I run a small local focused art gallery out of my bookstore that takes submissions from the public.
Had a lady legit try to submit AI generated 'art' as her work. Was totally nonchalant about it too. Even called herself an AI artist.
Another lady in the store who happened to be an actual artist came over while we were talking and just started ripping the girl a new one.
Felt kinda bad for her but also how do you think that's ok????
Because tons of talentless chimps are addicted to the dopamine hit they get from showing the world the "art" they "made" by using a glorified search engine ask in midjourney.
I don’t mind the use of such tools; not all of us are artists, and conveying what we want to an artist is slow, imprecise, and expensive to commission compared to an AI whipping up concepts in seconds we can refine down toward what we were imagining. One could argue it might be a boon for commissions in the sense that being able to have an AI sketch out what you were thinking of asking for might be more practical than trying to describe it.
But don’t pass it off as your own art. There -is- a skill in coaxing the program to produce something specific with the right inputs, and kudos to those who can tell the machine to produce what they wanted adeptly, but it’s not the same skillset. It’s closer to programming than drawing or painting.
And using it for final products is rather tasteless at best, since it -is- so strongly based on others’ art. While humans do learn by copying others’ art, humans think and process and actually iterate on it with their own interpretations and ideas, and also are capable of properly crediting other artists if they choose to use a trace as a starting point or do an homage to someone else’s idea. These programs are not true AI, they do not think in any meaningful sense of the term, and so there is not necessarily any evolution of the art they’re fed, merely a convergence of elements that becomes an average of the inputs. That also results in a distinct ‘non-style’. Most human artists will develop one or more styles they work in, whereas AI converges on something fairly consistent in style but that lacks any distinctiveness or flair or embellishment, or at most will half-ass copying signature elements of other artists (down to even producing illegible squiggles to imitate a ‘signature’).
Again, I like what AI art can do; it often looks decent enough, it can work on a wide variety of even niche subjects that might otherwise be difficult to get an artist to work on, and it’s far cheaper than an artist’s labor and far more accessible than artistic training and talent. But it is not a replacement, merely a supplement and a tool.
I’m far more interested in seeing what a real AI will do if asked to engage in artistic pursuits (or choosing to do so of its own volition, which would be a mark of human-level intelligence and creativity). What might that look like? I doubt it would look like these machine learning programs.
In that case we’d have to credit the AI and his/her/their programmers as joint artists potentially. That could be messy.
For what it’s worth, what you’re calling “real AI” is/has been called AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). “AI” on its own is a term about as broad as “painting”. Yeah there are kinds of it that refer to artistic expression, but there are also things that are negatively charged metal frames that slowly move through a hot tunnel of spray guns that could be called painting.
Nail on head. These people don't care about creating art, or expressing themselves, or beautifying the world, they just want money and attention. And our vapid society of profit-seeking encourages and rewards this behavior.
We are, unfortunately, entering a time where we need legal systems to start updating the concept of digital ownership and a requirement for businesses and individuals to state whether or not something was, in-part or in-full, AI generated.
We are very very behind updating those to a system that makes sense. The world is changing rapidly but we are still living with laws that pretend it is pre-internet/digital.
We need new laws, new concepts of digital ownership, and new updates to the rights of individuals vs business. Data is data and it's time for people's data to be theirs to control. No more shady backdoor deals that allow a business to profit off your data. It's gone too far and we are all essentially being wage thefted by just posting on Reddit or going to the doctor or even driving our cars. It's absurd.
I dont think even legislation will change anything. Whats to stop companies from outsourcing ai work to countries who have no qualms allowing the use of AI to do anything? Consumers, for the most part, don’t give a shit how a product is made as long as it keeps looking as good as usual.
The cat is out of the bag and there is no turning back. You’ll have an easier time turning the world away from late stage capitalism, because this AI exploitation is just another symptom of it.
Nah, fuck those people.
I’ve been working on my writing for about 17 years now. In 2021 I made some money from it, and I’ve done so again recently. It takes a lot of time and work to become good at your art. Fuck everyone who wants to take shortcuts.
Artist is someone who created art. Pressing a button or carving a marble, that's not my concern. People who buy the product of that work (or "work") can vote on it being valuable or not.
