Generative AI “art” is to actual art what a bird mimicking your voice back to you is to speech. The bird has no concept of the sounds it produced. But it might adapt to outputting certain kinds of “speech” in response to the right “prompts”. Do people really think those birds are talking to them?
I have not had the opportunity to watch the video yet but based on what I've heard and having seen similar takes like this in the past it seems like he's conflating corporations utilizing AI backlash to tighten their grip on IP laws and his conclusion is that generative AI art is meaningful art.
"I see a concept that was put through a program that produced something that will always be inherently disconnected from the person who conceived it."
I think this is it for me. Every line drawn, brush stroke, image chosen is a personal choice I'm interested in, whether I like the image or not.
here's something to get your blood boiling, 400 million users weekly use ChatGTP. SO YES! WE HAVE TO KEEP SAYING THIS! Because clearly it's just multiplying, hand crafted work adds more character, MORE AUTHENTICITY!
Succinct, poignant, and fundamentally hitting it all on the head, fuck yeah dude! Sigh... I know a lot of us all fucking hate AI, but I still feel so much relief whenever someone is vocally against it. I feel like I'm losing my mind with how hard it's being pushed to me and around me
I am a compsci graduate and I get somewhat frustrated when people give so high praise to these systems that are effectively just fancy math that can't even do basic math reliably.
To be clear, the technology itself is fine, it has uses.
ChatGPT and similar however, less so.
grateful people out there like you have the ability to express exactly how i feel in such a succinct and impactful way. very well said, I'll be saving this to show people... i always struggle to find the words myself 💚
As fan of Avila’s work, I totes agree with you on this.
I can appreciate the philosophical lens through which he discusses the topic, and there’s plenty of fascinating points he made, but the harm AI does to real world artists shouldn’t be undermined.
I hate that we're still calling generative models AI. It's bothered me since I first heard it. AI has been used for decades in science fiction to mean sentient machines. We don't have Terminators, Transformers, i-Robot, or Android 16/17/18. We have algorithms that need to be told what to output.
Not to be pedantic (ok yes, to be pedantic, but lightheartedly 🤓) we _do_ have transformers. Transformers are a common neural net architecture used in gen AI.
Cool stuff if you're into machine learning! Gen AI is still slop, though
The difference between AI art and art made by humans is intent. Regardless of how many keywords you cram in there, you can't make an algorithm intentional.
I ain't watching his video but I think it's hilarious that someone who was being plagiarised and stolen from is defending the theft and plagiarism machine from what I understand "to dunk on big business" which are the people developing and funding the tool he defends, like come on dude get a clue
People who just generate code until they get something that works are not considered programmers or engineers. These people would be horrified if someone did that and landed a job, because they don't understand how what they just applied works.
Kinda weird considering he's running defense for "art" that nobody bothered to make, content with the plagiarism slop algorithm doing it.
Then why should I bother to sit down 3h & watch his drivel instead of just being content with the thumbnail? Maybe ChatGPT can summarize it for me har har
there's a joke in Animorphs where an English paper that says absolutely nothing is described as having "the use of rhetoric to obscure a lack of content" as its topic
i'm pretty sure that's what all three-hour youtube video essays are when you get right down to it
Why would I watch a whole AI video? If I wanted to do that I could just as an AI to make a Alex Avila video the length I prefer and just watch that. They should just distribute the prompt they used to make the video.
"Did you watch the video all the wya through?" It's over three hours long and only part one, Alex. I could be playing Calir Obscur or something with that time.
It burns my bowels that that pompous prick is essentially going around saying “Haha, if you don’t agree with me you’re a hypocrite, you’re a bad liberal, you need to agree with me because I said so” and cloaking it with passive word choice
The absolute peak of single-issue thinker delusion
You can add it in the replies to the original post if you'd like! There's also a setting to make Bluesky remind you when uploading images that's pretty helpful
Really agree with your take and appreciate you sharing it 💗
I understand the issues with how the models were and are trained. But if someone was able to create a model ethically, i personally wouldn’t have a problem with it. As someone with no talent to draw it seems like it might be fun.
