Post #1840360

2026-04-26 10:27 UTC

That is true, of course, but LLMs, image and video generation, and so on, will, in my view, lead to fewer and fewer people being willing to publish their creative works, because the staggering output of AI models will not only make it increasingly unlikely that they will receive compensation for their work, but also that they will receive recognition for it. As a result, I think, there will likely be fewer and fewer people willing to accept that their work is being used for free to train precisely those models from which only the people who steal their work benefit - without this theft, the business model of OpenAI and the like simply cannot function. In my view, this will sooner or later lead to a vicious cycle in which the models are trained predominantly only with content they have generated themselves. This will then lead to a stagnation of what we understand as culture - for these models are neither creative nor intelligent: they can merely combine existing content to create something that appears new; however, they cannot produce anything truly new. Nevertheless, given its ever-expanding reach, it will likely be this repetitive AI output that has a significant influence on popular culture, at the very least.

Replies (2)

@insomniac_lemon@lemmy.cafe 2026-04-26 22:47

> because the staggering output of AI models will not only make it increasingly unlikely that they will receive compensation for their work, but also that they will receive recognition for it Don't forget scraping. GH is already there with public repos, and even if you take a chance and go elsewhere (or don't release source code) some tools are locked-in (too small to move *or* too large to move) so it has a chilling effect on growth/contribution. I am there already. Albeit just starting out and the thing I didn't share yet is just a simple sweeper clone (in a somewhat niche language+Godot bindings).

Open ##1840361
@daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-26 11:04

Economic viable mass produced "art" made with the intention of grabbing money was always shit. Before and after AI. If new uninspired blockbuster gets done with AI instead of incredibly bad and uninspired human resources is of no consequence to the art I enjoy. Good inspired art doesn't need to be economically viable in a capitalistic system, and many times is not. Before and after AI. People with something to express will always be doing it. There will be always someone wanting to make a handcrafted opera, and if it's good it will always find its public. I do artistic expression myself, I get no revenue whatsoever, and I have no intention of stopping doing it. Because it's not about money, it's about self expression.

Open ##1840362