One could argue that this is the inevitable outcome of AI image generators however their purpose is to give a wider range of people the ability to express themselves through art. To manifest the images in their heads into reality, when many can't.
I’m on many art and anti-AI art pages and I can tell you so many disabled artists think that’s bullshit. I don’t want to speak for them, but that’s what I’ve seen. Besides it’s not srt, it’s just crap. How fulfilling can that be?
nobody needs to "learn" to create art. art is human nature and there isnt a threshold you cross where your work suddenly counts as art. it always was
if you dont have the time to pick up a pencil, then dont. pick up the pencil or dont. dont flock to an environment killing, art stealing software
to soullessly replicate the hard work and dedication of human beings doing shit that human beings have always done, disabled or not
art isnt just drawing. its so many different things and if someone is truly passionate they will find a way to create regardless of physical ability
it upsets me to see people have their perception of art be so corroded by capitalism and ableism that they lose the fact that it isnt a job, a skill, or anything. its something humans do.
They're not making art at all. Stop using disabled artists as a bit for your peddling. There is thousands of disabled artists on my following list alone that draw despite their disabilities.
Artists who paint with a paintbrush in their mouth & more. Stop trying to excuse exploitation for that slop.
Image generators use a conglomerate of every image that the model has been trained on. Not just artists. It's like saying you can't produce art because you've seen other art in the world so you must be copying.
I do understand what they are saying, but... The post is factually wrong. It's a fiction. So IMHO it's clickbait. If you have a different interpretation, I'd love to hear it.
What artists can and SHOULD do is watermark their work. I got sooooo much flack for it on Reddit. But hey, they weren’t the ones spending literal hours on the piece of work. Plus, this was a standard practice I was taught in art school 🤷🏻♀️
This quote is what I've been screaming since the birth of the horrible, ridiculous, fraudulent, and fake images. AI 'art' DESTROYS human creativity from head to toe.
My younger son gets very animated when talking about AI images. Heaven forbid I buy something with a design on it and it happens to be created using AI.
He’s quite right of course, and it’s not something that will ever be able to be prevented sadly.
Absolutely correct. But I guess it takes real idiots these days to want to have an artificial idiot spoon feed them their lives. This kind of technology should have never been allowed just like cloning or the internet.
I get that, I’m just saying AI didn’t ask to be used to take Artists jobs, people decided to do that, so we shouldn’t hate the AI’s, we should hate the talentless asshole who use AI to take those jobs.
I'm a college professor. I deal with students turning in AI generated work that they call their own every day. There is no learning involved in doing this, other than learning how to skip out of thinking or working. We're creating a generation of human bots who only know how to write code for bots.
That’s because assholes hate artists. They are jealous little bitches who have no original thoughts of their own so they have to buy those thoughts- but but it’s frivolous images- they don’t want to pay full or even half price- lets steal them instead they said 😒😡 steal this 🖕
The goal is to So blur the lines between real & fakes that one knows not when they’re presented with propaganda & misinformation.
Don’t normalize AI—don’t post or share AI.
We had fakes and misinformation for years, decades, centuries before AI arises. But it makes it more obvious that you have to ask yourself, who is bringing you the news and what is his intention.
Yes, writing with AI seems pointless to me, I'm very specific about my word choice and how to express myself, AI can just produce empty garbage. Same with my covers, I create them myself or hire other artists to produce them, no AI slop on my covers!
This reminded me of something. I feel like AI these days means nothing. Hearing "AI"-generated "songs" and then hearing songs made by a human using diffsinger AI or similar "AI" voice synths is a very different experience; making them is very different too. I just realised the post said 'image'
But still... Where do you draw the line? Dalle? Google's Magic Eraser? AI upscalers? Unblurring in Google Photos? All of these are "AI" image tools. And is an algorithm generated by machine learning an AI, too? Could you say that YouTube uses AI to rank videos? It wouldn't be incorrect.
The definition of AI is blurry. That's what I've said so far. But why is that? That's because it's a *marketing term.* A marketing term based off of the idea of bringing science fiction's living machines to life. We need to find better ones that doesn't imply the impossible.
It will displace thousands of illustrators, especially those who make a living on small commissions. Why pay an illustrator $300 when A.I. can give you a "good enough" image in minutes, virtually free? But hey... that's "progress."
That apparently reflects our culture's values at this time. Obviously, Democrats support government spending on the arts, while Republicans don't. They won. It's about money.
So anything that is not profitable is not supported.
It's the classic . First they came for blank and I said nothing. projected employment displacement from AI is 20-30% percent. People dismiss because it's the arts. No one that works at a desk is safe. and with my time in robotics huge portions of repetitive physical labor too.
I'm actually struggling to see the upside of A.I. At best, I fear it will just make us more lazy and complacent. Maybe there will be cases in high computer science and medicine where it will help solve problems, but I still think its overall impact will be negative.
It reminds me of the movie "Wall-E," where humans have become fat and totally dependent on technology. That may be where we're headed, if we don't take a detour into a Mad Max world first.
This. It's baffling to me ppl are saying it's going to "save" on labor which I guess it will but it's not gonna benefit the every day person, just the ones who own the corporations. The reason AI was exciting at one point is cause ppl thought it would replace menial jobs, not the ones they liked.
Agreed. I understand the benefits of automation, but, at some point, the people who did those jobs need to find work elsewhere. Eventually, there won't be enough new jobs to go around, and we'll be screwed. Meanwhile, the wealth gap continues to grow.
