Look, you can't say you support the rights of authors and artists but still use generative AI programs that have stolen work from those same artists and authors. This does not apply to people whose employers make them use AI.
This does not apply to people whose employers make them use AI. What? You CAN say you support the rights of authors and artists but still use generative AI programs that have stolen work from those same artists and authors. Extractive labour can use AI, but creatives can not? I am confused. Listening to EDM tracks with samples for the soundtrack to an AI film. We need laws not ideals here. Happy to pay other Artists but that’s only my 2 cents.
If one more person tells me I’ll be left behind if I don’t embrace AI 🤨, Rachel Lapidow… Thanks for your post 🙌.
Thank you! You’d think it’d be common sense, but plenty of people clearly don’t think so…
You definitely CAN do both because I see a lot of people that do 😭
Why when a mass production company makes copies of Rembrandt, is it not considered stealing ?
Generative AI companies have done artists dirty that is for sure.
This is the correct answer.
I don't beleive that AI is suppose to help you create what you worked hard to make they critique and fix flaws so you can be proud of your work and I will say this I font need others work I have my own lady
This perspective feels narrow and dismissive of nuance. Supporting artists’ rights doesn’t have to mean vilifying everyone who interacts with AI—especially when people are required by employers or using AI responsibly as a tool. Real support looks like advocating for ethical practices, transparency, and fair compensation, not shaming anyone who navigates this complex space. Let’s focus on building solutions rather than dividing the community.”