AI generated anything relies on training data based on the real thing, so there’s no way to use a generator to “ethically” produce images of something unethical because it’s based on the unethical imagery. There’s no pathway out of the original abuse.
This is actually a really good point. Culture paved the way for the sheen of hyper “detailed” AI art (many of the details fall apart on close scrutiny, but I digress) by making it seem like “amateur” art is bad while “professional” art is good. So that means if a tool comes along that supposedly makes it so you can sidestep sweating over your amateur art and go straight to pumping out the professional-looking stuff, that’s a win. It’s good to question this assumption.
I let my Max subscription lapse some time ago. A smattering of decent HBO shows and one or two great ones is just not worth it. Zaslav has been running this company into the ground. Apple TV+ smokes Max in value. And now they’re realizing maybe dropping the name “HBO” off of HBO was a bad move? LOL
But hey, he’s making big bank so it’s all worth it…for him. 🙄
Me too, I was a Kbin guy before I was a Lemmy guy (and now PieFed…)
I’m not sure what you’re driving at. It’s true that the rise of photography had an effect on painting such that styles which moved away from realism became the norm for a while, but long since we’ve seen a shift back to realism and a continuation of detailed portraiture or landscape illustrative techniques among some artists.
My point simply is that people who lack the technique/talent to create “fine art” have come to believe their work is of no value, which I find upsetting because I’d much rather look at “bad” human-produced art than generated slop with the superficial appearance of fine technique.