364
No one wanted this future - where all the creative work is done by an LLM while humans still grind away while an LLM is monitoring them...glad to see at least some push back.
Good. Let's put the forward progression of society back in the hands of the benevolent thinkers rather than degenerates and "tech bros". We need to stop this trajectory post haste else the whole world will be a macro version of "Lord of the Flies".
AI has some value but I don't like using it for art.
They keep spamming these "AI generates no value" articles over and over because it get clicks and every time Lemmy just gobbles it up.
The article is only 400 words. I wonder if the writer of the article also comes up with the title, because the title is what makes it clickbaity. But also, I'm struggling to accept 400 words as an 'article'. Its more like an abstract of an article that is yet to be written.
Usual practice as far as I know, is that the editor comes up with the headlines.
Edit: copy editor
Scarcity is kind of important for value. It's not the only thing but definitely A thing.
It has negative value. It steals from human creators to make a worse product that's "cheaper" so a company doesn't have to pay a human.
Yes, I keep trying to tell people, the second you cram ANY AI generated content in your production, people will immediately assume the whole thing is AI slop, and will immediately click off. Thats what I do, and everyone else's does. I can't believe the number of handmade videos that use fucking AI for the thumbnail. EVERYONE thinks it's AI, and never watch it.
It’s a molestation of our entire human estate, starting with the deceased.
It also destroys storefronts. Why would I bother shopping at this CGTrader if all they’re going to do is try to peddle me garbage? If I wanted garbage I would have just used google image search.
How could you say that when AI is so great for helping companies lay off human workers, helping the military bomb children, helping the government build watch lists of people it doesn't like, or helping law enforcement create a surveillance state?? :(
Stuff that's made sloppily without any quality assurance indeed often has almost zero value. And AI can be used to make a lot of such slop quickly.
But just like procedural generation, neuronal generation can be a great tool to those who know how to use it - and when to use it. If you want to do tenths of animations for tenths of different models like Larian Studios did for Baldur's Gate 3, you can use AI to make the work a bit less repetitive - just like Larian Studios did. So far no one called Baldur's Gate slop because of that.
As usual, it's not the tool's fault.
Suspiciously wealthy furries have no desire for your mechanical slop.
What about the protogens that enjoy slop? I'm 90% sure they would enjoy mechanical slop.
Save you a click: one online marketplace shows people don't want to buy AI-generated 3D assets. No actual news on what this means for the entire rest of the economy.
In the case of CGTrader, a long-established online marketplace for 3D assets used by video game developers, film editors, and 3D printing nerds, users are sending a clear message. As 404 Media reports, the marketplace is being flooded by AI-generated assets, representing one in six models — but they only account for only $1 out of every $90 in revenue.
Because any value from it is just value that has been stolen from someone else.
What the "but it's a useful tool!" people have never realized is that AI is just an attempt to sell existing human output back to us. The models are trained on our output, most often without consent. Ideally, if that output is so useful, then those people whose work is in the training data should be compensated.
Royalties work the same way and on the same principles. But AI models cannot directly query their training data in any way that makes their sources identifiable, and this numbers problem is commonly used as an excuse for why these folks cannot be compensated. That's just a red herring, and it's not the public's problem.
The whole endeavor should not exist. It's a good example of blindly developing something while having absolutely no concept of its negative impact on society.
looks at local model I'm confused is my stupid computer trying to sell me my own laziness?
Why rent a tool from home Depot when I can just use my own?
Because any value from it is just value that has been stolen from someone else.
If you take a picture of a chair and turn it in a click into a perfect 3D model with AI, who are you stealing from?
Minimally whoever made the original chair, plus every single other person whose manual 3D models were fed into the training data so that you can get a "new" one with a click.
The fact that so many people are involved in the chain does not mean it isn't theft. It's simply obfuscated theft.
Minimally whoever made the original chair,
ikea?
If you were to duplicate a unique Ikea design and sell it as your own, something tells me you'd have a legal issue.
Of course this is a bit different because you're making a representation of the chair. But, it could in turn be used to replicate a chair. If you use an AI model to make a 3D representation of Ariel from the Little Mermaid, I don't think it's a stretch to say Disney's legal team would come after you if you tried to profit from it.
There is certainly a difference between intellectual property and other kinds. My response above assumes intellectual property, which doesn't necessarily fit the chair example cleanly. But the point remains the same, and the distinction isn't always relevant.
If i want a 3d slop model i will prompt it myself.
I wouldn't put it this way. And this comment is about economic points not etical ones:
I wouldn't pay anything AI generated that I could generate myself.
But generating by myself I still save on the artist's work hours.
Same thing AI coding - I bet all paid software now contains code by an AI. So that means it does have a value.
The value is nowhere close what they are trying to sell you on tho.
It really sounds like everything that utilizes AI has to feign value. We're probably going to see a race to the bottom where everything is cheap crap where even the leading producers have less value in terms of quality.
It's just power tools 2.0. The electric drill replaced the mechanical one. It meant you needed less carpenders to do the same amount of work.
At some point. A new balance has to be found between the drop in labor demand and the loss of quality if you go too far in your labor cuts.
The problem isn't the tool, it's the poor Management like it always is. Even ai needs someone to pilot it, someone to manage it, and someone to coordinate the project.
It's only a race to the bottom of management decides to go over board on the cuts.
ALMOST!
So you are saying it has value?
News News News
Latest from Anthropic and Open AI:
Internet site claims AI generated content has value!
Don't get left behind, embrace your AI.
I've been using AI to make a free weather app that isn't cancer. i would never in a million years charge for it. it is a work i am creating for the public using publicly sourced knowledge. the fact it's taken 5 months and hundreds of my own personal hours to produce these projects doesn't negate the fact ALL OF THE CODE has been generated via sources i didn't ask for permission from, indirectly.
I'd have to be some kind of asshole to charge for my programs. I feel bad enough including a donation link buried deep in the UI. (I'm neurodivergent and receiving money makes me feel like dog shit and guilty so really I'm being selfish i guess)
The article is just talking about selling AI generated 3d models on a marketplace, so maybe for that use case it has no exchange value.
That doesn't mean everything generated by AI has no value. It doesn't even mean that AI generated 3d models have no value, people may be using AI to generate models for themselves and getting value from it, even if they can't sell that on a marketplace.
It'd be like saying a scarf I knitted has no value, I may not be able to sell it because it's not as good as professionally made scarves and has some colors that don't sell well, but it still has value to me because I like the colors and it keeps my neck warm.
Yes, you're correct in logic, wrong in context.
AI is a unique situation of corporate malpractice, see doomsaying from all AI CEO's, at the same time as all the protections and safeguards in finance have been removed by those financial wizards in Washington.
It needs to take over markets, drive productivity, and deliver world changing returns otherwise the valuations don't make any sense and the market flops. Of course the people making the big money now plan to exit at advantageous times. Leaving bag-holders, this has been witnessed with the SpaceX/AI float earlier this year, and nobody lifted a finger to stop our retirement savings being used to line the pockets of the Epstein class.
For better explanations see,
Cory Doctorow, Ed Zitron, and Patrick Boyle.
I smell something off here, picking a fight against AI in the 3D world is one the worst possible grounds
this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
364 points (97.2% liked)
News
38864 readers
1795 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS