Well, I think you've run the opposite direction and are severely overestimating the ability of AI to actually create something approximating an artist's visions. I mean, people are not using this to finally provide the visuals for their comic strip they didn't have the ability to draw; it's basically just meme like jokes of the "hey, AI, make SpongeBob, but directed by Zach Snyder" which is fun like for five minutes then it gets boring. I mean, your definition of what constitutes "speech" worthy of protection oscillates wildly, so maybe that is what you're defending, but, I don't really know.
I mean, I'm going to e621, which has been kind of the last bastion of shit banned everywhere else, and ... I'm getting nothing. People aren't using AI to make art because it's just not that useful. It's kind of like NFTs; non-furries could tell it wasn't actually very useful when furries didn't adopt them because we're like the last group on the planet that has an actual art economy going on, so if we weren't using NFTs, they weren't actually useful to working artists. Likewise, if the website that doesn't and probably won't ever ban them wasn't crap flooded by them when they were banned elsewhere, it probably means nobody was seriously using them to begin with.
The images created just aren't, ironically, manipulable enough to be really useful. I mean, going back to the "finally drawing my comic strip" example, something as simple as a character staying on model from panel to panel is nearly impossible. Maybe this is a question that will become relevant as the technology advances, but right now it's just not really at a point where's its anything other than a gimmick.
Well, I think you've run the opposite direction and are severely overestimating the ability of AI to actually create something approximating an artist's visions. I mean, people are not using this to finally provide the visuals for their comic strip they didn't have the ability to draw; it's basically just meme like jokes of the "hey, AI, make SpongeBob, but directed by Zach Snyder" which is fun like for five minutes then it gets boring. I mean, your definition of what constitutes "speech" worthy of protection oscillates wildly, so maybe that is what you're defending, but, I don't really know.
I mean, I'm going to e621, which has been kind of the last bastion of shit banned everywhere else, and ... I'm getting nothing. People aren't using AI to make art because it's just not that useful. It's kind of like NFTs; non-furries could tell it wasn't actually very useful when furries didn't adopt them because we're like the last group on the planet that has an actual art economy going on, so if we weren't using NFTs, they weren't actually useful to working artists. Likewise, if the website that doesn't and probably won't ever ban them wasn't crap flooded by them when they were banned elsewhere, it probably means nobody was seriously using them to begin with.
The images created just aren't, ironically, manipulable enough to be really useful. I mean, going back to the "finally drawing my comic strip" example, something as simple as a character staying on model from panel to panel is nearly impossible. Maybe this is a question that will become relevant as the technology advances, but right now it's just not really at a point where's its anything other than a gimmick.