• I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Isn’t that kinda what AI images should be used for? Meaningless stock images? Like, if the article was about a specific person, or an interesting activity or place, then yea that’s not for AI. But a generic article about “jobs” seems fine.

    • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      No?

      People are paying for those pictures, either as a subscription or per-use basis. They’re paying a rate to reflects work; photographers, models, rights - all kinds of different costs up front. None of that exists with AI.

      It’s sort of like sitting down to a restaurant, ordering and paying, and then getting served food from your own home. Some horseshit Kraft mac and cheese and fish sticks.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        A better comparison would be if the menu at the restaurant had AI art on it. It doesn’t matter, I’m not there for the menu art. The menu is not the main product I’m there to consume. It’s the food. The menu art is there to give a quick visual and because it looks marginally better than a blank piece of paper, nothing more. Whether it was painted by an artist or created in 2 minutes by someone with Stable Diffusion makes no difference in the food quality.

        If people are really losing money because others no longer want to use their work for meaningless article headers, I don’t know what to say. Maybe get in line with phone operators and VCR repair men?