I think you should draw even if you don't think you have talent for it. You'd be surprised how much you can improve just by practicing. Plus, ultimately, it's really nice to see things made by people even if they're simple or messy. It's how we connect to one another.
My partner isn't particularly adept at visual arts and that's fine actually! His silly little drawings are delightful and I'm so happy when he makes them because they're his! Be forgiving with yourself and do it for your own enjoyment and you'll have a lot more fun
The curious thing is I've seen this particular stance on AI elsewhere in the furry community. Problem being that they mistake the "idealistic POSSIBLE future of AI" for how AI should be treated now, and what it is doing now.
Tilting my head slowly sounding like a creaky pipe processing that this person claimed artists against GenAI are operating with "a capitalist mindset" when it's built and trained on the literal exploitation of labor
The difference between me and a lot of my peers is that I don't feel even a TINY need to pretend that I don't think "enriching artists" is a meaningful part of "the arts." Of course it is.
The world is hard, getting by in it sucks, we're not upending the systems by which we have to succeed or not...
...any time soon so being able to own one's art rights and/or profit off one's artistic ability is a GOOD THING if you can achieve it; and this idea that "IP is evil" because this or that corpo has abused it or that "AI is good" because letting hacks and charlatans steal what little...
...power and position artists rightfully have is the WORST kind of perversion of whatever debased value 'marxist' class consciousness might have left (which ain't much lately...)
I have zero shame in a position that creators should gain as much as they can from their work. ZERO.
I can't remember if Avila had anything worthwhile to say before, but this piece was hackwork in service of the worst possible people. Vile stuff. You're in the right here.
"I'm afraid that if we aren't careful with how we critique the use and abuse of artificial intelligence we might end up, as leftist philosopher Mark Fisher once warned, 'foreclosing the possibility of a technologized anti-capitalism'"
He's literally trying to give you BETTER ways to criticize AI
He replied, but my reply to him is not showing up on the video (though I COULD find it in my Comment History), and no new posts from me are showing up. I do at least want to post the response here. (In two parts, for the sake of alt-text.)
I asked a similar question and have not yet seen a response. An argument against training via public domain that I could understand is that legally admissible via copyright law and ethical use don't necessarily mean the same thing. IMHO it would still be a valid starting point.
Somewhat of a good idea, but that would lead to outputs that are 100+ years out of cultural cache, AND the companies involved have admitted there just isn't ENOUGH Pub Dom works to do the initial training of a model. YES, it needs that much volume.
Ok, I watched it. I think you both have well thought out positions. I agree with more of his than yours. I think it's valid for you personally to dislike the output of a generative model, and I think many models are not created ethically. I also think even if someone only enters a few words into
a prompt, that's an artistic expression with artistic intent that's being translated from words to multimedia. Even if the words entered are absolute garbage, brain rot, or intentionally offensive, they are an expression of thought. Generative models are tools (unethically made tools currently),
but all tools exist to allow expression of intention. Just as a hammer exists to express force onto a nail. These tools exist to allow expression of worded ideas into multimedia. I don't think that makes every use of generative models ok, but I think we haven't found the balance yet.
From his reply - and some of my previous comments to others - I believe he has mistaken training of models for finetuning. Both are incredibly different. Training of base models requires massive resources not available to most individuals.
i think generative ai art defense comes from a sort of entitlement of people thinking they are owed the ability to make "good" art now that this stuff exists. anyone CAN make art and can learn to make it better, but to generate art and put it on the same level as creating feels wrong
Honestly that penultimate paragraph really just hits the nail on the head for me. Even putting my personal feelings as an artist aside, nothing kills my enthusiasm for something than seeing AI. It’s slop, as you said. It fills space because someone needs something that looks “good enough”.
