I think we're probably less than a year away from AI-generated images being almost indistinguishable from photos. Some of them are already extremely close, the only "tell" is that they're lower resolution, but that will change.
And a new art form will exist. Cartoonish situations will look real. There will be competitions to make the
most absurd Artistic computer geeks will have a medium. We adjust. That's progress of the human race. Evolve. Frankly there is no other option.
It's not the app that plagiarizes, it's what they add to the datasets. They don't HAVE to use plagiarized imagery, they do it because it makes them more competitive and it's easier than sifting through all the copyright info.
I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying the app and data are separate.
The only thing that would convince me that AI tools aren't being developed to hoard wealth is a set of laws that boil down to making it so every job an AI is doing counts as an open job. If a human applies for it and is even somewhat qualified, they get the job and the AI tool is turned off.
Not going to happen. Visual AI can do in two minutes what takes a skilled artist anywhere from two hours to two weeks to draw or paint.
That's a couple of bucks versus $2,000. No business owner will pay $2,000 just so someone can have a job if their competitor is choosing the cheaper option.
Laws exist to keep "efficiency" from ruining people's lives. It saves a chemical plant millions to simply dump waste in the river, but environmental regs say you can't do that because it kills people. It can happen and I don't care how much money it saves or how "efficient" it is.
There are parts of the world where they deliberately put chemical plants upriver from indigenous communities and dump effluent in the river, killing and driving out local people, then buying the land for cheap to expand.
Don't know how much it happens now, but 20/30 years ago it wasn't uncommon.
Umm, ALL AI is trained that way (text too). That doesn't mean that everything it spits out is a copy of someone else's work. For instance, lots of AI images have 6 fingers.
Do you feel threatened when an artist paints a Mona Lisa copy for skill building? Or uses an artist's style for inspiration?
Yes, I don't think AI should be making new work that looks exactly like source material, but people have been doing EXACTLY what you are against for hundreds of years before AI. There is even a word for it when it is almost a copy: kitsch.
When an artist mimics another artist, they can usually tell you why differences exist, whether it's lack of skill, a personal preference, or a decision made to highlight some aesthetic, meaning, narrative, etc. They tend not to just randomly forget what a human hand looks like.
That is what Trump was talking about, 2 times he said the word 500B dollars for a data center. Another government funded business for Musk is a total freak and is trying to sell Starlink through T-Mobile FOR FREE!.
Yeah, i noticed the option on one i was playing with the other day - i thought woo, that could be really good. I know creators who use AI - they have their own models, made voices (from their own vocal work), etc. I was only looking at free ones - but google free AI use my images & u get choice.
If an artist looks at a picture and is influenced by it, that is not stealing. AI does the same but on a scale impossible for a human. Theft is not the problem. The problem is the annihilation of the independent artist by overwhelming production. This is what you should focus on.
I have been saying this from the beginning. I will not put artists out of work. When I was an illustrator, cheap clip art came along and a lot of bread and butter work disappeared. One if the reasons I find myself working a shitty aerospace job. Fuck AI art.
have several friends who are artists, and they don't care i use AI images for personal things. they know i can't commission or get things commissioned at the moment. i have full respect for artists and what they do. but i have neither time or money to make or buy works. and they understand this.
What if you use it to get a concept out of your head that you don't have the skill to sketch, for the purpose of having some reference materials to show to an artist for a commission you request?
I'm sure they are, but I'm not the best at conveying my thoughts at times. Seems better to hyper-adjust ai prompts than annoy the artist with a million nonsensical changes
Most artist would hate if you give them an AI image reference. Most artists would prefer descriptions or ms paint doodles instead. There are also things like picrew where you can create references. Or take pictures of yourself in the pose you want. There is no need for AI.
Artists are collateral damage. Currently, AI is being used to produce videos in such a way that people cannot see a difference between real and fake events. Someone can do it to damage people or to claim that the video showing a monster having sex with children, is fake.
I'm gonna be completely honest. Artists have failed to convince. The general public That AI is bad because people are using Samsung/apple phones that have baked in a.i. Features. Plus, it's so easy to download an ai database like lama3 to make a private ai at home.
That’s inaccurate. Artists were concerned about people taking photographs of their work and reselling it, because they did, until it was determined to be illegal. Otherwise, there wasn’t much concern about, historically speaking - a lot of portrait painters swapped over, in fact.
This is my latest AI bridge too far. Botto, autonomous AI art generation, where Sotheby's has assigned "periods" to the work and auctioned it for big bucks...abomination doesn't begin to describe it https://www.sothebys.com/buy/dba0009b-db0f-44f3-bca3-ca38039ab184
I'd qualify that it's impossible to create *public* models with *mass appeal* without violating copyright.
Which covers OpenAI, Gemini, Copilot, xAI and the plethora of LLaMa models, but not, say, the environmental science team using ML to predict weather patterns.
I don’t think that this is really a surprise, but the real question is just how human input is needed to create something copyrightable because basic text to image workflows don’t get you very far.
Skip to 5:20 to see someone using this thing with a lot of human input:
On the last job I had, our “art director” (not really an artist at all) ordered us to use AI to come up with images for a proposal. We literally had an awesome concept artist twiddling his thumbs as we used generic, crappy AI generated art. We didn’t win the proposal.
ironicly enough, it was the attempt but after that china went and destroyed the whole AI market with deepseek, alongside the fact that most peoples don't use GenAI for anything, it is just going to end up as a fad like NFT's
In the 1970s they said personal computers were a fad that people would forget about them in a few years. They also said computers would never be used to make art.
AI isn't a fad any more than grammar checkers, spreadsheets, or word processors are a fad.
I was asked to test a utility to identify AI images a while back but I don't know if it had a name yet (it was still beta app, I think) and I don't know if they've released it yet.
#Alt4You An unattributed column or sidebar cropped from printed text, reading: "There is no ethical way to use the major AI image generators. All of them are trained on stolen images, and all of them are built for the purpose of deskilling, disempowering, and replacing real, human artists."
I’m going to chip in my 2 cents. Gen AI is being abused by bad actors, but it has sparked a desire to create my own art and music. I never intend to make money from it - I find that distasteful. But hearing a poem I wrote instantly turned into a song is sort of healing.
Except that it's _not_ the reason they were created. You're talking about a certain corporate view on how to use them, but it's not what the AI researchers and developers created them for. That's just one of the things you misunderstand about AI.
They ARE used to replace/ tweak real photos. Not only are they generally not marked as AI/fake, they tend to overwhelm real photographers who aspire to capture magic moments/ natural scenery etc. I have started to leave my dust specs and extra twigs. So that it is clear mine are true observations
My reason for being anti-AI may be different, but this is a very true statement.
While (hear me out) it can be used ethically (like using only your own assets or making mere reference pieces), but the sad truth is that greed will always find an excuse. Best to avoid the risk and ban it altogether.
