Talk:Opposition to artificial intelligence art

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence articles

Arts

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArtsWikipedia:WikiProject ArtsTemplate:WikiProject ArtsWikiProject Arts articles

Some things

This article is only a few minutes old, so it seems rather rude for me to sully it with a tagbomb, even if I think it needs one. I think that people who write articles should be given some courtesy and not immediately BLAR'd or AfD'd or plastered with maintenance templates. But there are some rather serious problems that need to be addressed.

First of all, the way this is written, it seems like an obvious content fork. I'm not sure that there is really enough content on this subject to warrant a separate article from Artificial intelligence art. Even if there was, this article is written in a clearly opinionated way, with seemingly undue coverage.

Overall, there are a lot of weasel words. Looking over it, I see: "many people have opposed it for various reasons", "sparked several debates", "popular discussion renewed over", "some have claimed", "potential problems and concerns that these systems pose on creativity and artistry has risen", "raised concerns", "raises concerns of malice or greed", "raised the concern", and "some people".

I think these should be avoided wherever possible, and replaced with a straightforward attributed quote of who the people are and what they said. At best, they are editorializing, and at worst they are performing alchemy to transmute claims into facts. That is: "Aunt Gladys and her friends say that the cell towers are killing their petunias" is a claim. "Many in the neighborhood have raised concerns that the cell towers are having negative effects on the health of flowers", or "One concern with cell towers is their deleterious effects on petunias" is a claim that we're implying is true (or at least reasonably true).

To give a concrete example, there is a long paragraph written about a lawsuit filed by some artists, which more or less takes their word as gospel: it opens with "An issue with many popular AI art programs is that they generate images based on artists's work without their consent". This isn't presented as a claim, it's just said as fact. But the lawsuit, where three artists alleged this, was dismissed by a judge due to their complaints being "implausible". If legal complaints are deemed to be implausible, we should not introduce them by saying "An issue with [...] is".

Pinging @TheChunky, AndyTheGrump, and Di (they-them):. jp×g 00:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion is better placed on the parent article talk page - see Talk:Artificial_intelligence_art#Split. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, I will post this there instead. jp×g 01:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]