Frankly, it denigrates even a person’s own output (for example a musician who generates album art for their YouTube upload) as just being content. Product. Even before all the ethical problems (which are very important to be sure), it’s like saying this is all your art deserves. And it kills me.
Pretty sure the point of creating A.I. and Robots was to free up our time so we humans could create and enjoy art. Guess the tech bros missed that part of Sci-Fi.
I think the biggest problem with the video is that the potential for AI in any sense, especially art, really ended up muddying the point bc the video had a lot of important stuff to say, but the whole "AI can be used artistically" point is the one part I personally can't get over or agree with
A.I being used to replace VA's, actors, writers, and any artistic field is bad. I find the technology fascinating and use A.I to remove things from pictures I take but that is the extent of my use of that.
I think an exception could be as a feedback/critique machine:
"Hey genAI, here's this thing I'm making; I'm aiming for this result. Am I doing it accurately, or can you recommend any changes?", and then discerning which parts of its response to adopt/reject.
Have you trief talking to other people?
Because that's what you're supposed to do when you're seeking art feedback or critique, is talk to people about it.
Honestly man, you are the one who got me thinking about this kind of stuff and made me appreciate the love of craft. Watching you show you process editing DBZA helped craft how I see video making and editing
You can't be a leftist and defend gen-AI. Because it requires saying that the product is more important than people who make it, and if people don't come first, you're not a leftist. Gen-AI doesn't free a person from a menial assembly line job. It makes an artist unable to pursue their passion.
I'd hedge that slightly and say you can't be a leftist and defend *corporate* gen-AI, which is to say gen-AI as it currently exists.
"Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence" by Dan McQuillan is a really good read where he lays out a worker-owned vision for AI.
No, Gen AI is still detrimental either way. Even if you take the corporate fash element out of it, using Gen AI stunts creative growth and skill development. Anyone using Gen AI in a creative field is an idiot hindering their own growth and development.
You haven't read the book, so you're still talking about corporate AI. It is the way it is because it's created by companies with a profit incentive. https://www.are.na/block/25887730
Generative AI does NOT belong in creative fields. Anyone using gen AI for art, writing, or any other creative field is hindering their own creative growth & skill development. You’re so focused on forcing more AI that you lack understanding of humanity. Fuck off.
Yeah that's exactly what I'm doing. That's me, AI's number one lapdog. Please describe exactly how I'm "forcing more AI," citing from the pages in the post you replied to.
For the time being, the distinction is almost irrelevant. The type of gen AI that's getting heavy investment is the kind that can make stocks for a corporation go up, and that's almost entirely based on speculative value that's wildly inflated. And so it's almost the only kind of gen AI there is.
From purely academic perspective, yes. The bulk of the problem is how corporations are pushing the concept. And I would certainly caution against use of "Anti-AI," because AI is a broad concept, and there is a lot of good in AI research and use. But gen AI we can do without.
i dunno. i hold that the technology is inherently anti-human, and antithetical to the purpose of technology. it should be for helping us with the tasks that break our bodies and exhaust us, so we save our precious time for the things that enrich us. the machine doing the enriching thing for us? no
machine learning is awesome, especially with its applications in medicine. procedural generation also has its cool use cases including in game development. generative AI? kill it with fire. i do not want a robot drawing or writing songs for me. lame as fuck and takes away my purpose in life
It is very important to say out loud. Fascists rarely claim to be fascists. They'll call themselves anything else, even communist. And you need to identify them and kick them out. Gen AI is one of the tells - not a reliable test on its own, some people are just stupid, but it should raise alarms.
There are a lot of differences we should be ready to ignore to achieve common goals. But fascists don't have these goals. They want authoritarian control under a guise of any ideology. One they don't actually care about. They are in our spaces only to recruit and should be shown to the door.
I mean isn't it just the Cypher/Neo decision in the Matrix? Easy/comfortable/fake vs effort/messy/real? Only one of those is life to me. I guess some would rather have that tasty steak, but not me ever.