There is also no ethical way to use text generators like ChatGPT, since they all operate on stolen media as well. They fed whole fanfiction archives, millions of copyrighted books and articles, wikipedia, and even private conversations and google docs to those things
I honestly don’t like the art it makes. It’s maybe the soulless aspect? It always looks off to me.
I do love AI as like my personal mini assistant though. It’s so good at taking some task that would take me an hour to do in just seconds and just storing ideas and notes.
I can agree with this to some extent, but I wouldn't agree it's here to deskill artists but to help them be more productive. Creativity can't be authorised to machines.
I think "deskill" here refers to making a given worker more easily replaced or need less training. Not necessarily a reduction in proficiency.
Which then can be used for emphasizing cost savings over productivity gains by trying to have a slimmed down art production team churn out more assets.
I work in a textile company with designers (print & fashion), our designers use AI (especially print designers), but I don't see them replaced anytime soon. They're overworked with or without AI.
On a personal note, I use AI for drafting emails and that sort of thing, and I can tell you that I sometimes waste more time with AI, but I do get a lot better emails with more details in it.
I see the point in raising awareness, but it's too early to tell at this point.
I've never once found myself wishing that I could create more output that I had less control over. What would be the point? It's more stuff but it's less of me.
"Apply the idea of a corporate hostile takeover and firesale to the federal bureaucracy. Sort the consequences by timing, severity, and impact. Don't limit considerations to anything historic, apply the analysis robustly to the Federal bureaucracy considering geopolitical impacts." #ASKAI #DS
Building extra infrastructure to meet peak traffic demand is similar. Much better for the environment & finances to motivate off-peak use of existing infrastructure.
One of the most important uses of AI is traffic crash avoidance. Doesn't use much energy.
DeepSeek uses considerably fewer resources than the U.S. systems. They had access to fewer resources so there was more problem-solving involved but the result was a product that's leaner and meaner than other AI models.
It runs on the same h100 cards as the western ones and if you ask what hardware it runs on it will tell you its running on those, it also thinks its open ai so there is that 😂
Somebody’s been feeding the Beatles anthology into AI and producing mostly crap replications, but holy hell there was one song that was so great. I tried to buy it but it’s not published or released.
Yeah I could see the Lennon like vocals and style, I think Paul’s bass line would travel a bit more off the main chording. This is a song that would be great loud!
Jobs are definitely being lost. I talked to a guy online who used to employ five graphic artists (a couple full-time and three part-time) and he says now he only needs one because he can do most of it himself.
Well, follow my example. You could just buy whatever car you want and then a person could go buy whatever car they want.
If you wanna change the argument, then we are discussing theft . Creating AI artwork isn’t theft. Unless you claim it to be a human artist. Otherwise its fine.
You understand that humans wrote the code and assembled the training data for ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc., right? Like, you don't think a bot created itself?
No, generative AI requires a data set, and every major generative AI app uses copyrighted material taken without permission or compensation to create that data set. Sam Altman has publicly acknowledged this; it's not a matter of opinion. This isn't analogous to "you buy a Ford, I buy a Honda."
With millions of people worlwide accessing and using different AI's and inputting peoples pictures...it's not the leaders of AI that are the problem. Go blame Tricia from phoenix, and sarah from st. louis, and tom from Florida...see the issue.
Copyright law doesn't work like this. Random women (as opposed to the fanboys inevitably defending this) being the end users doesn't absolve Midjourney and OpenAI from the infringements they depend on to create the data sets in the first place.
No it definitely does, you can automate it to spit out tons of images.
They'll all be garbage quality, AI images typically look pretty awful even with a human making them, but the software can definitely mass produce lots of picture files.
Also, as an artist, you shouldn't be threatened by millions of garbage quality images; your average artist at the beginning of their art journey proliferates plenty of low quality images, and even more are proliferated by "professionals" who commission garbage for a price.
For instance if I rank my art against all of the people in my workplace I will fall in a certain percentile, but if we add millions of grotesque facsimiles of art pumped out by your automated AI image generator, I would likely rise into the high percentiles.
There *are* AI algorithms capable of generating realistic images, but I'm talking about the weird version that's been spread across the internet and looks super fake.
Actually you can use them ethically. It's called using it for personal use, for no monetary gain. Some of us don't have $3000 to turn our wedding picture into a sketched image.
It's an environmental disaster, on top of the IP issues. It should be used sparingly when at all, and only for things like identifying cancer cells. Turning your wedding picture into a sketched image isn't necessary for your survival, and it's certainly not worth the damage to the environment.
have you considered that you simply don't need a sketched version of your wedding picture? what are you going to do with the generated AI slop anyway? hang it over the mantle piece? going to tell the grandkids chatGPT made it? dude.
All the artists needs to take a page out of the Linux mindset. Just because you took time to develop something doesn't mean it shouldn't be shared with all freely.
That might work with breatharians, or better yet those born to families with adequate wealth such that the artist individually isn't concerned with rent/mortgage payments, paying for weddings, and such.
If you can't afford a thing, you don't get the thing. I can't afford a big house, so I don't get a big house.
Art is pure luxury, it's not food or shelter, you do not need it, you're not entitled to have it.
respectfully art is a privilege and if you cant afford it, you dont get it. its not ethical just because you use it for private personal use, its still trained off of stolen art. look into the environmental impacts of ai.
art is not something necessary for fulfilment. it is, quite literally a luxury. you get what you pay for. there are so many reasons not to use ai other than "i cant afford to pay a luxury artist". learn to budget for what you want instead of relying on instant gratification that kills our planet.
Or we can't afford to pay creatives, or we've worked 'on spec' with creatives, found it a ghastly experience (following simple instruction can be hard with AI, but doing it with humans is worse), or we do our own artwork (and can't pay another) and find a boost from AI (or Photoshop) can be useful.
But also bro: you can get a pretty good pro commission for $50. My kid sells DnD characters for $5 in game currency. The artists these things are trained on could not be more accessible
I use a commissioned logo for my stream and gamer picture. Fiverr is the leading site for it. That said, I had to go through 15 different artists before I got one that actually did what I asked. All had top ratings and reviews. Cost me way more than it should've.
As an artist who tends to be considerate to people's budgets, you get what you pay for. Fiverr is going to get low grade results most of the time. I've tried working through them and it's a ridiculous exploitative system.
You can't trust reviews and ratings. On commission sites. You learn after a revision or two how they won't be able to deliver what you want despite what their portfolio looks like. Cut your loses, eventually you will get what you want.
Do you think it’s only theft if you don’t profit? “No dude I didn’t steal your car. Look, it’s right there. I never resold it. I kept it. See? Personal use.”
Because all the versions out there are trained on thousands of works scraped from artists without their permission. And that aside the amount of energy and water it wastes is staggering.
Example: I ask an artist to draw me up a picture of me and my wife in th style of Chuck Close. Are they going to get his permission to use that style? No.
Any self respecting artist is gonna turn that down anyway since you want them to copy someone else’s work. Hire an artist for THEIR skills not someone else’s. Also chuck close was a lecherous ass so they also might turn it down on principle.
