FaceDeer

And the same calculus applies to LLMs as to the image generators. If they're so hideously expensive how is it that companies are giving access away for free? The goodness of their own hearts? Obviously they would like for people to pay for services and are using the LLMs as a loss leader, but they're giving away so much in the way of LLM usage that I've never felt any need to pay for it myself. The average Joe isn't their target market, the average Joe doesn't have a big enough demand to be worth charging them for it.

Art isn’t all about money.

And yet everything in your comment was about who is "benefiting" from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after "art isn't all about the money" is:

AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated

So it's not about the money, but gimmie money.

using massive amounts of energy and water cooling

Those things cost money. If it's truly "massive amounts" then why are so many image generators giving it away for free?

I generate images locally on my home computer so I actually know how much energy and cooling is required per image, it's really not that much. I'd use way more if I was making the image by hand in an image editing program.

True, but I've been noticing a trend in a positive direction over time. Look at the upvote/downvote balances, it's still a net negative whenever you say something good about AI but there are a lot more upvotes than there used to be.

I think the anti-AI rage is dying down. People are exhausted by it, and more and more people are actually trying out AI tools and finding them to be fun and useful. And the Fediverse is getting bigger, too, which dilutes the bubble with more competing views.

Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.

Literally everything you just said to justify the position that "AI art ain't art" depended either on money or on legal decisions.

Art is all about money? Laws dictate what is and is not art?

The US has the terminal disease of hubris, not Trump. Trump is just insane. But the US elected him as their leader and the electorate as a whole can't plead insanity here.

No way would they put up anything that suggested someone could be trains.

But didn't Trump tell them not to retaliate? I'm pretty sure Trump told them not to retaliate. I don't understand.

"Awesome" is relative, see Overton window.

But yeah, this leaps straight on top of rule #3 and ravishes it senseless. Probably doesn't belong on this community.

Content.

Is it necromancy if the subject is still alive?

By which country's standards?