Amen!
For some reason, most people I talk to still fail to see this :/ It’s like they lost their creative human nature and are stuck in autopilot through life.
He's one of the creators hbomber featured as being stolen from by Somerton. He made some good LGBT+ stuff before.
This turn is upsetting to behold. I'm still sorting my feelings cos I watched the whole video cos his past content had built up trust & goodwill in me. I can't get that time back.
Alex generally isn’t a dipshit at all, and usually he is incredibly insightful and thoughtful, but this video was really bad. I’m not sure why exactly he is defending AI “art”.
He's generally a quite talented philosophy communicator who does a good job breaking down very dense & deep concepts for laypeople m, like postmodernism's obliteration of the internal individual & how being trans changes how you interact with the world. This disaster is way out of character for him.
To quote Alan Watts: "A person who thinks all the time has nothing to think about except thoughts. So, he loses touch with reality, and lives in a world of illusions."
Said basically the same thing here, yeah. The result of someone whose done nothing but talk to other philosophists & read oceans of theory for his entire adult life.
I also said that down the thread, yeah. This moment in time is an autistic (genuinely) hyperfixation that he blew a year on out of borderline mania, which in giving him a some leeway on out of personal experience, but how he reacts to the backlash dictates how I feel about him.
I mean, generally I've found that when people make stuff like this it was always *in* character for them and they either knowingly hid their views from their audience or were dipshit enough to think their audience believed the same sputum they do.
He's not a dipshit, he's a goofy egghead who's got way too much collegiate humanities on the brain & sees everything as a thesis. This shit is unacceptible & i really hope he reconsiders, but he's not a bad person.
Im not making excuses, im saying to not blast someone to social death over an admittedly VERY shitty decision. If he keeps acting like this for the next couple days, he'll earn his derision, but castigating a trans person out of the social contract is something we gotta be careful of.
hi. i got a master’s in a humanities field if that means anything. his thesis is shit and he shows it himself with the experts he interviewed that countered his conjectures. if you find sources that refute your thesis, you write a new one, not try to force it. forcing it = failing grade
Oh for sure! Im defending absolutely zero of the video here, Im just very eeeeeggghh about the rhetoric of essentially disposing of him in terms of "being around on the lefty/trans internet' that I've been seeing. The video being crap doesnt mean he should be rendered persona non grata.
I don't know who Alex Avila is but I have to assume that the video they made is 100% AI generated and probably has hallucinations etc. I have actual humans in my life who are kinda changing my mind on the usefulness of AI, a fully generated AI youtube isn't really worth my time.
The thing people forget about ready-mades is that they still had to be MADE. That was literally the point, taking preexisting objects and organizing them in a way that would render them useless.
Also, this is without mentioning simple practical side of things - A.I. generation machines now are better then "Ever' yet make ones who use them do more work for worse results.
Among art it's bad, it's worse for shit like programing where it makes your work load like 60 percents bigger.
Yeah, you would think he would be more adverse to it since he even had a convo with James to say "hey, maybe don't steal my work and do it yourself next time," going "The way AI steals from other creators is a lot like how we iterate on art ourselves."
teller, from Penn and teller, supposedly describes art as "anything we do after the bills are paid." it says something that pretty universally if humans don't have to worry about food or shelter we make art, doodles, poems, cave paintings. AI is all about paying bills and incapable of "art"
I haven't watched the video yet, but as an actual, real artist who creates art without gen ai, I do want to ask a more philosophical question:
for you, does the soul/emotion/meaning/power of a piece of ai art change depend on who's using it and what their intent behind it is?
does context not change interpretation?
what made fountain or pisschrist works of art while ai art cannot be?
I do want to be clear that I'm not defending ai art. I largely disagree with ai, but I just find it fascinating to engage with the art philosophy side of things
It ultimately boils down to, "I cannot conceive of X or conceive of a me that one day does conceive of X, so I shall let a machine databank that boils a lake to patchwork together uncredited art do it for me."