You used a technology that stole from artists.
If you can't afford an artist, then you can't afford that service. I can't afford a new car, that doesn't mean I can steal a car.
Every single person who does something wrong (no matter how bad) can excuse it in some way. That doesn't validate it.
Everything the imitative algorithm can do, it learned to do by scraping the internet for the work of others and using that as its example. It is ALL stolen. Everything you do with it is stealing, because everything it uses was stolen from others. Remove all that stolen art, and it can't do shit.
Ah -so nobody should use the free images on Pixabay - or mess with them with Photoshop. Cos we can't afford artists, or maybe also can't put up with their relentless posturing about how utterly precious they are. Pretending all AI is evil doesn't validate that POV.
Generative ai doesnt copy, it doesnt have a human equivilent mind capable of learning skills and styles, it has an internal model of a corpus of information broken into usable data that it can reapply in a way that requires using that data each time.
If you dont realize that saying "copying is not theft" in a discussion about how "ais steal" IS YOU SAYING that "ais copy, they dont steal" is talking about how ais work, even if thats not what you meant, then I dont know what to say to you I am afraid.
Each time it "produces" an image in a "specific style" what it is actually doing is re-applying the a stored version of its weighted dataset, which is why new images cant maintain coherence with previous images and display the same repeat features for the same model and same data set.
If it "learned" so it could "copy", data sets/training on style would be unnecesery, you would be able to train it on things like art tutorial videos, show it images of a style to imitate, without training or weighting, and have it generate a "style guide" for the desired featrures.
It depends on your model of ethics. Certainly intellectual property has deprived us of a great deal of what we were once allowed to do with art. It isn’t inherently ethical to own intangible things. We risk, in approaching this discourse without nuance, reifying other exploitative systems
And make it a blanket statement people are going to take issue with the characterization. If stealing doesn’t harm someone at all, it’s extremely hard to argue it’s inherently unethical, but there are plenty of other arguments that apply, eg it’s aesthetically bad and contributes to the pollution
Of our shared internet with further slop, making it harder to find things of quality. If you’re paying adobe or another ai vulture for a subscription, you’re funding the work that does intend to take people’s jobs away, plus encouraging them to spend the massive resources on training these models
Im not going to go into it again but if you want to look at oth I comments I talk about the difference between intellectual property and physical objects.
TLDR: Information should be shared. Use case matters.
The entire planet is an information network.You can’t carve off a little niche and claim to be a neutral island and not party to this.The ongoing love affair with exceptionalism is debilitating. None are exceptional and we’ve all been traceable data points for 20 years without tacit consent.
If you steal from a thief, it becomes mostly an ethics problem that can be debated in infinitum.
But if you pay to generate the picture, in any way, then you've effectively paid a thief for your product. I don't think there's much debating about the ethics of that.
Unless the gen-AI model knows everything in the past and accurately predicts everything in the future, the "best" content is not accurate (i.e. "hallucinations") and is obsolete the moment the model is completed.
Therefore, it may be not be wise to rely upon gen-Al for where safety is critical.
That’s not really what hallucinations are - that term refers to confident mistakes, which it makes not because it wasn’t trained on enough info, but because they’re not designed to be oracles or databases in the first place.
After all, we have search engines and, well, databases for that!
This argument is pretty dishonest. Electricity use is up only around 2% in the US, and the electricity sector does not account for very much of our CO2 output.
If you skip meat for a week you can feel free to use AI for a year.
I’m vegetarian. I think the the carbon impact of an industry predicted to grow so quickly should be understood and considered when deciding its benefits.
Because the techbros know Art is power & powerful so as they cannot control or create it they have to dehumanise & destroy it. Kind of sad but it's what I expect from people like that.
It also used 1/2 a liter of water for AI to generate 100 words of text response, and significantly more for an image! The environmental damage and effects of AI cannot be overstated.
It’s not just images either. AI can write emails and ads but have yet to evolve to the point that it is apparent that the writer isn’t human. Yet.
I hate AI for all these reasons and more. Stop this insanity while we can.
The rich oligarch’s goal is to replace every paid human being with AI. Tech bros are not the strongest in sociology and basic human emotion so….They have yet to say what they think will happen to the entire concept of work for payment to live daily life for the entire population.
Very true. But it also happened to Weavers, Lacemakers, blacksmiths & so many other artisans and artists.
My concern is that AI will replace many jobs and the corporations and their billionaire owners don’t pay tax. How can we regulate AI to reduce the pain from the inevitable social dislocation?
We never succeeded in regulating software piracy, music piracy, or ebook piracy. The regs were there but 99% of the population ignored them.
I don't see how AI-generated content will be different. I wish it were based on opt-in for the artists and royalties per use, but that's not happening so far.
Even in my lifetime almost everything I've ever been good at or worked hard to learn has been obsoleted by technology, and that's not counting going back centuries to the invention of machines.
It’s astonishing isn’t it? I can’t imagine what the next 10 years will bring when you think that smart phones are not much older than 10 years old and how they have changed what we do how we do things and even our culture…
Ethics smetics.. I can't draw, and would just love to see some of my musings imaged.. another human won't know me, AI will just do stuff until I say stop.. either it's ok or not... A human would be trusted in a way, to do his artistic best but it's not what I want, with 5 or 6 fingers, I don't care
🤨 really.. it's that easy.. 😳
Honestly you make me have less and less faith in humans.. as if being able to draw is of any use ever.. unless you can't talk, then that's one alternative as most people don't ASL or BSL over in EU..
Agreed. Was watching something yesterday where someone was saying that in time, people will just be paid for staying at home because AI will take over many, many jobs. I also read somewhere that a teacher was chuffed because her kids had written a story via AI just by typing a few keywords. Insane.
But if we follow that thought down a few generations we’ll get to a place where multiple AI frameworks just derive and learn from exclusively AI-generated if humans aren’t creating new novel inputs to keep feeding it. I can envision generational decay like old cassette tapes copied from each other.
I call it 'grey goo', paraphrasing the "hypothetical global catastrophic scenario involving molecular nanotechnology in which out-of-control self-replicating machines consume all biomass on Earth while building many more of themselves."
It will make humans stupid. They won't have to use their own brain, except to learn basic language skills like spelling and vocabulary. Not much imagination needed. String together a bunch of words and get something. At some point, will we run out of word combinations? 🤷🏼♀️
I know a lot folks here hate AI & don’t want to hear this, but in gamedev it’s insanely helpful for voice work (w/ the actors approval). If you want to change dialogue, it’s seconds vs days, plus sync lip mocap to audio. Also in key frame matching in animation keys by hand frame by frame is rough.
I think using A.I. as a tool (such as a screwdriver or sander) is fine, it's using A.I. as a Replacement that's a problem... how do you replace a screwdriver or sander? you don't, you just use them. if you use AI to replace your own work or creativity, that's the beginning of a long slippery slope.