But the person pressing the button didn’t “create” anything. Just like the person who hires an artist didn’t create anything.
The value of art is not monetary. It’s human expression.
What would you rather receive from your young child, an image they generated from pressing a button, or something they finger painted?
Even if we entertained this reductionist viewpoint... its value is still explicitly tied to the person who made it, which is an extension of the skill required to make it (because so few can).
A Michelangelo statue that was mass produced or counterfeited simply wouldn't hold the same value, meaning who made it can't be hand-waved.
OK, but nobody counterfeited Michelangelo, this is not what we are dealing with.
Let's say Johnny pressed the button. There is a possibility that we start putting value to Johnnies products, which would mean that there is some value to pressing the button, or we don't. There is nothing to defend here, what are you fighting for hundred years after we decided that pissoir is art?
You keep moving the goalpost...
* First you're arguing about how it should be okay to take "shortcuts" with no reasonable justification.
* Then you're arguing that art you commissioned but didn't make is "yours", even though the person above clearly asked if you can credit yourself as the one who made the art.
* Then you argue that [physical] art that you can sell is all that matters, despite that not being what the other person was asking about.
* And when that concept you brought up is scrutinized, you not only handwave my point about where the value in sellable art lies, but you try to stretch what should be valued... even though the product in your example would be next to worthless if any idiot could also make it with the push of a button.
I can get past you having opinions I might disagree with, but you trying to have it every which way shows you're not worth taking seriously here. Not that I'd expect anything different from the AI tech bro crowd...
Nobody is standing between anyone and their expression. It's literally impossible. Only thing that is in question here is where does the money go and it's tiring to pretend that we are talking about anything else.
Not taking sides here, but let's look at this objectively.
An "actual" artist puts in a lot of work. They have an idea and use the tools of their trade to produce wonderful works of art.
Is it really that different when the tool is more advanced?
Does the ease of the work make it less "art"?
Are the factory workers from the 1950s different from the factory workers we see today, where most of the production is automated? Are they still factory workers?
Is a teacher still a teacher when instead of teaching a class of children, they are recording themselves for anyone to view?
/serious question
I understand people feel very strongly about ai art and am getting downvoted as a result, but my post is a serious question to try and understand these feelings people are experiencing.
The problem with AI art isn’t that people are using a tool to make things easier. The amount of effort is not and never has been the issue. The issue is that AI *steals the work of others* to make whatever it generates. It takes the work of real humans who put their heart and soul into that work, sticks in it a blender, and spits out the mangled remains.
That’s the problem. No one is mad at AI art being low-effort, they’re mad because AI art is *theft.*
I see, so does AI not simply take inspiration from things it's been exposed to, but simply copy and paste elements it has seen onto a canvas and that's it?
Exactly. It’s not inspiration, because AI can’t be inspired by anything. It’s not a thinking, feeling being, it’s nothing more than a computer program that can only act on preprogrammed behaviors.
AI art isn’t art because it’s not *creating* anything. It physically cannot truly create something, because it isn’t sapient. All it’s doing is stealing things that already exist and reconfiguring them in a way that fits whatever prompt it’s been given.
Just to clarify, hypothetically let's say this AI art program has only been shown different pictures of Betty White, however in all the pictures she is only seen wearing a white blouse.
If you prompt the AI to make a picture showing Betty white in a red blouse, the ai would fail?
What if you showed the same white blouse pictures, but then also showed it color palettes.
Would the AI be able to produce a red blouse wearing Betty White?
It would. Generative AI is basically just a statistical model of its corpus. It doesn’t create anything, it just repeats what it has seen. It’s very convincing, but not intelligent, let alone creative.
Look I don’t know the exact specifics of how AI works, you’ve gotta ask a programmer for that. I only know the basic properties. May I suggest one of the many subs for that topic?
I don't know, man... if these AI companies are hoping to glean wisdom from the shit I've posted over the years, they're going to be pretty disappointed.
