AI art isn't 'bad' in all cases. For example, if I trained it with my own art, I think that would be an acceptable use. Similarly, if the artists gave permission either explicitly or through sales agreements or other licensing that allowed the art to be used to train AI, then I also don't see a problem with that. I assumed this case, since Substack supports copyright holders.
On the other hand, Substack isn't explicit about this. So I went to their support page and asked, and the AI (ironically) said it didn't know anything about how the art data was trained.
Since I could find no way to contact a human directly, other than through their 'press' email - I sent their communications team the question, and am waiting on an answer. I'll let you know what I find out.
In the meantime, I will stop using their AI generate function until I get an answer. I am literally broke at the moment, so I'm going to have to do my own (bad) art in the meantime, unless you would like to volunteer your services? Your origami artwork is beautiful!
This is not a case of poor character, but poor assumptions on my part. I thank you for pointing it out to me.
AI, in and of itself, isn't bad; it is all about the ethics of how it is trained, and what the output is used for. I wouldn't want AI to be used to run a nuclear reactor after being trained by watching Homer Simpson episodes. But there are acceptable uses. To your point, we need to be clear when navigating the legal and ethical sides.
I am planning to be more active on here and would be happy to illustrate people’s substack stories if it will prevent the proliferation of AI art. Thank you for your reply. I could whip out an ink drawing real quick for anyone.
Great observations, well said, constructed and delivered in an excellent manner! Thank you, and my wish is to have this plastered across all media!
Thank you! I have 2000+ eyeballs here, and 7000+ on Bluesky - so we're starting to get there.
Thank you for your help
AI art is poor character
AI art isn't 'bad' in all cases. For example, if I trained it with my own art, I think that would be an acceptable use. Similarly, if the artists gave permission either explicitly or through sales agreements or other licensing that allowed the art to be used to train AI, then I also don't see a problem with that. I assumed this case, since Substack supports copyright holders.
On the other hand, Substack isn't explicit about this. So I went to their support page and asked, and the AI (ironically) said it didn't know anything about how the art data was trained.
Since I could find no way to contact a human directly, other than through their 'press' email - I sent their communications team the question, and am waiting on an answer. I'll let you know what I find out.
In the meantime, I will stop using their AI generate function until I get an answer. I am literally broke at the moment, so I'm going to have to do my own (bad) art in the meantime, unless you would like to volunteer your services? Your origami artwork is beautiful!
This is not a case of poor character, but poor assumptions on my part. I thank you for pointing it out to me.
AI, in and of itself, isn't bad; it is all about the ethics of how it is trained, and what the output is used for. I wouldn't want AI to be used to run a nuclear reactor after being trained by watching Homer Simpson episodes. But there are acceptable uses. To your point, we need to be clear when navigating the legal and ethical sides.
I am planning to be more active on here and would be happy to illustrate people’s substack stories if it will prevent the proliferation of AI art. Thank you for your reply. I could whip out an ink drawing real quick for anyone.