I say it’s no different than the automobile putting horse ranchers and wagoners out of business. Tools advance and as a result lots of jobs are lost. Automation does that in general. This is automation of the jobs that used to be safe is all. Used to be it was manual jobs automation came for.
As a tool I think AI has the potential to help us just as much as computers or machines. But as we’ve seen, computers and machines can be tools designed to hurt rather than help the people. So it all comes down to the people in charge (👁️👄👁️) doing it responsibly. Which……..
I don't think people are using AI to pretend they are artists. They know they can't paint or draw, they haven't the time or passion to learn it. Yet they have images in their head they'd like to share. AI is a way to do it quickly.
I know so many people steal some real artist's work online, then feed them to AI to mass produce images, then to fake an artist account pretend to be real artist and even sell these Ai image for money. They know they can't draw, but they have no problem using it to fake talent.
As an artist, I haven't given it much thought, but I've never made a living at it. This seems like a good argument, until I think the same could be said of me. I guess it boils down to how much an AI steals. I suppose it could steal more or less depending on who's using it.
When I learned to write, I read copyrighted material. In art class we viewed copyrighted paintings and were inspired by them. Then I wrote and painted my own stuff but I was still trained on copyrighted materials.
To what? You don’t need permission to read copyrighted works or observe copyrighted art. If you view a painting of a horse you can then paint your own horse without violating copyright.
Any painting you can find in a museum you can find photographs of online. You don’t need permission to view them. Some you can even view from outside through museum windows.
If you post it online then you’ve given permission for everyone to view it.
What is it with Bsky? Something like 3/4 of the content is blatantly stolen by people who are allegedly more moral than Elon's nazis. As writer and creator, it is annoying.
Amen. I am so sick of seeing pictures labeled as "Van Gogh" when they're actually the sort of pictures you see on Hallmark cards, with a program that imitates Van Gogh's characteristic brush-strokes but not anything of his real style or technique.
1. Until the system changes, people need money to survive, and talented people deserve to be fairly paid for that talent. Art is obviously profitable to corporations, or they wouldn't be investing so much in generative AI, yet that AI cannot function without a steady feed of art to train on.
2. Art is not just the final image, but a string of meaningful choices leading to an infinite amount of variation even within the same style. When an artist studies a work of art, it takes trial and error to replicate it which also helps an artist develop their own style. AI can not do this.
Agreed.
What's your point?
AI is not stopping any artist from creating.
Human created art will always be "better" to many and will always have a market. What's the problem?
why are you so afraid of AI software? it is a tool and a damn handy tool at that ... I mean you no offense nor am I looking to start a fight ... please enlighten me ...
This discussion is about generative AI being used to replace human artists and writers by stealing from existing artists, spewing it back out with no credit or payment to the people whose creativity was pirated.
Trump pledges 500 billion to fund A.I.? In other words, Siri, Alex, Cortina, Bixby and even Clippy will no longer be referred to as Information Gathering Whores. Hence forth they will be elevated to the designation of Elite Private Escorts!
A.I.? My Ass https://www.jjcunis.com/post/the-book-of-joe-chapter-3
There's a difference between the AI learning code and the data that it's trained on. Always ask where the data came from (and also how old the data is).
I feel the same way about professional photography studios and film developing labs, not to mention all of the Fuji, Polaroid, and Kodak employees robbed of their likelihoods by digital cameras.
Do you feel the same about Tandy employees who lost their calculator manufacturing jobs to personal computers and phones? The difference being that digital photography is only a medium, it doesn’t steal art. Progress will always be made. Gutenberg put lots of monks out of a job too lol
I don’t know. I think this is too emergent for anyone to plant a flag and claim absolute moral authority on any of it yet. But work product is work product and I’m concerned that it’s elitist to say that the results of an author’s work is irreplaceable while a machinist’s is commodity.
At the core of the issue is capitalism. If artists could create without the constant pressure to earn enough money to survive, the problem would dissolve. And #AI can help us get there, but not with #billionaire #oligarchs in power. While they reign, they'll abuse it and ruin us all.
#WealthTax #UBI
in a generation, after beginning artists cannot get work to pay the bills to be come master artist worthy of being stolen from by plagiarism scripts, everyone will complain that everything is so 2020s. Plagiarism scripts kill the pipeline.
We want automation so we have time to do the things that make life worthwhile.
We want AI to do our dishes so we have more time to make art, we dont want AI to make art so we have more time to do our dishes.
Maybe others do want AI making art for them? I don't have the skills, nor the patience or time to develop them, 'n given I'm at half my expected lifespan having smthing help take out of my head sure helps ease anxiety...
No one has the skills or patience to make art. Not even artists. It's not some magic thing that you either do or do not have. You simply need to have the drive and vulnerability and maturity to actually try. Once you pass that threshhold, congrats! You're an artist.
Eh, there're technical skills ya need to develop, 'n developing them takes time. It's not just wanting to be and trying to be an artist, w/o certain level ya never gonna be satisfied w/what ya get 'cause it's nothing like ya imagine, there's the appeal of AI, scratches that itch.
We already have robots that do the dishes, so that’s lucky!
And ofc I agree, everyone agrees with that. AI is nowhere close to replacing truly honest, human aesthetic work — just wrote capitalist bs like illustrating ads and such.
Still not ideal but 🤷🏼♂️ as I said above, image gen wasn’t the goal
The issue is why automate the things we actually want to do? These models are automating the fun part for... What? So we can work boring jobs instead of doing art? That's the exact contrary of progress
The kind of jobs replaced by an image generator would not exactly classify as dream jobs. Boring commercial commissions sent off to the lowest bidder, usually to gig workers in low income countries. They will not exactly replace Leonardo. At least not in a while
They weren’t trying to build image generators as the end goal, it was an easy way to work on visual intuition in general. The goal is to build a truly flexible, “general” AI agent that can adapt to situations like humans do, using a variety of internal models — chatbots n such are just toys
Fundamentally, AI is nowhere close to replacing really personal, earnest art. It’s just fucking up art-as-a-product, which is sad in the meantime but also capitalism’s fault. There’s no amount of tweets that will get them to outlaw this kind of profit optimization
Exactly why they want us working mundane boring jobs for 40-80 hrs/week - when you’re that tired, you just tune out. That’s what they want, to bulldoze us while we stand looking overwhelmed like a deer in the headlights! And they want us focused on basic physiological/shelter needs.
I actually think all those Harvard PhD Cognitive Scientists they've had on payroll the last 30yrs are there to develop ways to use tech to keep ppl jacked in to their influence and paralyzed from resisting it.
AI is not automation. It is theft, without exception. It steals the work of actual humans and twists it into a pile of garbage. It exists only to replace human labor and soul with heartless replications for the profit of ghouls.
*Generative* AI is theft.
There are other forms of AI that are trained on closed data sets that aren't breaching copyright and aren't aimed at deskilling people for profit.