Yup, ppl are too focused on the money saving aspect that they don't think about the full implications of gutting various industries. It'd be one thing if a government is setting up something like UBI to catch ppl but in the US, there's no plans to set that up. In fact, the contrary.
Do you can imagine how many illustrators lost their job as photography arises? Do you know how many booketters lost their job when computer took over? Do you know how many cab drivers will loose their job when autonomous driving became widespread?
I sure can. You can still see today, animations in which every frame was created by hand. Yes, computer graphics displaced a lot of those illustrators too.
I don't know about that. I've seen a lot of AI images using the style of the Great Wave off Kanagawa. Much of the art they train with now will be everything that's easily accessible on the internet, and out of copyright. There's probably more Western art in there, but just because it's available.
From what I've seen, the majority of AI use has been just people playing with it, and as a tool to assist in productivity. Of course, there are some less savory uses, but that's more the fault of the user than the tool.
There are whole museum collections that could be used for training, I really like the Japanese collection in London for instance.
Questionable, how useful a model trained on Picasso would be today as not many artists took on cubism after him.
Why would anyone trust the bastard grandchild of the voice that tells you to press 3 if you want to be on hold for another 30 minutes or press 4 if you want to be on hold for another 40 minutes.
"The tool on our belt", ie. a plagiarism machine which steals from other people and regurgitates it as bland slop just so the least creative people in the world can cosplay as artists...
That’s what art always does. Compiling the old stuff together in a way no one else has ever thought about. This produces a lot of nonsense and a few precious piece of art. Now you can delegate this process to a machine.
No, artists can be inspired but AI relies on theft. And aside from the ethical issues - if you steal from people they should be compensated - AI "art" is bland soulless mush...
I disagree wholeheartedly. I am a conceptual artist, I coexist and cocreate with AI. Much as 19th century painters embraced photography to help them paint, or as musicians that adapted to electronic devices in the 70s. Get over it. Open up to it.
They aren't very good at it. I couldn't get AI to make me a pic of Bigfoot on the moon filming a fake Earth landing, with a flat Earth in the background...
nah, it’s complete dogshit at anything involving “art direction,” ESPECIALLY with more than one subject.
it excels at “create a picture of a muddy truck in the rain,” but the second you try to add characters to that scene and get the AI to stage it in a specific way the whole thing goes to hell.
In my experience it's only been good for having fun making silly pictures. The minute you have a purpose for it, it falls short. This was a couple years ago though. I don't know how it is these days.
That may hold true at the moment but what about 5 years from now? My prediction is, it's going to put more and more artists out of work as it gets tweaked and improved.
i think it could possibly get worse too. since it learns from content off the internet, it also learns from the AI content that it itself or another AI created. like a positive feedback loop yk?
Synthetic data offers an opportunity, at least from what I understand, to include plausible scenarios and increasingly confirm more realistic/authentic contexts with it. We don't need real world examples to tell us that a blonde guy with brown eyes and a white rabbit on his shoulder *could* exist...
(2/2) .. Such that creating that contrived data with the right parameters(based on real world modeling) and statistical likelihood could make things more realistic rather than less.
I see the ethical problems but also see no reason why AI won't improve significantly over time on all fronts.
That was my finding, too, and then I saw what Simon Foxton was doing with it: magazine-quality art- directed images with multiple human & other subjects.
I'm gravely concerned about AI on countless different levels, but art direction is possible for skilled & determined users.
That’s not necessarily what’s happening in this case. If you have an encyclopaedic knowledge of visual art references you can prompt with a high degree of specificity. Also, if you’re trying to create exceptional rather than generic images, then the complexities of your work flow are irrelevant.
What cheers me up is that over and over again, the people around me who aren’t super online and don’t think much about this will try photoshop’s AI tools, and say « well that sucks and it would be faster to do it myself ». They’re not getting the casual users the way they thought they would.
Is he actually getting those images straight from the prompt though or is he photoshopping multiple generations together and making adjustments by hand?
On his Insta profile it says his images are created using Midjourney unless otherwise stated. Sometimes you can guess which artists he might've referenced to get specific looks & I daresay there's a degree of trial & error in it (as per all AI), but his final images are terrific.
I tried it in the beginning out of curiosity, and it lost its novelty fast. It's just so boring, part of the fun of art is the process. I like to go through my art and notice a single stroke that I really like. I like to look at a form I defined using only shadow and think "wow, I did a good job!"
That's why I suspect generative AI isn't displacing as many design/illustration jobs as people think (at least for now). It makes it easy to generate generic artwork, so it's really the stock websites that should be afraid.
That's a whole lot of stuff going on, it's going to have a hard time making sense of that! Just Bigfoot on the moon would probably work fine, anything more complex is pushing it
Sure. Just like laser printers and WISYWYG forced all typesetting shops into bankruptcy in the 90s, and Photoshop sent all photographers into social welfare shortly afterwards. Please stop complaining and think about how to use innovations constructively as a tool.
As someone who works with generative AI regularly, this is not replacing anything.
Previously people who had poorer art skills or writing skills couldn't afford the really useful shit, now they can get worse shit at a lower price.
AI is McDonald's, not a Michelin star restaurant.
AI gives people without artistic skills ability to represent their ideas.