The context of “using AI to create [blank]” fundamentally changes the interpretation of any art I see from “appreciative of nuance and meaning left intentionally” to something more akin to “any meaning I find here is an artifact of chance and the law of averages, and there was no intention at all.”
I said this before but: The medium is the message. The medium you use directly curtails some of the ways you can communicate and your intent. Sand sculpture isn't like carving into marble. One is impermanent by nature. In this way, AI art as a *medium* carries intent that can't be circumvented.
"Why can't AI art as it exists now be in communication smartly with the art movements it comes from and the environment?" The *medium* prevents it. The very process of its creation is dehumanizing and foul. The stink cannot be removed. A stain that cannot be erased.
The training sets of these things is inherently a lossy plagiarism mechanism. This taint is carried into its outputs. You cannot be in conversation, genuine artistic conversation, with things you plagiarize like this. The dishonesty is irreconcilable to artistic conversation.
Hey genuine question: I thought the biggest problem of it was consent related to grabbing artists work and using A**I** to reproduce it without consent.
Can A**I** be used in a good way? Brainstorming, paintovers, etc? I'm not pro A**I** gen in any way btw.
/Generative/ AI, no. Actual programmed AI, yes.
For example, there's AI that can be used to detect cancer which is good. Not the same as generative AI which scrapes without consent and spits it out. AI can already 'pretend' to do art by paintovers, for example, by stealing from streamers' processes
ANY generative AI steals and/or produces what you want. ChatGPT, for example, will ALWAYS side with you. That's what it's programmed to do. It doesn't know how to be useful. This video is in defense of gen AI thievery being 'good actually'. Which people are debunking and he's (Alex) getting mad
I meant more, let's say you have a gen AI that is trained with consent. Or you train your own AI based on reference photos you like + your own art. Using that would be bad? Would be "non-artistic"? What if you get the output and do a paintover or something like that?
You literally cannot produce enough images from you and your friends to train an AI. *Fine-tune* an already existing model? Yes, but train one from scratch? No. These things need millions of images to function. "How did I learn without seeing millions of images?" Your brain is not an algorithm!
And yeah AI tries to please you too much to be useful. Not sure if the future of development of that will keep on like that. Asking this because most of my programmer friends are pretty happy with something like Cursor.
"sophistry" is exactly the right word, I still cannot believe that bit about all the mean anti-AI comments on Reddit that we apparently needed to see before we got to the outline of anti-AI criticism.
still unsure on how you'd be *able* to shut down those data centers (and i'd assume it's not as clean as just being on some which host nothing else on them)
I think For You pages are evil but I don't know exactly how modern social media works without some kinds of heuristics for recommendations
i don't totally disagree with this comment and I agree with how you *feel* about most generated imagery, but this comment doesn't really do much to rebut anything he says in the video
why can't people have a weak opinion in good faith? it's always "appalling" and we rush to excommunicate ASAP
i think there's plenty of merit in saying that the comparison between the process of LLM image generation and collage/found art is incorrect but we're gonna need more than invoking that it's "insulting" to get anywhere. vibes alone aren't an argument
if you wanna defend artists, then, speaking as one myself, albeit not a professional one, I'd appreciate some real introspection be put into your positions instead of posting an indignant screed because alex said ai can sometimes do things he personally finds cool and creative
I've been calling it the plagiarism program or just AI slop.
Cuz it's not art, it's regurgitated images meant to capitalize on someone else's work.
Like I've said before, I'd rather see fan art made by folks with no artistic background cuz the craftsmanship may be rough but the passion's there.
I call it slop too because it's just shitted out by a machine and because the prompters hate it when you don't acknowledge it as art because they worked very hard to type in a sentence 4 times to get their stolen shit.
I try not to even refer to it as AI, as there’s no intelligence anywhere in the pipeline.