Thats not a meaningful distinction btw, idk how it started getting big on bsky — there are certainly all sorts of ML systems, but “generating” is a very subjective idea that sorta applies to all of them and none of them depending on your preference/usage
The problem lies in ownership. The algorithms that are developing right now are taking labor that is generally favored by humans for earning a living (e.g., as opposed to factory work) and creating mediocre but just-good-enough substitutes for the product (art) with virtually no limit on output.
It's all very confusing because now anyone using any kind of algorithmic process is calling it AI. AI guys claim Casey reas all the time when what he does is very different than asking the machine to paint you a pretty picture.
Look, I know tech bros are incapable of understanding the concept of what makes art meaningful and putting effort into something over a long period of time to improve artistic ability, but comparing AI image generators with things like manufacturing robots is just kindergarten shit.
Being a Marxist and being opposed to automation under capitalism is not necessarily contradictory. Automation only serves to benefit the people under a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Under capitalism, automation disempowers the workers, resulting in widespread unemployment, while accelerating conditions towards crises that result in widespread suffering among the poorest people in society.
Of course, even if it were possible to stop the increase of automation under capitalism, it would not solve the contradictions in capitalism. It’s important of course to minimize harm as much as possible, but automation *will* continue.
A socialist revolution is the only way to ensure that not only will automation serve the people, but will do so in a sustainable way so our future can be secured.
Marx would’ve preferred people have more time to be artists, rather than stifled consumers of mediocre art. Saturating the market with mediocre imitations is so very capitalist.
The big problem is the fact that billionaire autocrats will use A.I. & automation to further concentrate wealth by eliminating the ability of flesh-&-blood artists to make a living AS artists as much as possible. It's what skilled weavers faced in England in the 1800s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Then it's just a straight shot to death because we're not getting real AI. We're getting capitalism on steroids. We're getting re-enslavement to the rich.
I'm not specifically a designer, I'm a software designer/developer, but I sometimes get asked to do graphic design and it's true that most clients just want you to copy.
You can show them alternatives, make creative suggestions, but nope, they're not interested, they just want to copy.
I’ve been teaching my kids this about the writing and fact finding parts too. It’s a tool and they are also very good at catching the AI imagining. Raising this next gen to understand the difference is so vital and important.
I'm big and bold. Yes there is a way for AI to be ethical and that is listing/linking all of the source data they pulled from. Imagine a receipt 🧾 for crediting artists while fulfilling generic requests. That way, people with cash can commission the artists they like! Win-Win.
The time to really worry is when A.I. is set to make decisions or judgements about you. If there is no human interaction then what's decided could become irreversible. What if the information it has is mistaken or wrong? Who will be there to question /challenge the A.I. Bot?
What if artists had a vested interest in the systems? If they controlled what and how content could be used. This would require a paradigm shift in how the infrastructure is developed and managed, but could enable a balancing of interests.
And that will never happen under capitalism because artists have always been actively defunded and disenfranchised unless they can attain global popularity… but some art needs to be unpopular and will always be relatively unpopular.
I mean you CAN ethically train it on solicited work where you're compensated the original person(s) and hopefully continue to do so after the AI is in use. But that's hard and respectful so naaa
That's mostly a robotics area. From what I read in articles, they are using these AI systems to better understand objects and navigate their surroundings. It seems you need these before you can start improving robotics better.
I use AI to get jobs done for clients precisely so I can have time to do personal artwork. And very little of my personal work is shared online. That’s for me. It’s a tool for productivity at my job, not meant to replace me. That’s been my experience and understanding.
I should have read even slower, as I mistook ‘disempowering’ for ‘disembowling’ for some reason and it took on quite the new meaning, I can tell you. 😱
Same arguments against photography back in the 1800’s.
• Charles Baudelaire feared photography would corrupt art by making it too realistic and accessible, potentially diminishing the creative potential of painting.
• Siegfried Kracauer saw photography as reducing complex realities to mere surface appearances, potentially affecting people’s memories and free thinking.
• Early Photography Criticism often questioned photography’s artistic value and its ability to transcend reality, with some critics viewing it as a threat to traditional art forms.
• Social Impact: Photography was seen as crossing social divides, making it accessible to all classes, which was both celebrated and criticized for its democratizing effect.
These perspectives highlight the complex and sometimes contentious reception of photography in its early years.
Not the same. Plagiarism Scripts cannot work without stealing the life work of human artist. Photography works by capturing an image of what is in front of it, not stealing it. Not that you care.
Photography doesn’t work by solely clicking a photo of what’s in front of you. It involves STUDY, yes of existing work, and then trying to come up with your own vision of what’s in front of you.
Referencing broad concepts is not the same as copying, verbatim, a writer's words into a book they had no hand in writing. It's not the same as a painter's signature appearing in AI imagery that the painter had no knowledge of being created. That's what AI does.
You are leaving out all the people whose photograph was taken sold and exhibited without their permission. Especially in crowded scenes and cityscapes. Not that you care.
Yes. That has been my concern about AI from the start! Especially when technology (in important ways) reflects its creator’s intentions/part of their mindset. Several interviews with (some) AI business executives and engineers have been very disturbing.
What if, instead of comparing AI to humans, think of as AI a product with no free will to learn, and had to be spoon fed stolen data to function. Then this AI is sold as a product that directly competes with the people it's stolen from and threatens their livelihoods. Would that budge your 50/50?
that's a valid viewpoint. It is a bit diluted though when you then have to ask if existing human artists "stole" their inspiration from pre-existing artworks.
The argument is that a machine learning from past works is somehow different from a human doing it. That is the real question.
A machine however does not possess the same flaws as us. It can retain and replicate perfectly in an instant, it has no free will, and it can be misused by others. Allowing it the same right would be a dangerous imbalance to those without the machine from those who do.
The difference is that we as biological creatures passively process information through our senses regardless if we want to or not. And our memory of that data is flawed, as well as our ability to recreate it. That is why we as humans are permitted that right so long as it is within our limits.
Surely there's a difference between learning from experience or others and enhancing your talents as an artist, writer or whatever and typing in a few keywords to come up with a masterpiece which you technically didn't create through hard work and a creative mind?!
If you hire a jobbing illustrator to illustrate your new design for a widget - you describe it in detail, down to the dimensions and colour, and he first drafts a blueprint, then draws it.
Collaborative creativity?! There's still a difference. Putting heads together to come up with something everyone likes and agrees with is still different to typing in a few words and coming up with a result (which would probably be different every time!) which involved little if no creativity.
Human artists are humans. Like - actual living, thinking beings.
They are not computer programs, so there's one difference.
The second is that these programs are an ongoing theft of *skill*. Human artists are still needed to keep the AI from going stale, this is just a way to avoid paying them.
Sure. and the "magic" of having a human in the loop is enshrined in copyright law - a human loading paint into a pendulum such that it drips onto a canvas is a protected expression, a "bored ape" randomly constructed from human-created elements isn't.
The question is - when does something like AI stop being a mere tool used by an artist to create an artwork, and become something more, something that should be excluded from copyright law?