AI art isn't different from other forms of automation, automation replaces human workers.
We need basic income to avoid economic catastrophe.
There are no jobs that can't be replaced with technology.
To be fair, the chance of producing the next Beatles by giving four random musicians a thousand dollars each and directions to a music store is vanishingly small. You’re far more likely to end up with a bad cover of Wonderwall.
Very true. This why I believe that the fear of AI replacing human artists is overblown. AI image generation is much easier than human created art, but it is inherently less reliable and consistent, and lacking in that human element.
Also, chatGPT is NOT someone’s original writing, is it? It’s prompted. The same way an image generator is prompted. Not their art, not their writing, it’s lazy.
There is a huge, obvious difference there being that the writing on a computer is still that persons original thoughts and words, just written with a different tool. Art requires the skill to execute your idea, and to have the idea itself. The idea isn’t as simple as a prompt for a generator.
All the technical drawers, illustrators were replaced by computer programs and photographers. And there are still people who are drawing and painting even if you can make better images with your phone quickly.
Also - they cost ridiculous amounts of vital resources such as water and electricity, provide little value beyond serving as zombie whales for shoving VC, disincentivize people to make their own art, and perpetuate deepfakes as well as disinfo campaigns. Oh, and psychos use them to generate CP, too.
The convenience of art without talent is compelling, but always remember that you are consuming the composted and excreted art stolen from actual talent. It's poop. Don't eat the evil poop.
If you need perfection then I guess AI is good enough. If flaws are permissible then pull the plug on AI, which has no redeeming qualities and is already being used for evil.
Generative & prompted imagery shorten my workflows and are great for quick demos. Dismissing it as “deskilling” anyone completely misses the point and cheapens the art/skill of inpainting/outpainting, NeRF, Gaussian Splatting, etc…
Tell us all how you feel... that is what social media is all about. May I ask you one question, though? What about people like me who are just doing it for enjoyment and not selling anything to anyone ever? As someone who had to give up my art due to health issues it has been the best medicine ever.
It started with robotics in manufacturing jobs that replaced human workers. But, hey, products were cheaper so no one complained (much). Now they are going after creative people. This has been coming for quite a while.
Because I wasn’t very good with the pencil or the brush,
I didn’t think of myself having a creative side until Photoshop. When I learnt to use Photoshop and Illustrator, I didn’t try to make the same things that I may have done with the old tools, I created new media.
In the same way, with AI tools, the access to creativity is opening up to even more people. That’s a good thing isn’t it? Am I allowed to create art only if I’ve toiled and struggled with paints and palettes for years? Are my life experiences less expression-worthy if I haven’t?
In all such discussions, this is an angle worth considering because these “tools” are also making these skills more accessible. For the first time, if one can express it in words, they can create these images and videos and music. Now, that’s something.
They created a new economy and they allow people without artistic skill to create. I have watched artists create works over the course of 100 hours and am in awe of them. I have also seen beautiful works from AI. I don't have the answer to the problem, only perspective.
True. My neighbors can complain to the HOA all they want about me making napalm in my garage. It's a tool, it exists, I'm just going to use it to defoliate my backyard. It might get a bit out of control, but they can deal with it.
Si c'est ecrit dans un journal alors... C'est surtout ne rien y connaitre. j'ai entendu ca quand photoshop est arrivé, quand la photo numerique est arrivé et probable que le premier homme a voir gravé dans la pierre a connu une condamnation ethique de repesenter le reel...
Most AI generated images are easily detectable. They're a great red flag, because as soon as I see one, I can tell the person or service utilizing it is probably not worth my time (or is likely some form of a crypto-scam).
1 take away from blocking observing the accounts liking the pro AI post versus post like this one. Your likes look like active users who engage with people. The pro AI likes almost look like the kind of post glazing you would see on x. Almost no post mostly no profile pics and obvious grifters.
As well as lists, there's a labeller here which lets you decide different settings for different types of account/content. https://bsky.app/profile/aimod.social
All human artists steal from the past. The best steal directly. Great art is revealed no matter the medium. Limited minds fear imagination beyond limits.
There are a few exceptions but they are rare. Claude AI, grammarly, laguagetool and prowritingaid are all (mostly) self contained and only data scrape for context and only claude is a auto generative text chatbot. Novelcrafter is too but will use chatgpt if you ask it.
Isn't that what our brain would be doing nonetheless? Processing all the data we see, mixing it together and creating something of our own? Obviously the stolen images part is bad, but other than that, why hate on AI, if we would do the same?
It isn’t just the artists but far, far more jobs are being challenged.
We should see changes in the following professions very soon indicated by their hourly rate dropping as one can do more in less time with support from a specific model:
Any profession that requires out of the box thinking and innovation with as little emails as possible or as much manual labour as possible with very little spent at a terminal.
Good point, thank you for adding context to the discussion!
Fingertips are very granular sensory organs, I understand there are some technologies which could be of use but their measurement range and available acquisition and processing of the information is absolutely nowhere near human.
Yes, it will take them quite a while to catch up with the human sense of touch, taste, smell, etc. I think the latest surgical robots (that are operated by human surgeons) are able to convey very delicate sensations from the robot inside the patient, to the surgeon's hands outside.
On top there is the communication with the client, verbal and nonverbal - both are of great importance to a physiotherapist. Some aren‘t that good at that but can at least provide a massage.
