Interesting debate, though I want to say a few things.
My main issue with some of that one moral debate is that I feel like one is behaving that if something innovative happened and it effected certain traditional jobs in a negative way, then that's considered a problem because a lot more people uses a lot of certain innovations instead. It's like with cars becoming a thing, effecting a lot of older traditional jobs related to horses. The issue is that nobody was ever morally obligated to pay for artists in the first place alone just as much as nobody was morally obligated to pay for horses for main travel, which is why I scratch my head over this issue.
Another thing I scratch my head over is the artist's "style" debate. Nobody could ever own it in the first place if I'm assuming right, and if so, to bring up art style now (as if it's an artist's "right" when it never was) due to the effects of a machine is essentially the same as trying to argue that we can't copy ideas of certain foods (e.g. off-brand coke like soda) because some people buy those instead of the main brand's version.
If traditional artist A copied another traditional artist B's style and such traditional artist somehow negativity effected the original artist, did traditional artist A did something wrong by copying the style, even though I heard you can't copyright an art style? The effects of certain AI generating art with copying certain art styles has the same logic other than it being a machine instead of a person.
Don't get me wrong, I do hope many good artists will keep their job. it's just hard to bring morality sake in it due to some issues, even though I can understand where some are coming from. Though there might be some Copyright risks and/or some other risks. Maybe there are already ways law can block certain AI machine usages. As for the idea that some are losing jobs already because of AI, I am not too sure if there is evidence of that at the moment and I feel like there are some artists who actually wants to use good AI art results, but not always.
Interesting debate, though I want to say a few things.
My main issue with some of that one moral debate is that I feel like one is behaving that if something innovative happened and it effected certain traditional jobs in a negative way, then that's considered a problem because a lot more people uses a lot of certain innovations instead. It's like with cars becoming a thing, effecting a lot of older traditional jobs related to horses. The issue is that nobody was ever morally obligated to pay for artists in the first place alone just as much as nobody was morally obligated to pay for horses for main travel, which is why I scratch my head over this issue.
Another thing I scratch my head over is the artist's "style" debate. Nobody could ever own it in the first place if I'm assuming right, and if so, to bring up art style now (as if it's an artist's "right" when it never was) due to the effects of a machine is essentially the same as trying to argue that we can't copy ideas of certain foods (e.g. off-brand coke like soda) because some people buy those instead of the main brand's version.
If traditional artist A copied another traditional artist B's style and such traditional artist somehow negativity effected the original artist, did traditional artist A did something wrong by copying the style, even though I heard you can't copyright an art style? The effects of certain AI generating art with copying certain art styles has the same logic other than it being a machine instead of a person.
Don't get me wrong, I do hope many good artists will keep their job. it's just hard to bring morality sake in it due to some issues, even though I can understand where some are coming from. Though there might be some Copyright risks and/or some other risks. Maybe there are already ways law can block certain AI machine usages. As for the idea that some are losing jobs already because of AI, I am not too sure if there is evidence of that at the moment and I feel like there are some artists who actually wants to use good AI art results, but not always.