That's the thing, you're not being "ripped off" as a creator if the people willingly choose to buy AI generated slop.
I am if the AI generated slop can only exist because the LLM owner ripped off the human creators to train the LLM.
the same way we all use washing machines rather than hiring a housekeeper
More like the same way Napster and Limewire worked, where we all just picked the songs we want and copied them for free digitally over the internet, rather than paying for a CD to be manufactured and shipped around. Napster was just the market deciding ... right?
Except it was massive copyright infringment. Sure the CD distribution model might have been outdated in the face of a more efficient digital model, but that doesn't mean just copying all the work you wanted for free was a good solution.
The LLMs right now are like Napster -- they took all that copyright work for free and are exploiting it for profit. That's plainly wrong.
We need to get to a spotify/apple music world, where the LLM systems respects copyrights. Artists decide if their content may be used as training material or not, and they get paid for it if they do.
I also don't think it will cause a creative apocalypse either, because YouTube has proven there's no shortage of people who will produce creative content even when there's no financial rewards for it.
I actually do agree with you here. But I think youtube is a pretty shitty platform, that promotes *mostly* shitty content. Because the engagement and incentive model of ad supported systems is pernicious. We can do better. But that's a separate conversation.
Separately LLMs training on their own AI slop causes problems and LLMs can easily produce content at a rate that can overwhelm human output ; so even without a creative apocalypse caused by people not wanting to create; there may be a practical one if ai slop drowns everything else under a flood of shit.