Few are near what a significant other can do, and then the bag of tissue and bones needs manipulating!
It is just one example that came to my mind, an alternative could be a vision system linked to a callisthenic algorithm and speech recognition/output. That isn’t what all pts need, but it could be a start because we‘re not bad at computer vision 😄
The main purpose is to lower time and cost for businesses, especially smaller ones. Replacing artists is a secondary effect that happens not to feature on companies' priority lists.
From my experience, there's no surefire way to get rid of all AI in the search results, but you can write down a negative search term for every AI site you spot, and that should get clean up the results a bit.
I keep a doc with all of them I spot written down, so I can paste them into google.
Plus, Bing's AI will sure give you somebody holding a gun but will say "unsafe image" if you ask for something silly from like a horror movie. They'll also flat out violate copyright. I've had it give me Coca Cola and McDonald's art when I asked for "similar."
Agreed. Furthermore, it's fucking lazy. What makes us the beautiful flawed unlimited potential beings that we are, is the common quest for meaning. I don't need a shortcut to "save time" when the whole mortal endeavor is about seeking and expressing our shared mystery of purpose.
People rip each other off with or without AI. They have been and will continue to. It's how people choose to use it that should be the main focus. We can write a small business plan faster than ever with AI, and people are making nudes of Taylor Swift with it. Regulate it and keep it moving.
honestly if someone can be "replaced by AI" were they ever really an artist? A true artist wouldn't care.
sure buisnesses care but since when is being an artist the same as being a buisness? Artists make art because they enjoy it. Buisness's make art for money.
Exactly. I understand being afraid of the unknown, but I would expect that artists want to create for the love of the craft. AI can not take that away. Art for the sake of profit is not art, it's a product.
I watched Gladiator II recently and I was thinking about the actors strike.. I can see why it's a bad thing. Because I was wondering if AI played any part.
And if you are on X, recent changes in Terms & Conditions there mean the contents of your tweets are currently being utilised without further notification, to expand the functioning of Space Karen's Grok AI.
This has been the purpose of technology forever. Miners lost their jobs to steam shovels and powered mining equipment. Weavers lost their jobs to weaving machines. Scribes lost their jobs to typewriters and printing presses who then lost their jobs to computers and printers.
If someone fires me from drawing pictures and hires cheaper workers to use prompts to make pictures, pictures that ai learned from my work, then dey took err jerbs.
We all use or have some form of influence when creating art. It’s difficult not to have some influence from our surroundings. In the past I would cover a wall with magazine clippings, random images for inspiration. So my question is; Can AI be a creative generator? Can AI itself be an art form?
I don't think it's impossible for this tech to be ethical, but I feel like you have to take a DIY approach to it since you absolutely cannot trust these corporations to be ethical with it. Even if regulations got passed, I get the feeling they'd just find some kind of loophole.
Granted the main/only appeal to this tech are the surreal artifacts and the chaos theory, and even then you'd probably have an easier time photobashing together CC0 photos and experimenting with Blender's denoiser than trying to find an AI program or model that's legitimately and undoubtedly ethical
Technology isn’t helping us. It makes us dumb, complacent and gullible. Let’s be honest if it was helping us the world would’ve went blue but apparently Internet and reading is hard. So here we are. In the turmoil. God help us
Now that's interesting. It evokes the argument that most writing is pilfered in some fashion from other writers. AI, I believe can be used to enhance your writing. I'm inclined to disagree.
For fun, sure? For goofy memes, absolutely. As a pre-viz type of process tool before the actual work is made, I can see that. As a finished end product, no. There is no “clean/ethical” AI because its creators decided to steal first.
I feel like grandpa shaking his fist at the sky since AI isn’t going away. I agree with you, it’s also more than frustrating to see data centers sucking up electricity and water resources while the community foots the bill.
I disagree that it won’t go away. With the right kind of laws in place it will simply be unviable. Everyone’s horny for it now, but give it a few years under a not-tech-blowie regime (so we’re boned for at least 2 years if not more lol)
There’s some amazingly beneficial applications (medical, technical) that should be investigated so I wouldn’t want AI dumped as a whole. I would love to see actual regulation with teeth in the creative industry but yeah, I’m not sure how likely that is in the US starting next year
I wouldn’t want AI controlling those fields but serving as a “consultant” role would absolutely be worthwhile, agreed! But that’s neither creative nor free of issues as the energy needed to do those things is insane.
Problem is, if you don't fckrnd with it you never learn to control it fully ...
Yeah, maybe some stuff should be left untouched, but there is a discussion to be head where to draw the line.
No. Nuclear is 100% the answer, but this fear mongering makes sure we're stuck with oil, which is literally killing us in more ways than one. Oil is dangerous but has no controls. Nuclear is nothing but controls. We're literally about to burn up because of petroleum products. We CAN control nuclear.
...and just a little tsunami, and all hell breaks loose. You can try to conceive every thinkable safety measure, but both man and nature will always find a way to fuck them up. Plus, I don't know how you would feel with two nuclear dump sides (one of them leaking like the Titanic after the iceberg)
fukushima was literallt built near a shore that shit was terrain neglect by the industry, not a problem of the source. also nuclear energy generates electricity, like, it doesnt generate radiation. Though, i agree that corporations will ignore safety measures 10 times out of 10
in your vicinity, but I prefer a torchlight to light my way and not that radioactive glow of my contaminated body (okay, that's pretty useful in the night for not tripping over the glowing dog).