Instead I use the term Automated Generative Algorithms cause it sounds more corporate like all AGA inherently are.
I saw someone call it C.R.A.P (computer-rendered artificial pictures) in the comments of an anti-AI "artist" video and have been calling it C.R.A.P ever since.
I've had to leave communities and cut off people I've known for YEARS because they used AI art around me. And I voiced my problems with AI usage with them multiple times.
I tried to be neutral, but that only let it fester and enable further usage. I ended up burning bridges.
I catch anyone in my circles/following using it, insta-blocked. Maybe sometimes I'd drag them into a DM and confront them, but pretty much I tell them I'm done associating with them and burn any bridge I have with them.
If any of these people actually cared have any respect for artists/VAs/writers, then they shouldn't be defending, using, or speaking positively about GenAI programs.
People say “you liked it until you learned it was made by AI” like it’s a gotcha, but yes! This can be true! I am not interested in what a program has output, just because of the mere fact that a program did it. That is not interesting to me at all!
And this is without going into the environmental impact- even if we choose to ignore the myriad other issues with Gen AI, it's actively worsening the already-precarious climate change situation, which in the long term *will kill us all.* AI art is NOT worth that, and I'm not gonna pretend it is.
You shouldn't go into that because, in the big picture, it's nigh irrelevant to the environmental impact. Kaiser's point is 100% correct, but environmental points are largely exaggerated once you look at the actual numbers. Eating a single burger is worse than generating 300 slop pieces.
Environmental impact is also weak cause these machines can and have been made more efficient, companies are just taking the more profitable short term route of Just Feed It More Data And Computing Power. However, the fact that it's an inherent content slop generator remains.
It's also (and I really hate this) a large portion of why the US is doing more steps towards nuclear power (the other is that China is making strides and sinophobia is bipartisan in Congress)
You misunderstand completely. I am not talking about making beefier computers, I am talking about making the plagiarism machine more efficient so it doesn't require the power output of a country. Look at the history of projects like AlphaGo, or even Deepseek's R1 for a more recent example.
It’s not generating the picture that’s the environmentally destructive part, it’s running the data centers and mining the resources needed for them, Arizona is going to straight up run out of water thanks in part to AI
Training one of these models takes about as much water as the beef intake of ~20 americans. Not 20,000, not 200, *20*. One's takeaway from that should probably be something more like "wow, beef is catastrophic for the environment" than "wow, AI isn't bad for the environment", but the degrees matter.
Both are bad and we shouldn’t be throwing gasoline on the fire just so a handful of rich tech dorks can get richer and provide nothing useful in return
I'm strongly against AI for a *lot* of reasons. If a thing is bad, you don't need to believe *literally every single* bad thing people say about it. No gasoline's being thrown on the fire if I say one particular reason for the badness is overstated when every other reason is enough to be against it.
I didn't have enough room for the bottom line, which is: if you want to argue against something, make sure you're using the *strongest ones*, lest people nitpick your weakest point and try to balloon that into making the rest look bad.
Generative AI output is also inherently scabby. It’s taking the work of creative humans and replacing it with output from models owned by billionaires and corporations, using resources scraped unter the pretense of academic research, funneling wealth away from workers in order to create ugly slop.
"if you don't fall on your knees and masturbate in worship at the altar of capitalist rot it's because you actually love capitalism" is certainly a Take one could have, i suppose
It's just an autocomplete that collages stolen ideas together in a way that is statistically likely according to it's algorithms. It can only do poor imitations, and can never create anything new. It makes worse "art" by stealing labour from actual humans.
Alot of the points brought up felt... extremely centrist in terms of the subject.
Gen AI can't have fence sitters, mostly because it's supporters are clearly AGAINST creatives.
Certain AI tools can be useful, but certainly not generative AI. I'm really disappointed in Alex with this vid...
