I just want to make funny Pictures.

  • Because that’s a harm to society and economy.

    It’s gutting entire swaths of middle-class careers, and funneling that income into the pockets of the wealthy.

    If you’re a single-person startup using your own money and you can’t afford to hire someone else, sure. That’s ok until you can afford to hire someone else.
    If you’re just using it for your personal hobbies and for fun, that’s probably ok
    But if you’re contributing to unemployment and suppressed wages just to avoid payroll expenses, there is a guillotine with your name on it.

    • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 month ago

      Please don’t use the “but it creates jobs” argument.

      Me shitting in the street also “creates jobs” because someone has to clean it.

    • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      I think what matters if you would’ve otherwise hired someone. Otherwise I can’t see it making any impact.

      And in a lot of cases you would’ve paid for stock photo company anyway

      • I don’t agree:

        Before if you chose not to hire someone, you’d be competing against better products from people who did hire someone. Hiring someone gave them a competitive advantage.

        By removing the competitive advantage of hiring someone, you’re destroying an entire career path, harming the economy and society in general.

        • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          21 month ago

          A lot of AI use I’m personally seeing is shit most wouldn’t spend money on or stuff where instead of paying for a stock photo they just generate shit and be done with it. Would they have ever paid someone to do the work and especially would anyone have agreed to do such small work that’d never pay anything reasonable, most likely no.

          Before if you chose not to hire someone, you’d be competing against better products from people who did hire someone. Hiring someone gave them a competitive advantage.

          I guess I don’t believe in quite as much in the invisible hand of capitalism. I rather think it’s a race to the bottom with companies buying some cheap slop to use on their webpage or whatever from a stock photo company and now people pay AI companies for it, if anyone. Can’t see the big impact of that sort of shit being replaced.

          • I also think capitalism is a race to the bottom, but I believe it is so because it subverts the value of labor. It’s shit like AI that makes it a race to the bottom.

            shit most wouldn’t spend money on or stuff where instead of paying for a stock photo they just generate shit and be done with it.

            Then pay for the stock photo. There, an artist is being paid for their work. But realistically the little stuff you’re talking about is the occupation of entire departments in megacorps.

            • @Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              11 month ago

              Paying a stock photo “artist” or some AI slop “artist”, I’m not sure it makes any difference. The stuff AI generates is already so sloppy generic corporate bs that it’s hard to think of anyone deserving to paid anything for it anyway. It’s mimicking a horrid generic art style and a horrid generic art style like that isn’t owned by a particular artist anyway.

                  • It’s not giving them elsewhere.
                    There is not and will not be an abundance of prompt “engineering” jobs, it’s not creating new industries, and it’s not significantly lowering the bar for people to start their own businesses is existing industries.

                    What it is doing is data-mining on a scale never seen before, and increasing profit margins for megacorp business owners.