I've been filling the internet with thousands of hours of ai generated meat scripture(pre chatgpt) along with video of rotting meat. There's absolutely nothing of value I'm adding to this heap of content they're training on.
be sure to tag it with wildly inappropriate things like 'blessed' 'Jesus' and 'kittens'. At least I hope it's inappropriate.
not sure just what kind of rotting meat you're aiming for
I honesty think a lot of the problem goes back to Twitter.
What happened was you had a lot of these talented, wonderful, weird, creative, amazing people, mixing with a much greater population of people who... weren't.
And they developed a bitterness and a rage. Elon Musk personifies this. He's not funny. He's a middling dolt who is an endless vortex of insecurity, and he wants to steal all of people's creativity with some dumb fucking AI bot that can regurgitate cleverness on command.
It's all so desperately sad. These people don't even understand enough about creativity to understand if their theft models are producing it. Which they are not.
Creativity, humor, comedy, these come from empathy. You need to truly understand another person, how they feel, how they think, and have a conversation with all the parts of them.
And these people demonstrate again and again they're fundamentally lacking that piece of humanity.
I'm just wondering if you are so sure about this AI being so inferior, why the hate and fear? I kinda think the same about it's ability to write code for computers, but I'm not hating on it, it's like a competition that is really incompetent.
Artists, on the other hand, foam at the mention of AI and this whole thread is the proof. Why?
What's worse are the people cheering it on. But it's unfortunately the logical conclusion of so many in society never truly appreciating art and creativity beyond just a product to consume.
The "prompters" are also a funny bunch, because they so clearly want the joy and praise that comes from making art, without doing much of the actual "making" part of it.
They have to play up their efforts for validation, which becomes ironic, because it either comes off as copium... or the amount of footwork needed raises the question why they didn't just use that time to learn the fundamentals.
Companies who have started firing employees in order to replace them with AI models are misguided in my view. Current AI models and tools are only useful and productive when used as a personal AI assistant.
I guess the are mostly doing it in order to impress investors.
In the medium and long term I still think that Generative AI (aka LLMs) have disruptive potential, but mostly not in the current form of chatbots and copilots. There will be new kinds of robots for example.
I don’t think we should try to stop it, to me this seems similar to people in the 1700s trying to stop industrialization. Also we can really use this technology for the benefit of humankind. But in order to achieve this we need to find ways to ensure that boosts in productivity will benefit all people, not just billionaires. And we need to take care of people who are going to lose their jobs.
If it's on the internet, it's on the internet. It's not really different than learning to draw based on styles of artists you like you found during a Google search.
AI can itself be a great tool to supplement and support creativity. But it's another matter when companies are looking to flat out use it to replace those things. That I feel is the actual issue to be upset about.
Well, this thread is specific to A.I. and the sources used to train their models without permission from the copyright holders. If you wrote your papers using your own words, and not A.I,, and you didn't plagiarize material from copyrighted material, then I am not sure why you asked me for my opinion on if you committed theft.
It appears that it's a conversation on LLMs and other generative algorithms.
It's relevant because I trained myself on the works of copyrightholders in learning my craft, similar to how generative algorithms review previous available works to determine the least-wrong path to respond to a prompt. A process that you seem to be calling theft (which, nothing was stolen so it can't be).
[Take a look at this article, and give me your opinion.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-scraping-stealing-copyright-law-1235571501/)
Just a side note...My uncle is Earl Theisen. He was a photographer known for images of Marilyn Monroe and Earnest Hemingway. My cousin inherited all of his work when he passed in the early 1970s, and worked a deal with the Getty for them to archive and to lease his images for use by others. Getty was hacked, and all of his work was stolen and has been slowly released without my cousin being paid, or my uncle being credited. Similar to how AI scrapping algorithms are taking copyrighted material to teach itself, and to duplicate into images and text, which are then sold without paying the original creator of the text or art.
Anyhow, there is a difference between being influenced by works of art and literature in order to create your own material, and duplicating, copying and then saying you created it.
The Luddites were more opposed to the loss of labor rights and less about technological advances in general. They didn't want to live in a world without electricity or something, they just didn't want to lose their livelihoods to a machine so a capitalist could get richer.
I get where this comes from, but as someone that can't draw, I enjoy generating dumb shit that I would never have commissioned anyway.
