven’t done those things yet, things must be fine enough.

I would have a very bad opinion of any version of myself that was happy or content while being aware of all the terrible things we human beings get up to.

The only way I could be convinced to genuinely engage with therapy is if I thought it’d achieve some material goal of mine like making more money. Proving some positive correlation in earnings or attainment of things that men normally want with therapy would probably help. I’d reluctantly go and commit completely if I thought it’d significantly improve the likelihood of achieving my current or future goals. No dogs necessary at that point, just data.

I agree that you can’t own an art style in the US and I don’t know if there’s any other legal basis for artist’s claims.

Legality doesn’t automatically deal with problems that are not based on whether something is legal or not. Losing money is losing money, regardless of if its the result of something legal. And people can feel devalued by something that is legal. It just means that the government will not use force to intervene in what you’re doing and may in-fact use force to support you.

Picasso is dead, so he has no ability to feel devalued. Artists who are alive do have that ability and other living people who value his works do as well.

I myself support and love this technology. But it is clear that it causes problems for some people. I would prefer for it to exist in a form where artists could get value from and be happy with it too, but that is just not the case at present.

Its unlikely that this did not use his work, these models require input data. Even if they took similar art, that would only resolve the issue of Greg himself but would shift it to those other artists. Unless there is some sort of unspoken artistic genealogical purity that prevents artists with similar or inspired styles from having equal claim on their own creations when inspired by another.

It also could be outputs generated from another AI model. But I don’t think people who see ethical problems in this care about the number of steps removed and processing that occurs when the origin is his artwork and it ultimately outputs the same or similar style. The result is what bothers people, no matter how disparate or disconnected the source’s influence is. If the models had simply found the Greg Rutkowski latent space through random chance people would still take issue with it.

The ability and willingness to generate images in a style associated with a person, without consent, is a threat to that persons job security and shows a lack of value for them as a human. As if their creative expression is worth nothing but as a commodity to be consumed.

The people supporting this don’t care though. They want to consume this person’s style in far greater quantities and variations then a human is capable or willing to fulfill. That’s why these debates are so fierce, the two sides have incentives that are in direct conflict with one another.

We currently lack the economic ingenuity or willingness to create a system that will satisfy both parties. The barrier of entry to AI is low, someone at home has every incentive to maintain the status quo or even actively rail against artists. Artists will need a heavy handed approach from the government or as a collective to combat this effectively.