Translation from snake speech bs: We've been threatened by Japanese artists via their lawyers that unless we remove the "Ghibli" feature that earned us so much money, and others like it, we're going to get absolutely destroyed in court.
There's usually more useful information in what Sam Altman specifically doesn't say than what he does.
Sickening
Not only do they consider it art, they call what you and I consider art "humanslop" and consider it inferior to AI.
It's easy to get too chronically online and focus on some tiny weird thing you saw when in fact it's just a tiny weird thing
Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.
No, you almost never see art that wasn’t meant to be sold. Public art pieces are commissioned (sold), art in galleries were created by professional artists (even if commercially unsuccessful) 99.99999% of the time.
Surely if this wasn’t true, you could point to a few specific examples of art — or even broad categories of art — that weren’t made to be sold and that you have personally seen?
Going back to the origin of this, stating that Ghibli style videos generated with SORA (which the OP initially called "content") are equivalent to Studio Ghibli movies because they are both "art made to be sold" would be wild. A film like Spirited Away took over 1 million hours of work, if making money was the main goal it would have never happened.
"they want their to be appreciated, so they expect pieces to be sold" is a clever trick but one is not related to the other. One could want their art to be appreciated and never sell it, but virtually no one would see this art for a variety of reasons including the fact that marketability increases visibility and that there is very, very little amateur art that is worth looking at, much less promoting to a larger audience.
It seems you agree that in fact art (that anyone sees) is overwhelmingly made to be sold.
I didn't say anything about their "main motivation" and neither you nor I (nor even the artist, frankly) could say much about what someone's main motivation is.
What we can say is that nearly all of the art anyone sees was in fact made to be sold, which is the specific claim that I made.
See comment above.
Here, I'll restate it:
> Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold.
> Art is overwhelmingly not a charity project from artists to the commons.
The Sistine Chapel: Content, not art
The Mona Lisa: Content, not art
The Guggenheim: Content, not art
David: Content, not art
Geurnica: Content, not art
Symphony No. 5 in C Minor, Op. 67: Content, not art
I understand why the original comment said it, and my response is a simple explanation as to why the original comment was very obviously incorrect.
Because most art isn't in a gallery or store. You quite literally aren't seeing it.
> Almost every piece of art you've ever seen (by virtue of you seeing it) was made to be marketed and sold.
Different places have different cultures, apparently your coworkers aren't to know anything about you beyond what's necessary for them to work with you, but across the whole world, not everywhere is like that, and it seems unnecessary to state that you don't live in such a place in that way.
This scenario is irrelevant to my main thesis anyway, which is that people principally do not develop artistry to the levels required for strangers to care about it without doing so as a professional pursuit.
That you get to see the exhaust and byproducts of such a professional pursuit isn't a point against it.
Paradoxically, it signals indifference or disregard about the actual contents of a work.
> I absolutely cannot fucking stand creative work being referred to as "content". "Content" is how you refer to the stuff on a website when you're designing the layout and don't know what actually goes on the page yet. "Content" is how you refer to the collection of odds and ends in your car's trunk. "Content" is what marketers call the stuff that goes around the ads.