Do we special case art as immune to the automation that led to deskilling of (say) weaving or architecture?
If a blacksmith or a weaver is replaced by a machine, their *skill* is no longer needed for that task. The years they spend mastering their craft, etc. - that's not relevant, because the machine can just crank out the same thing over and over again at consistent 1/
and quality. The only hand-made knives I've ever owned were ones that *I* made, because machine-made ones are better.
With AI and art, from what I can tell, it seems to be different. If AI corps were forced to stop ignoring copyright law (and THAT is a different discussion), and they just 2/
If that were true, then AI art would be no threat - it would be unimaginative and mediocre, so why worry?
The real problem there is that AI art doesn't exist in a vacuum - some human TELLS it what to draw, it is just mechanically following those prompts, so human innovation is still added.
That's not innovation, that's laziness and cheating! I guess it depends where you are on the creativity spectrum. As an artist and writer it makes me sad that AI is being used to create stories from a few keywords from a few keywords & kids are losing the ability to use their imagination.
But if you're neither an artist or a writer and AI is a way of making things happen then, as much as it grieves me to say it, I get it. But it doesn't make it right and I hate the fact that our children in the future just won't be encouraged to use their imagination, except those who rebel!
And the skill of actually being able to write is no longer valued. The free version (which is unquestionably inferior) will win out because it's cheap.
The next generation won't even try. Look at what hyperprocessed food has done to our food culture. Each generation gets more detached from food. You get people who don't even recognize produce, much less know how to cook. See: instacart shoppers. Our culture is being seized by machines bit by bit.
In the case of text generation, that really is lazyness - given a story outline (which many professional authors write prior to writing the first chapter) the quality would be higher.
but if a few keywords will do, lazy people will do that.
Unimaginative and mediocre art had plagued art ever since art got commodified, and now thcommodities, and even more low effort??? Do I need to spell out how this will even be a worse threat?
The worrying isnt about the feelings or art as art or whatever. The point is art as work and artists as workers. People will continue drawing, but it will make less and less sense to hire an artist to do it comercially.
It's about both. Artists should absolutely have work. But also, art communicates something from the artist. AI art is ALWAYS derivative and soulless, which is also a problem.
At least in the visual arts, very rarely does real innovation come from *what* You're depicting so much as how you depict it. They aren't making choices about it, they're asking for options and then saying "oh I like that one".
The argument is not saying: "inspiration and learning by copying=bad"
nonconsensual use of art to train genAI is against the moral rights (right to integrity) of most art. Artists have a legal right to have a say in how their art is used, even when copyright doesnt apply.
its one thing to look at art, as a human and learn and be inspired. I can't have a moral say in that.
Its another thing to take a pile of my work and place it inside a machine for a commercial purpose, regardless of what the machine is or does. In that I do have a moral right (legal) to say no.
You’re seriously comparing machine “learning” to human learning?
A machine is not creative. A machine doesn’t have control over its own algorithm and cannot commit to an art style, a message, an audience, or any other meaningful choice that a human brain can make, to iterate upon what it knows.
Neural networks do not have mechanisms for directing themselves. Fed enough saturation of AI images, they will continue to make cheap copies of copies of copies until all images are unrecognizable sludge.
Whereas humans can say, “I like this lighting but not that crosshatch” and pivot immediately.
Finally, and most importantly, a machine cannot rebel or disobey. This is why the oligarchs love AI - because AI does not understand the soul of art and will never subvert expectations.
If you don't care what kind of image you create, anyone can make beautiful images with AI.
What takes skill and practice is making something very specific. Only a small percentage are good enough at prompting to wrestle the software into behaving, but that could change.
2/2 I grab my guitar and resources and I get the gig however it presents itself. Teach, mentor, enrich, beg, steal, PERFORM!! BUSK!!find benefactors. WE ARE ARTISTS WE DESERVE ONLY TO CREATE. WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SLAVES! Royalties and commissions= a tiny moment of history...whiners
1/2 Musicians bitch and moan..."Spotify pays me .00001 cent for each stream"...blah blah blah.
" people burn and share my ballad of the L.A. Fires and I get shit..." wah wah wah.
I've made every dime, paid every bill as a working musician for 4 decadesI don't record, I don't sell product
I met a dude painting illustrations generated via ai prompts. Art or paining by f'ing numbers? Meanwhile the perceived value of what I've worked so hard at has crashed. On the other hand, maybe those weren't my customers anyway.
Humans experience something called "life" and base their art on their experiences. Heartbreak, love, anger, beauty, depression. And yes, probably other peoples art. Music inspired by movies, photography inspired by poetry, paintings inspired by books.
Yet only a tiny fraction of them make a living at it today. The vast majority of the labor-hours spent producing commercial art will someday (soon) be performed by machines. Those machines, like the artists that do the work today, will be "inspired" by many things, just as human artists are today.
Human artists are just the latest group desperately commanding the tide to roll back. It won't. This is a systemic problem that will touch EVERY human profession, as indeed it has already.
To go back to painting as an example, painters in the old days often had to produce their own . . .
. . . paints from basic raw materials, often searching far and wide to obtain them. Most painters today buy tubes of paint made in modern factories by chemists and engineers and operators, few of whom would know a filbert brush from a filbert nut.
. . . due to their productivity from no longer having to make their own paints? Do they wish to return to those days, decreasing the number of paintings they can produce per year?
Artists will always be needed, but fewer and fewer of them, with only the best being able to earn a living at it.
I kind of get and kind of don't. As original artists are the main bricks of the music structure. AI can be for those of particular genres that might be hard to find content of and being the mortar in-between the bricks. AI won't replace actual GOOD artists.
I saw someone working on an ethical software using only a single artists gallery. Then someone who knew more about the code told me it was based enough on the unethical version to poison the well. Much better to learn blender and trace over your own mannequins
Statement is pretty true of AI/Script use in anything. Especially in the many different levels of Service industry. Uh dear government and rich; automation only works when the Utopian Mega cities are already built..
Curious your thoughts on using it to generate a reference photo. I sometimes struggle to find a picture from the angle I had in mind, etc. The work is still my own as I create the drawing and make changes, but I need the help with spatial planning and visualizing some elements together.
Cheers, as are these. The first is the ouroboros of unlubricated consequences, whilst the second, yet another unobtainable vision of women's bodies in the media.
The fact that I see someone many people having to call into question the difference between human creativity and intention compared to computer data collection is very troubling to me.
This sure would be a meaningful analogy if they made cars by taking other people's horses and wagons without permission and rearranging the parts into something of lesser quality but higher costs.
No. The wheel doesn't come from a specific known person and goes back to prehistory. And horse theft remains illegal today, even though we have cars. On the other hand, car designs and buildings processes are protected both trade dress and patent laws. You can make a car. You can't make Ford's cars.
AI tools are just like any other tool. They make life easier, but at the cost of displacing other work. An electronic keyboard enables more people to play a piano at a lower cost, but displaces many potential piano manufacturers, tuners and even removal men.