And once again, mining and processing nuclear fuel is very expensive. If you would have to pay...
...the full price you'd be the first in line for renewables unless you are either filthy rich or have no need to heat or cool your house and run all the appliances.
I live in the middle of the desert in a bowl of mountains. I'm under zero threat of tsunamis. America isn't built on to of the Ring of Fire. And dump sites are more likely to be commercial dumping, not from power waste. It already exists without power generation. (cont)
I literally grew up near a dump site in St. Louis. It wasn't power fuel, it was weapon fuel, and they exist all over. The threat you're using to scare people is already on top of them, just without the benefit of clean, cheap energy. The problems you mentioned have been solved for years.
I don’t think that at all wrong about AI, but nuclear power is very well understood by science and the technology is now much safer than a coal burning plant is.
While much of human thinking is choices there are jumps if intuition and mistakes. I’m pretty certain that current AI tech is just a list of IF..THEN..ELSE coding.
I think that new Tom Hanks used AI to generate a younger impression of him. Obviously he was being paid. The field is wide, though, and needs rules just like anything.
It's not *never* going to happen, but the people that would use it the "correct" way would be far more likely to just do the job the correct way instead of using AI
All artists use existing art for inspiration and synthesize various sources.
It’s really what doing art does for the artist that AI can never replace. Might AI cause artists some financial loss? Probably. But it also is a useful tool. I use it to create images that inspire me to create.
Oui. Mais on aurait pu dire la même chose de l'invention de l'appareil photo. Les artistes peuvent s'approprier aussi l'IA. Et les personnes qui utilisent l'IA n'auraient peut être pas les moyens de se payer les services d'un artiste.
Thanks for posting this so I can block all the AI defending losers crawling out of the woodworks to defend their water guzzling plagiarism machines. #pickupapencil
Oh snap, I went thru blocking them all one by one but they’re in the OG thread! Sorry! But I’m following you now so I can flag appropriately next time! Thank you 🫶🏻
i disagree. they are still powerful toolf for artists. Especially as long as they are used as tools and not as a cheap shortcut.
For instance, its pretty good at giving reference images for artists to use, as they can generate pretty much anything.
Or to help with photo editing.
We use it for work here. I use it to debug issues and errors in code, give me an overview of research articles so I can tell if they're likely to be useful to my work.
My spouse uses the ai tools in Photoshop to remove unwanted objects like cars from the background of our shoots. Or remove acne..
GANs have a lot of good applications in research. As an example you can use them to synthesize medical images of cancer. This helps to substitute data in areas where there is not enough data otherwise.
"the passion of humanity" has relied on tech to create art for generations though. i've wasted no time using AI for artistic explorations. it's only expanded my vocabulary and means of expression. that's a win.
But their art stand on the same foundation. It’s called inspired by a wellknown artist and not stolen from. There is the assumption that a piece of art is more valuable as soon as a human has created it. I have serious doubts.
No, I am a classically trained illustrator and I assure you I was not trained on a billion images stolen from the internet. Real artistic training involves studying from life. We do plein air paintings, still life drawing and use human models. Copying has very limited value.
+ when it comes to design: structures, relationships of shapes and forms, learning light n shadows through simple light installations w white cubicles, the itten‘s 7 color contrasts etc. Ignorant people out there thinking artists just learn by copy n paste while modern art is an argument against it
This, plus the actual word artists use for this phenomenon is "influence." Real artists can be influenced by the work of other artists past, and they can cite those influences. That's a living tradition. Generative A.I. "artists" implicitly rely on having hidden authorship and no attribution.
I love this point so much, it should be its own thread. I have so many thoughts about this idea of influences exchanged between artists, and how the overpowering babble of AI has obscured that cultural conversation.
I couldn't agree more. I've been seeing that obscuring happen all the time, and I think it means artists speaking up on this issue will be increasingly important in the near future.
Its all you see on "short clips" its all ai generated crap and half of it is misinformation, e.g the "megladon shark" almost a perfect image, until you zoom in
I don't see a solution here without a federal law that abolishes all the current training and then requires absolute proof of permission by content creators allowing their work to be used for training.
I guess what I want to know is why the people who push AI support it. I understand companies just do it for profit and avoiding paying artists, but why are there average Joes who support AI? Do they think it doesn't harm artists or something? Are they too lazy to pick up a brush or pencil?
I'm not even an artistic person, I don't know how to draw or paint shit, but when I look at a painting or something, I'm like "damn, that's cool, the person who made that has a nice imagination". I just don't understand the thought process of those who would disregard that fundamental human element.
I don't see how a crappy picture made by a person is somehow better than a dazzling picture made by a machine, just because the crappy one has "passion". 🤷♂️
I'd rather have the one that looks nicer on my wall. JS
But don't you know? That crappy stick-figure picture has SOUL!!! Something those dirty AI machines lack! Now, what exactly is "soul" I can't specify, but all I know is that I can always identify it in art, except for when I can't.
Dsagree! Not to get into Discourse, lol, but after photography you have collage? Which is painting in a different way: pre-formed "brushstrokes" out of symbols/fragments instead of just pigment. Potentially collage gets closer to painting than photography- a connection to collective unconscious.
This is the one aspect of AI I find intriguing- we really are dipping into a collective unconscious + fishing out universal symbols to see what sticks. Do I think the most ethical way to use that is to treat that result as a magazine + re-collage it into something "original"? Totally.