I unsubbed Avila because over this take. AI is not only theft; it is such a waste of resources that it is accelerating climate change. Avila had his work plagiarised by James Somerton. He should know better than to defend automated plagiarism.
I feel like you should make a video on this topic. Your popularity as a creative should help drive the point home to so many people. And of course you'll get to snipe asshats in the comments.
ok i feel slightly better about having posted a super long youtube comment pointing out insane flaws in someone who should know betters logic recently if you have also done it...
Random Tangent: I’ve been watching a lot of movies that have been on my back burner for years (Truman Show, Sunset Blvd etc) and the difference between real art and AI is so staggering they don’t belong in the same conversation.
The amount of effort and imagination that comes from actors, writers and directors can’t be copied. Art doesn’t have to be ‘real’ but it does have to come a real place.
And in addition GenAI has been very much adapted by people who would burn down Congress and blame any number of minorities for it before sending out ICE to send them to prison camps in El Salvador. And also start a World War to add more Living Space (or rather oil deposits) to the US.
Comments
I know it's sincere, but the youtube video essay genre is just a parody of itself far too often. Couldn't even make it to the thesis.
https://alexfoundation.org/links-2/
I think this is it for me. Every line drawn, brush stroke, image chosen is a personal choice I'm interested in, whether I like the image or not.
I watched the video, it is frustrating.
Just about the only point I agree with it is that the solution is not extending the copyright law the way some of the documents shown were suggesting.
Basically everything else he says misses so much.
Use of AI can be actively harmful to you.
This isn't even a hot take, you have fun articles now about people thinking that the AI is sentient and special - and losing their goddamn minds.
I am outright horrified when I see people using it as a general question/answer engine or a search engine.
To be clear, the technology itself is fine, it has uses.
ChatGPT and similar however, less so.
I can appreciate the philosophical lens through which he discusses the topic, and there’s plenty of fascinating points he made, but the harm AI does to real world artists shouldn’t be undermined.
I cannot stand the defense of this shit and you said it excellently
Cool stuff if you're into machine learning! Gen AI is still slop, though
Platonically.
People who just generate code until they get something that works are not considered programmers or engineers. These people would be horrified if someone did that and landed a job, because they don't understand how what they just applied works.
But its fine for art?
Then why should I bother to sit down 3h & watch his drivel instead of just being content with the thumbnail? Maybe ChatGPT can summarize it for me har har
i'm pretty sure that's what all three-hour youtube video essays are when you get right down to it
The absolute peak of single-issue thinker delusion
Oh he beat me, well I'll post this anyway
(Please add alt text when possible!)
Really agree with your take and appreciate you sharing it 💗
It would require thousands upon thousands of images to train, from various artists, with their consent. It's so impractical as to be impossible.
Have to have a sense of reality in order to play with it in art.
Now I never will.
The curious thing is I've seen this particular stance on AI elsewhere in the furry community. Problem being that they mistake the "idealistic POSSIBLE future of AI" for how AI should be treated now, and what it is doing now.
The world is hard, getting by in it sucks, we're not upending the systems by which we have to succeed or not...
I have zero shame in a position that creators should gain as much as they can from their work. ZERO.
He's literally trying to give you BETTER ways to criticize AI
You're misreading me. My objections to AI are not that it isn't anticapitalist enough yet, my objection is that it's anti-artist enough ALREADY.
MY chief concern in the matter is whether or not artists can accumulate and exercise power and status in the now.
"Hey, please tell me one thing I got wrong"
"Literally everything, factually and morally."
"[Deletes the comment] Nothing to see here, folks!"
What if we trained an AI exclusively on Steamboat Willie era works?
He 100% shadowbanned you. (You can "hide user from my channel" and make it so their comments don't appear to anyone but themselves.)
Which would also hide the entire thread, and his replies to it.
So, maybe it's something on youtube's end, if your post included a link.
BTW I've seen that Alex was making a conscious effort to respond to comments and critiques like yours. Did he ever come back to you on this?
