Is paying artists enough to convince them to embrace AI?
Illustrators have spent years sounding the alarm about generative artificial intelligence startups training their models on artists' work without permission. They've pointed out how the practice is tantamount to theft, and in response, many gen AI boosters have argued that it's n
The question of whether paying artists will be enough to convince them to embrace AI is a crucial one, particularly in the context of the ongoing debate about generative AI and intellectual property rights. The fact that illustrators have been sounding the alarm about AI startups training their models on artists' work without permission highlights a deeper issue of consent and compensation.
In the industry, there is a growing recognition that artists and creators need to be fairly compensated for their work, especially when it is used to train AI models that can potentially generate significant profits. The argument that using artists' work without permission is "fair" because it will lead to innovation and progress is not convincing to many artists, who see it as a form of exploitation.
What's next to watch is how AI companies respond to the growing pressure from artists and lawmakers to address these concerns. Will they begin to offer more transparent and fair compensation models, or will they continue to push for a more permissive approach to using creative work without permission? The outcome will have significant implications for the future of AI development and the relationship between tech companies and the creative industries.
Originally reported by theverge.com. ProxyNews adds analysis for ai & agent economy readers.