Embracing AI as quickly and irresponsibly as they have has opened a Pandora’s box for which the only logical conclusion is mass replacement of human workers. This will not end well for us.
The creatives are only the first to make an outcry of the displacement by AI.
If your vocation can be broken down into a series of conditional, executions, etc. like an algorithm, you can be replaced by AI. You know like Radiologists, Lawyers, etc...
i disagree completely.
AI image generators are there so scammers may scam and spammers may spam, it has zero to do with "artists" and a shit ton to do with "how much money certain people can make with it".
Come on, no industry has ever given a shit about artists... ask Marvel.
The only AI that I can find a good use for is information gathering and decimination. Gathering existing information and sorting it is what computers do best. From basic Google searches to vast Medical databases, this is where AI is best used.
Not to be used in art for profit projects.
I have thought long and hard on AI, trying to find some good side to it. It's a very hard task.
Pictures, Stories, and Videos: I would list them as about 95% bad, for the exact reasons listed above, but that rare 5% do allow a few artists to create new and unique, personal art pieces.
True if you are lazy & wish to do no work with the material you use the machine to make. Lets be clear. At the end of the day, its still a machine that you input instruction to get something from. Theres no ai that we know of out there independently working away itself, living out a life making art.
AI art just looks bad. My favourite hobby is over run by AI art, I don’t think the people buying it can tell the difference they just fawn over the “pretty pictures” and I’m here icked out by the weirdness of it all….people with screwed up hands and mushy background details.
Comments
most absurd Artistic computer geeks will have a medium. We adjust. That's progress of the human race. Evolve. Frankly there is no other option.
I'm not condoning it. I'm just saying the app and data are separate.
That's a couple of bucks versus $2,000. No business owner will pay $2,000 just so someone can have a job if their competitor is choosing the cheaper option.
Don't know how much it happens now, but 20/30 years ago it wasn't uncommon.
Do you feel threatened when an artist paints a Mona Lisa copy for skill building? Or uses an artist's style for inspiration?
Balaji was speaking out about copyright laws (Ne York Times) and that Open AI was going to use it to harm society. He is dead.
The more they cut, the more they steal.
I feel that’s the only way to ethically use the technology.
I have millions of images from jobs over the years. I own them completely.
The same with my music.
That way it creates from what I’ve created over the years.
Load in my intellectual property.
Then use it to generate new images.
Ie. Images from 700 weddings.
Thanks.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/how-to-add-alt-text-to-images-on-bluesky-and-why-you-should/
Copyright needs to be thrown in the trash. The only problem I see with AI "Art" are the corps trying to treat it as anything other than public domain.
Because the corporation that I work for can easily replace me with an AI that has been spoonfed all of my work
And can easily do it
automatically
But it won’t have any of my creativity, heart or soul
That's what the artists want, too, right?
Class action
Do they even pay for 1 subscription or buy 1 book?
https://www.sothebys.com/buy/dba0009b-db0f-44f3-bca3-ca38039ab184
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00478-x
Meanwhile OpenAI:
Wake up people.
Which covers OpenAI, Gemini, Copilot, xAI and the plethora of LLaMa models, but not, say, the environmental science team using ML to predict weather patterns.
There's a pattern, there...
So far the courts have not found that this is copyright infringement.
Authors own their words, but they do not own knowledge.
But they HAVE determined that AI art with no human input other than a text prompt is not eligible for copyright
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/ai-art-human-expression-copyright-us-report-1234731287/
Skip to 5:20 to see someone using this thing with a lot of human input:
https://youtu.be/Z8N7jDJU6zM?si=GK8wmGETthIN3nS9
It has happened to me and some of my friends.
AI isn't a fad any more than grammar checkers, spreadsheets, or word processors are a fad.
It's a set of tools, and will keep evolving.
I worked hard to learn it.
What you don't know about me is that I'm a software developer and I coded AI software years ago and my software was not based around piracy.
I didn't even know, when I started using commercial AI software that they were using copyrighted materials.
Seriously. I only gradually realized there were copyrighted works in the dataset when I started using it.
I was asked to test a utility to identify AI images a while back but I don't know if it had a name yet (it was still beta app, I think) and I don't know if they've released it yet.
That's not plagiarism, it's homage. How is this different?
AI is just doing what humans do.
While (hear me out) it can be used ethically (like using only your own assets or making mere reference pieces), but the sad truth is that greed will always find an excuse. Best to avoid the risk and ban it altogether.
We have countless examples in history
The problem shouldn't be AI itself
It's who benefits from it..
I do love AI as like my personal mini assistant though. It’s so good at taking some task that would take me an hour to do in just seconds and just storing ideas and notes.
Which then can be used for emphasizing cost savings over productivity gains by trying to have a slimmed down art production team churn out more assets.
I see the point in raising awareness, but it's too early to tell at this point.
Highest environmental impact energy is peak hour energy. So avoid using AI during peak demand hours.
One of the most important uses of AI is traffic crash avoidance. Doesn't use much energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnKUD_OztRE
Don't let AI stupidify you.
If you wanna make AI art and you like the art that AI makes … then just do that.
Why can’t everything exist?
If you wanna change the argument, then we are discussing theft . Creating AI artwork isn’t theft. Unless you claim it to be a human artist. Otherwise its fine.
You understand that humans wrote the code and assembled the training data for ChatGPT, DALL-E, etc., right? Like, you don't think a bot created itself?
Yeak us older generations get it real well...lots of days relaxing thinking of all the crap the country/world has done to us.
"us older generations"
I'm Gen X. Did I miss the day we all figured out that Iron Age people wrote the Bible and then... overcharged for it?
Sorry you live in a time with these issues.
AI is a tool that doesn't function without a person in the loop.
I remember when people complained about Photoshop and digital art; now everyone uses those tools.
They'll all be garbage quality, AI images typically look pretty awful even with a human making them, but the software can definitely mass produce lots of picture files.
Generally good art is elevated precisely because it is good.
If you inundate a market with low quality drivel, the better quality content will rise to the surface, and generally rise to a larger margin, i.e. %
I prefer basic sketches to this by miles though.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2120481119
Whether the person is altering the bias' if the network, or engineering prompts, or training Loras or embeddings, or upscaling with image 2 image.
The 'super fake' output you showed is unguided AI.
Especially with our new president.
Sharing only improves society and future products as a whole.
Art is pure luxury, it's not food or shelter, you do not need it, you're not entitled to have it.
It's not as easy as your think.
I'm not trying to dunk on you but c'mon man
I'm not trying to dunk on you but c'mon man
You do you.
I would argue the same for "creative" property. All knowledge, research, IP should be shared. Otherwise we can't grow as a society.
The use case matters.
It's the same thing.
If you can't afford an artist, then you can't afford that service. I can't afford a new car, that doesn't mean I can steal a car.
Every single person who does something wrong (no matter how bad) can excuse it in some way. That doesn't validate it.