AI Art is like potato chips, there to be mindlessly consumed. While actual art is meant to be enjoyed, like a fancy dessert.
It’s potato chips made from the dung of people who ate potato chips
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5wLQ-8eyQI
I think an exception could be as a feedback/critique machine:
"Hey genAI, here's this thing I'm making; I'm aiming for this result. Am I doing it accurately, or can you recommend any changes?", and then discerning which parts of its response to adopt/reject.
Because that's what you're supposed to do when you're seeking art feedback or critique, is talk to people about it.
"Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence" by Dan McQuillan is a really good read where he lays out a worker-owned vision for AI.
https://www.are.na/block/25887730
Generative AI does NOT belong in creative fields. Anyone using gen AI for art, writing, or any other creative field is hindering their own creative growth & skill development. You’re so focused on forcing more AI that you lack understanding of humanity. Fuck off.
UN wrote a great, although interpretative, agreement that was signed by the US. Following it would really just fix all(current) issues with it
https://www.are.na/block/25887730
For some reason, most people I talk to still fail to see this :/ It’s like they lost their creative human nature and are stuck in autopilot through life.
This turn is upsetting to behold. I'm still sorting my feelings cos I watched the whole video cos his past content had built up trust & goodwill in me. I can't get that time back.
If he's not a "bad person" now, he will be soon if he doesn't change his direction.
https://bsky.app/profile/kortizart.bsky.social/post/3lofs4qulyk2z
Among art it's bad, it's worse for shit like programing where it makes your work load like 60 percents bigger.
for you, does the soul/emotion/meaning/power of a piece of ai art change depend on who's using it and what their intent behind it is?
what made fountain or pisschrist works of art while ai art cannot be?
I do want to be clear that I'm not defending ai art. I largely disagree with ai, but I just find it fascinating to engage with the art philosophy side of things
Can A**I** be used in a good way? Brainstorming, paintovers, etc? I'm not pro A**I** gen in any way btw.
For example, there's AI that can be used to detect cancer which is good. Not the same as generative AI which scrapes without consent and spits it out. AI can already 'pretend' to do art by paintovers, for example, by stealing from streamers' processes
Return to 2005 please.
2) do you know what an algorithm is?
2a) are flowcharts an enemy of the working class?
2.They clearly mean social media content engagement algorithms
I think For You pages are evil but I don't know exactly how modern social media works without some kinds of heuristics for recommendations
Also how can you shutdown websites like Silk Road?
why can't people have a weak opinion in good faith? it's always "appalling" and we rush to excommunicate ASAP
Because that’s all it is. Without the emotion, creative drive, or passion behind it, it’s just a picture.
Cuz it's not art, it's regurgitated images meant to capitalize on someone else's work.
Like I've said before, I'd rather see fan art made by folks with no artistic background cuz the craftsmanship may be rough but the passion's there.
Instead I use the term Automated Generative Algorithms cause it sounds more corporate like all AGA inherently are.
I've had to leave communities and cut off people I've known for YEARS because they used AI art around me. And I voiced my problems with AI usage with them multiple times.
I tried to be neutral, but that only let it fester and enable further usage. I ended up burning bridges.
I catch anyone in my circles/following using it, insta-blocked. Maybe sometimes I'd drag them into a DM and confront them, but pretty much I tell them I'm done associating with them and burn any bridge I have with them.
If any of these people actually cared have any respect for artists/VAs/writers, then they shouldn't be defending, using, or speaking positively about GenAI programs.
Simple as that.
Scott and his amazing response he had ready after thoroughly going through said video:
(I mean, it also always sucks in other ways.)
🎵Smack my ass like the drum🎵
(I love the internet… 😅🤣)
Also the environmental impact.
Gen AI can't have fence sitters, mostly because it's supporters are clearly AGAINST creatives.
Certain AI tools can be useful, but certainly not generative AI. I'm really disappointed in Alex with this vid...
also yeah youre completely right.