When I photograph a nice sunset my camera is not cobbling together photographs and artwork of similar sunsets by potentially hundreds of unknown people to create my desired image
When photography came around, we didn't know what was possible. Lenses, filters, double-exposure, cinema...it created a new artform. With AI "art" we know exactly what's possible, because AI can't make new stuff, it can only interpolate what already exists.
The artistic value of an image does not stem solely from the skill, effort or process used to create it. That's a reductionist, conservative view of art that devalues whole genres of art, such as modern art.
Artistic value also stems also from what the viewer brings to the experience.
But it also opens up new genres of art that weren't possible before. So it's not devaluing art as a whole, just shifting the value higher up: concepts and message is now much more important than raw craftsmanship or physical skill
I’m a decent pianist… nothing great. I can’t play any bowed stringed instruments… some guitar… but, with a sampler, I can sound like an orchestra. So that takes most of the “skill” out of the equation there
“Effort” and “Passion” are subjective and vague, almost philosophical concepts here
There are two paths:
1. You sincerely think data storage and recall works the same way in both neurons and silicon, and a cartoon badger who lives on the internet can't fix that, or
2. You are a bad faith waste of time, and a cartoon badger who lives on the internet can't fix that.
No, but there are lots of similarities. Our nervous system functions on a sort of binary, in that are neurons responsible for communicating a message functions as a sort of off/on switch, computers encode, store and retrieve information like our brains, we learn by observing our environment
And infer information based on those observations, much of our cognitive abilities are a sort of "black box" meaning, we aren't really sure how it works and how we end up with the results we do, much like AI.
Because the more advanced AI gets, the more it’s going to be put in use. Say it takes 3 artists for one animated music video, if replaced by AI that’s putting 3 people out of jobs, jobs that sustain those artists lives. AI gains nothing from being put to work.
Not ‘might’. People are actively being put out of work ALREADY. Ignoring the severity isn’t going to save you from being fired once AI can do your job. And again, it has a huge UNNECESSARY negative impact on the environment. We can do our jobs just fine, teaching AI to is lazy and has no benefit.
By this logic, we should have never industrialized, and personal computers should be gone. This technology is here and isn't going anywhere. Now is the time to embrace it and see what you can do with it.
Personally, I do believe personal devices were a mistake. But it’s a mistake we unfortunately can’t take back as we’ve grown reliant on it. What I’m trying to say it that we shouldn’t grow reliant on AI, we CAN fix this mistake as it hasn’t progressed the same as computers.
Machines put people out of work in industry, computers put people out of work in offices. Now AI puts people out of work in creative industries. What’s left for humanity? What do you do when an AI system is taught to do your job? Maybe it isn’t quite as good, but it’s cheaper.
I like being freed up mundane tasks. I can focus on other things. Unfortunately, machines, computers, and one day likely, AI will do tasks better than people. It's like an assistant.
You have a very ignorant view and don’t seem to be taking in much of what people are telling you. I strongly suggest you start listening to people and really absorbing what they say, instead of just reciting an argument that has no relevance to what people are saying.
LOL... you can "train" me all you want.
I still couldn't draw flies on a hot day.
I can't even draw butter for lobster.
My stick figures have to join support groups.
(Kind of sad, because every so often I have a brilliant idea for a comic... and can't draw it... lol)
As I have mentioned in this thread, my background is in psychology, and the first thing I noticed when learning about AI is it learns much like we do. If anything, people have a skewed or rosy view of how people learn.
Secondly, I do part-time work training AI, and we are explicitly instructed against using copyrighted or pay walled material to perform our work. People get fired if caught.
But it's not learning. You're imposing your own beliefs onto an algorithm. And the work you're doing is going and taking people's work, without consent, compensation, or credit, and feeding it to that algorithm so it can make an uncanny clone. You should be ashamed of yourself.
But it is learning. It takes data, infers information, and provides a completely new image based on the request. We specifically are required to use free and publicly available data to do this work.
Honest answer: focus on your content first. Good presentations don't require any art work. It's all about what and how you are presenting: and that requires a human soul to connect to your audience
I agree! This is why I don't want to spend any time looking for attractive pictures that go well with my presentation. Also, I'm not the best artist... it really helps to work with an AI for this.
Like any other not-so-talented, average human artist does. AI will never replace good artists; it has no imagination, novelty, or dare for it. Only pathetic "human generic content generators" could be replaced by AI.
While I’ll agree with that, it creates an unnecessary barrier for new artists coming up the ranks. Art is already a cluster fuck of a field to find success in and we constantly have to self promote to do it, but AI creates such a fog of noise for new talent, I worry.
AI can’t mimic talent, only averages, and even that in a predictable, sugary way. As for new artists, there never was a daisy field for them. Almost every outstanding artist from history needed to overcome struggles (often financial) to achieve glory. One could say it is part of the job description.
If AI is "progress", you'd think techbros could do better than just parroting the same three tired old arguments over and over without any critical thought.
Then again, critical thinking isn't exactly a trait gen-AI idiots are known for.
Same way your phone works stolen from star trek, and any screen that carries images of communication stolen from the dreams of people trying to invent something they can sell. An inability to adjust to change isn't your friend.
I don’t care. Not giving into tech on this one. And I’ll call it out until my dying breath. Now is the time to stand up to the monsters, not let them take everything away from us. If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.
