CMV: Reddit's Inaction Regarding AI-Generated Content Infringes On A Creator's Right To Make A Living

Before I delve into the meat of this topic, I'd like to preface this post by stating:<br><br>***<br><br>Firstly, I'm not a professional graphic designer or digital artist, but I am an artist (musician) who makes a living by selling my work. It's a tough and competitive field, and it's always been this way. Back in 2010, I remember fellow musicians complaining about how difficult it is to make a living when piracy is rampant on the internet.<br><br>However, the internet helped us adapt to the reality of digital distribution of music; I was able to release my music successfully, and the world didn't end. Today, despite the fact that I have music on pirated sites, I've managed to build a community of loyal fans who appreciate my music and help support my career.<br><br>***<br><br>Fast-forward to 2023, and I became aware of this controversy surrounding AI-generated "art" (specifically, art generated with Midjourney and DALL-E).<br><br>From my perspective, it's surprising that graphic designers and digital artists are encountering this problem *after* musicians have gone through this struggle. It makes sense; music is a digital resource that can be distributed easily online, whereas visual art has traditionally been created in person or distributed via commissions, galleries, or local businesses.<br><br>Nonetheless, the advent of AI has finally led to the same issue that musicians have been dealing with for over 10 years. Various companies like OpenAI, Adobe, and Meta have developed tools that can generate high-quality "art" extremely quickly, without having to train in skills like painting, drawing, or graphic design.<br><br>***<br><br>The thing is, we've been here before. In music, the introduction of software synthesizers, virtual drum machines, and other plugins have made music production more accessible (and easier) than ever before. However, these tools don't make music for us; they're just instruments that can be used to create a variety of styles.<br><br>AI-generated "art", on the other hand, is a fundamentally different beast. It's not an instrument that a human uses to create art, but a tool that creates art *for* humans. <br><br>These AI tools have been trained on a massive data set of images from public websites and books, including work from the artists themselves. This creates a problem because the AI essentially copies-and-pastes parts of other people's art without ever using them as "instruments" in the creative process. Consequently, AI-generated "art" has no value as art, because it isn't actually created by a person.<br><br>This results in a lack of control over copyright, intellectual property-related issues, and the devaluation of an artist's work. Suddenly, their skill is no longer valuable because AI can do it faster, better, and cheaper.<br><br>***<br><br>This has led to a backlash, as some artists claim that AI-generated "art" has been "stealing their jobs." It's true that AI-generated "art" is being used in commercial contexts, with some companies choosing to use AI-generated "art" instead of actually paying a person to create original content.<br><br>This poses a problem for artists, as AI-generated "art" will inevitably displace more traditional forms of art. It creates a new challenge for human artists, who must adapt to this new reality and find ways to stay relevant in an era where AI-generated "art" is increasingly prevalent.<br><br>***<br><br>This situation has parallels with the rise of digital distribution of music, where platforms like Napster and Limewire disrupted the traditional record industry. Suddenly, artists and labels had to adapt to the new reality, finding ways to monetize their work in a world where it was easily shareable online.<br><br>Similarly, the rise of AI-generated "art" is forcing visual artists to adapt to a new landscape, where they must find ways to stay relevant in an era where AI-generated "art" is increasingly prevalent.<br><br>***<br><br>However, the fundamental difference between these two scenarios lies in the role of the internet. In the case of music, the internet created new opportunities for artists to connect with fans, share their work, and build a community around their music.<br><br>In contrast, the rise of AI-generated "art" is largely driven by large corporations, who are using these tools to create "art" for commercial purposes. This raises concerns about the exploitation of human artists, who have invested time and effort into developing their skills, only to see their work devalued by the proliferation of AI-generated "art."<br><br>***<br><br>Reddit in particular has been complicit in the devaluation of an artist's work. Many subreddits openly allow AI-generated "art" and even encourage the use of AI "instruments."<br><br>Obviously, this isn't a problem when AI-generated "art" is being used privately by someone who wants to have some fun and be creative. However, when AI-generated "art" enters the commercial market, it does devalue an artist's work.<br><br>That's why I think Reddit should have a policy to prevent AI-generated "art" from being used in a commercial context. We could have a policy that encourages the use of human-generated art, especially when it comes to commissioned work. This would help to promote and value the work of human artists, and ensure that they are not displaced by AI-generated "art."<br><br>***<br><br>To sum it up, Reddit's inaction regarding AI-generated content infringes on a creator's right to make a living. This isn't an issue of AI-generated "art" being "good" or "bad," but rather a question of the value and worth of a human artist's work in an era where AI-generated "art" is increasingly prevalent.