Which isn’t to justify using AI to steal jobs away from creative people, that’s pretty easy to argue causes very real harm. But when you remove nuance
*screenshot*
"😲😡"
Would *you* download a car?
TLDR: Information should be shared. Use case matters.
I 100% support digital piracy, but this isn't piracy... It's stealing everyone's work and then devouring the ENTIRE MARKET.
This is evil. Bottom line.
But if you pay to generate the picture, in any way, then you've effectively paid a thief for your product. I don't think there's much debating about the ethics of that.
Therefore, it may be not be wise to rely upon gen-Al for where safety is critical.
After all, we have search engines and, well, databases for that!
If you skip meat for a week you can feel free to use AI for a year.
I hate AI for all these reasons and more. Stop this insanity while we can.
“That’s not art. It’s imitation.”
My concern is that AI will replace many jobs and the corporations and their billionaire owners don’t pay tax. How can we regulate AI to reduce the pain from the inevitable social dislocation?
I don't see how AI-generated content will be different. I wish it were based on opt-in for the artists and royalties per use, but that's not happening so far.
Honestly you make me have less and less faith in humans.. as if being able to draw is of any use ever.. unless you can't talk, then that's one alternative as most people don't ASL or BSL over in EU..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_goo
Luddites are back!
If you post it online then you’ve given permission for everyone to view it.
Not permission to print a million copies for commercial sale.
When my friend was going off on GPT 3 years ago, I was like, nah, NAH.
Fake is Fake is FAKE.
1. AI has not and will never prevent an artist from making the art they want to. The complaints are about making money.
2. Show me an artist who never learned by consuming and studying the art of others.
What's your point?
AI is not stopping any artist from creating.
Human created art will always be "better" to many and will always have a market. What's the problem?
A.I.? My Ass
https://www.jjcunis.com/post/the-book-of-joe-chapter-3
I feel the same way about professional photography studios and film developing labs, not to mention all of the Fuji, Polaroid, and Kodak employees robbed of their likelihoods by digital cameras.
#WealthTax #UBI
We want AI to do our dishes so we have more time to make art, we dont want AI to make art so we have more time to do our dishes.
And ofc I agree, everyone agrees with that. AI is nowhere close to replacing truly honest, human aesthetic work — just wrote capitalist bs like illustrating ads and such.
Still not ideal but 🤷🏼♂️ as I said above, image gen wasn’t the goal
There are other forms of AI that are trained on closed data sets that aren't breaching copyright and aren't aimed at deskilling people for profit.
B) “replace human labor”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
Then everything you’ve ever looked at and have memories of has been “stolen.”
https://bookshop.org/p/books/farewell-to-the-horse-a-cultural-history-ulrich-raulff/7297860
The AI just doesn’t do any of that scary original stuff they hate.
You can show them alternatives, make creative suggestions, but nope, they're not interested, they just want to copy.
• Charles Baudelaire feared photography would corrupt art by making it too realistic and accessible, potentially diminishing the creative potential of painting.
You can't plagiarise the world.
These perspectives highlight the complex and sometimes contentious reception of photography in its early years.
Photography doesn’t work by solely clicking a photo of what’s in front of you. It involves STUDY, yes of existing work, and then trying to come up with your own vision of what’s in front of you.
As for copying books I have no idea what you’re referring to.
Again, that's called theft. It's utilizing copyrighted material for unauthorized reproduction.
Please learn how this works first.
Pretty sure there are NO human artists that didn't learn by looking at works by other artists that came before them.
It's pretty much impossible to say as a human you have NEVER seen an artistic work, ever.
The question is if the rules should be different for automation.
The argument is that a machine learning from past works is somehow different from a human doing it. That is the real question.
Is it different, and if so, why?
If you hire a jobbing illustrator to illustrate your new design for a widget - you describe it in detail, down to the dimensions and colour, and he first drafts a blueprint, then draws it.
How much of the creative work is his?
They are not computer programs, so there's one difference.
The second is that these programs are an ongoing theft of *skill*. Human artists are still needed to keep the AI from going stale, this is just a way to avoid paying them.
Do we special case art as immune to the automation that led to deskilling of (say) weaving or architecture?
If a blacksmith or a weaver is replaced by a machine, their *skill* is no longer needed for that task. The years they spend mastering their craft, etc. - that's not relevant, because the machine can just crank out the same thing over and over again at consistent 1/
With AI and art, from what I can tell, it seems to be different. If AI corps were forced to stop ignoring copyright law (and THAT is a different discussion), and they just 2/
The real problem there is that AI art doesn't exist in a vacuum - some human TELLS it what to draw, it is just mechanically following those prompts, so human innovation is still added.
In the case of text generation, that really is lazyness - given a story outline (which many professional authors write prior to writing the first chapter) the quality would be higher.
but if a few keywords will do, lazy people will do that.
nonconsensual use of art to train genAI is against the moral rights (right to integrity) of most art. Artists have a legal right to have a say in how their art is used, even when copyright doesnt apply.
Its another thing to take a pile of my work and place it inside a machine for a commercial purpose, regardless of what the machine is or does. In that I do have a moral right (legal) to say no.
A machine is not creative. A machine doesn’t have control over its own algorithm and cannot commit to an art style, a message, an audience, or any other meaningful choice that a human brain can make, to iterate upon what it knows.
Whereas humans can say, “I like this lighting but not that crosshatch” and pivot immediately.
For the models aimed at chumps like me, though, the original post absolutely applies.
What takes skill and practice is making something very specific. Only a small percentage are good enough at prompting to wrestle the software into behaving, but that could change.
" people burn and share my ballad of the L.A. Fires and I get shit..." wah wah wah.
I've made every dime, paid every bill as a working musician for 4 decadesI don't record, I don't sell product
their purpose is to, once gain, line the pockets of the very richest.
To go back to painting as an example, painters in the old days often had to produce their own . . .
Do today's painters mourn the loss of jobs . . .
Artists will always be needed, but fewer and fewer of them, with only the best being able to earn a living at it.
As per the OP, anyone who’s ever seen a picture of a rainbow and then tried to make their own has stolen an image.
People would do themselves a great service to learn how AI image generation works
The same could be said of the camera, stealing pictures, some would say souls.
PCs stealing the job of the accounting clerk.
New technologies arise and displace the previous.
Manufactured pigments enabled far more people to paint without having to manually grind and mix their own pigments.
If your vocation can be broken down into a series of conditional, executions, etc. like an algorithm, you can be replaced by AI. You know like Radiologists, Lawyers, etc...
How are you going to repay those student loans?
AI image generators are there so scammers may scam and spammers may spam, it has zero to do with "artists" and a shit ton to do with "how much money certain people can make with it".
Come on, no industry has ever given a shit about artists... ask Marvel.
Not to be used in art for profit projects.
Pictures, Stories, and Videos: I would list them as about 95% bad, for the exact reasons listed above, but that rare 5% do allow a few artists to create new and unique, personal art pieces.