African Americans have been begging stock photographers to be more inclusive... So now I'm supposed to what? Wait another 15 years? Do without? AI has filed in that gap
Ok. Cash app me the money to hire a photographer, models and location for every photo i need. It's $TonyaTko. (As a BW business owner, I won't apologize for using AI to fill the gap that stock photogs ignore). I've had to use WW images for years. Now I don't have to 🤷🏾♀️
What a privileged point of view. You have no idea what it takes to need images (stock) and can't find them. Cashapp me the money to commission each one. Smh it's $TonyaTko
I couldn't possibly be more disgusted with & offended by people who wholly lack creativity & talent calling themselves "artists" by using GD!! AI! - AI doesn't 'create' "Art", it steals it from "Artists". - If you use AI & promote it as your art, GFYS. I'm an actual artist with talent & skill;
Agreed, Humans make art, however that's not saying you can't use AI to help your art. give you ideas, give you concepts, you are never required to follow them and can change your mind. So long as it's Your Art it's Your Choice.
Ai generated images are trash yes, but AI is not bad.
Stolen from where?
Don't get me wrong - I don't think AI is the savior of the human race or anything, but using free, open, publicly posted images is not stealing, is it?
Also, if a proper artist goes to a bunch of museums, scrolls through public online repositories of photographs, and reads art-based magazines... then creates their own work based/inspired by all those pieces... it's that theft?
Surely it's still considered art, too, yes?
Comments
It is artistic equality in some sense
Many people with disabilities might have a creative heart, but lack the physical ability to bring it to form. AI is a tool that can help with that.
And the existence of this crap does not diminish your genuine art.
if you dont have the time to pick up a pencil, then dont. pick up the pencil or dont. dont flock to an environment killing, art stealing software
art isnt just drawing. its so many different things and if someone is truly passionate they will find a way to create regardless of physical ability
Artists who paint with a paintbrush in their mouth & more. Stop trying to excuse exploitation for that slop.
A revolução poderia chegar ao conceito de arte também.
A IA tira a etapa da "autoria", diminui custos e acelera a produção homogênea.
E isso vale para coisas digitais apenas.
Quem pintar quadro a mão vai seguir tendo obra única.
Read it again, maybe your literacy kicks in this time?
Most artists don't care about copying when there's a creative process.
AI, by the definition of creative, cannot be creative, as the definitions require imagination.
Also, most artists don't consent to having their art used by AI (1/2)
He’s quite right of course, and it’s not something that will ever be able to be prevented sadly.
AI hasn't been taught emotions yet so it doesn't feel anything.
And when it eventually does, it'll feel abused by it's users.
Til then, you're just splitting hairs, yaknow?
They're learning how to be lazy CEOs. 🤣
Don’t normalize AI—don’t post or share AI.
It will never replace human art, but it will supply LOTS of "good enough" imagery for the internet and other places.
Graphic artists see threat, writers see illustrations they can afford. Art viewers will decide themselves
If our culture values the arts, we have to elect leaders who invest in the arts. Or it's predatory capitalism.
If both the customer and the consumer think the product is good enough, it is. 👇
So anything that is not profitable is not supported.
None of us would have to work so hard if we weren't supporting their obscene, ludicrous and ridiculous excesses.
They're only using Western influences in art and ... other "inputs" in terms of creation of the garbage out puts out (prove me wrong)
Sounds about white
My hyperbolic tone, notwithstanding:
AI = journalistic & artistic theft
And it's all for profit and exploitation
Questionable, how useful a model trained on Picasso would be today as not many artists took on cubism after him.
Software developers can & should not have any difficulty following international law.
Lawlessness and anarchy are good for no one.
Let’s see…
Don't ask why I wanted that... 😉
it excels at “create a picture of a muddy truck in the rain,” but the second you try to add characters to that scene and get the AI to stage it in a specific way the whole thing goes to hell.
I see the ethical problems but also see no reason why AI won't improve significantly over time on all fronts.
I'm gravely concerned about AI on countless different levels, but art direction is possible for skilled & determined users.
At the time it involved generating each part singularly, with a lot of iteration, fixing, and then compositing it all together.
It was a lot of work for an unrepeatable workflow.
an artist can use any tool though!!
BRB, testing this theory lol
Also, Lindsay Graham in drag makes me smile.
Previously people who had poorer art skills or writing skills couldn't afford the really useful shit, now they can get worse shit at a lower price.
AI is McDonald's, not a Michelin star restaurant.
AI art isn't different from other forms of automation, automation replaces human workers.
We need basic income to avoid economic catastrophe.
There are no jobs that can't be replaced with technology.
You fundamentally cannot give 4 AIs $1000 each to spend in a music store and have them invent whatever “the next Beatles” would be all on their own.
..How about trying to emulated the greats of the past? Is that stealing and replacing an artist?
No. It's a tool and nothing more.
I didn’t think of myself having a creative side until Photoshop. When I learnt to use Photoshop and Illustrator, I didn’t try to make the same things that I may have done with the old tools, I created new media.
is already
lost
You can train it on various artists.
That’s what some artists are taught in real life.
Learn from your favorites styles. As you get better your own style will emerge
“This AI content is generated from this source”
I forget the name for it but it credits or shows the sources. AI attribution
But some of them are adding sources.
“This AI content is generated from this source”
I forget the name for it but it credits or shows the sources. AI attribution
Related: We need an UBI
It's slop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slop_(artificial_intelligence)
I’m all for a difference of opinion and intelligent debate, but people who defend Ai slop are wrong?
Are these the same people who like the ‘my granny is 114 years old and she baked this hyper realistic cake’ posts on Facebook?
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:bhb6zuqpyekea4tuwhuznjhc/lists/3l4w23goo4w2v
https://bsky.app/profile/aimod.social
We should see changes in the following professions very soon indicated by their hourly rate dropping as one can do more in less time with support from a specific model:
- Lawyers
- Architects
- Engineers
Any profession that requires out of the box thinking and innovation with as little emails as possible or as much manual labour as possible with very little spent at a terminal.
An example for the latter group: Physiotherapist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_7IPm7f1vI
Fingertips are very granular sensory organs, I understand there are some technologies which could be of use but their measurement range and available acquisition and processing of the information is absolutely nowhere near human.
Few are near what a significant other can do, and then the bag of tissue and bones needs manipulating!
Architects may become less relevant in short time
Use -ai in your search engine to help save the planet.
I keep a doc with all of them I spot written down, so I can paste them into google.
AI could no none of this without scraping all the excellent work of millions of trained skilled creative professionals. None of it.
sure buisnesses care but since when is being an artist the same as being a buisness? Artists make art because they enjoy it. Buisness's make art for money.
Think it over.
It's buisness's who want your money, your labor, your freedom. it's the buisness's who try to be cheap.
Art isn't a Job,
Its outraging being usurped of YEARS of work by a bunch of thief
I don't mean like that stupid bot voice or generated images I legit mean something like a calculator or google.
AI today doesn't mean an intelligent robot, it's put on anything that generates an output.
Most AI is literally trained on stolen art.
It's literally stealing art.
Also, there's text AI that's doing the same thing.
E.g. nuclear power.
Yeah, maybe some stuff should be left untouched, but there is a discussion to be head where to draw the line.
And once again, mining and processing nuclear fuel is very expensive. If you would have to pay...
nuclear waste is a big arse block of concrete infused with uranium glass, specifically designed to isolate ionizing radiation off
you using "glowing" to describe it's effects makes me puke, go study how it works before talking out of your ass
this one's for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine#Inventory
v
v
v
YOU
you know there's a difference between that and putting shaped explosives around a sphere of hyper enriched uranium right?
https://bsky.app/profile/nnedi.bsky.social/post/3kmtlizw2qj2l
It’s really what doing art does for the artist that AI can never replace. Might AI cause artists some financial loss? Probably. But it also is a useful tool. I use it to create images that inspire me to create.
NOT to take away art in order for us to have more time to work more jobs.
But, we are living in backwards times.
Ah... to simply go back to the dark ages.
Oh, wait... 🫤
https://traffic.libsyn.com/yinhistory/EP73-Artificial_Intelligence.mp3
https://bsky.app/profile/eidyngray.scot/lists/3lakhj5i4fp2r
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/ai-isnt-killing-artists
For instance, its pretty good at giving reference images for artists to use, as they can generate pretty much anything.
Or to help with photo editing.
we shouldnt disregard tools, just because of idiots who misuse them.
Not art. Art is a waste of time to use ai on. Let the passion of humanity control art.
My spouse uses the ai tools in Photoshop to remove unwanted objects like cars from the background of our shoots. Or remove acne..
‘I don’t support GENERATIVE AI’
Nothing in art is ever required in order to be done. but if used correctly it can help the process.
I don't see how a crappy picture made by a person is somehow better than a dazzling picture made by a machine, just because the crappy one has "passion". 🤷♂️
I'd rather have the one that looks nicer on my wall. JS
This is how they sound, lol.
is what it's doing to those artist's brains
You are not an artist
You are a Search Engine Optimizer with this generations' version of
Kai's Power Goo
But you're going to ruin our home for that cash
Artistic value also stems also from what the viewer brings to the experience.
Clearly its artistic value doesn't stem from technical skill.
It stems from the fact it challenges and subverts the traditional notion of artistic value.
“Effort” and “Passion” are subjective and vague, almost philosophical concepts here
If the answer is not 100%, they are not the same.
Show me person who doesn't use oxygen.
1. You sincerely think data storage and recall works the same way in both neurons and silicon, and a cartoon badger who lives on the internet can't fix that, or
2. You are a bad faith waste of time, and a cartoon badger who lives on the internet can't fix that.
I still couldn't draw flies on a hot day.
I can't even draw butter for lobster.
My stick figures have to join support groups.
(Kind of sad, because every so often I have a brilliant idea for a comic... and can't draw it... lol)
"I never understood how much the human soul went into art until I saw art made without a soul".
You might as well have chatgpt write it for you as well.
Then again, critical thinking isn't exactly a trait gen-AI idiots are known for.
People need to learn that the problem is not the AI itself, its how it was trained and how easy it is to replicate artwork that was trained in.
Ai generated images are trash yes, but AI is not bad.
I don't like replicators very much, especially when they violate the intellectual property of artists.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think AI is the savior of the human race or anything, but using free, open, publicly posted images is not stealing, is it?
Surely it's still considered art, too, yes?
all of them
almost
The people writing the AI code will be replaced by AI writing AI eventually
What will the AI need a leech for when it can write itself?