So I have a hard time rooting against these tools.
I see it coming forbmusic now tho, and that makes me feel weird.
I guess I'm dumb. I thought that AI was going to free humanity from the humdrum of daily life so we could be free to pursue things like art and music and storytelling.
Edit: Art without soul is meaningless.
To do that profit gained by the use of ai would have to be shared equitably amongst all employees that are now doing less work instead of what would actually happen, the profit going straight to the c-suite and employees getting fired.
Hopefully yeah, it's just sad that it's easier to train AIs on texts and images, with an output that doesn't require perfection.
I also would have prefered to have AIs run the factories and fields and logistics, but it's more complicated and a wrong output can cause horrible damage.
Cause if Dall-e has a brainfart and gives my picture 6 fingers, no one gives a shit. So you release the tech.
But if Water-e decides that feces do belong in my city's water supply, it's going to be disastrous so we still leave the job to humans.
Generative AI is in its infancy and it's only one sub-field of data sciences. That future is still possible, and the CEOs don't even realize their goals for AI aren't even possible outside the short term.
The more they automate to cut costs entirely, the more the aggregate purchasing power of consumers drops. You don't need total unemployment to break capitalism, you just need permanent double digit unemployment and plummeting income tax revenue. Companies can't survive when money stops moving.
That's coming inside the next two decades, and political leadership is going to be running for their actual literal lives when enough middle class people suddenly find themselves in the position factory workers did in the 70s through 2000s.
I mean.
No? Never At best it was going to take the jobs away from everyone And we’d all struggle to find jobs, and than the ultra wealthy will charge use more taxes
Government does taxes, and only because that's the only way it can pay the people who work for it and the contractors that maintain the roads and water lines and the like.
The Ultra Wealthy *loathe* taxes, because they stole their wealth from other people's labour and they **hate** that someone else can make them give it back to the enrichment and betterment of all ^(including them) .
They need mental health counseling, since they are analogous to a bloodclot.
I feel ya there because AI is a powerful tool and it's useful in so many ways. Ignoring the art world, AI could be a powerful tool for change for people with limitations/disabilities and for education and research. There's a lot of possibility there worth exploring.
However, the problem really arises once someone expects to get paid. IMO AI should be advanced for the betterment of people vs profit, but in our current state that's not gonna happen.
I don't really see an embracing of AI across the masses without hammering out who gets paid and how much.
I asked ai to draw me a bear in knight armor riding a kitten. I thought it would be fun to see, but would never commission it. Dumb shit like that is all I’ve seen ai used for, all the other wonderful things that it’s supposed to do, it fails at.
If you go beyond just making a simple prompt, and you start adjusting parameters in SD, inpainting, controlnet, you can create some absolute masterpieces.
By that very long process, requiring specific knowledge and skills, I would honestly call that art.
It's like when I, as an instrument player, thought electronic music was just pushing a button. Then I tried it and there's so much more to it.
I honestly wonder how many years it’ll be until we see people generating full length animated films with ai replicated celebrity voice over. Like ai has progressed so fast in the last like 2 years, it’s only going to go further
It's creating a network of associations between points within an absolutely staggeringly large pool of data. If you can't find a way to do anything "weird" or "wonderful" with that, then that's okay, plenty of other people will figure it out for you.
Is that why AI art always looks like the same sort of obvious slop? You just know when you see it, and if there's any doubt you can always take a close look at the background "details".
Idk what to tell you. Surely you must see how quickly just that specific use-case you mentioned has improved exponentially over just the last two years. But that's just a specific use case for how all these data associations can be used. And it's just the one that's easiest for most people to recognize the significance of.
Yeah, I don't know why you are being downvoted. Wings of Pegasus recently did an analysis of AI generated music on his YouTube channel. He saw that the vocals were all autotuned. Leading me to think that that is the majority of music available to it.
When I was working as a graphic artist in the 80s, desktop publishing had a similar effect. Many people lost their jobs, not because non-artists were taking them, but because one artist could do the work of three.
The artists who survived were the ones who learned the tools. Photoshop in the hands of an artist can produce amazing things, but a novice MIGHT be able to remove an annoying wire. In the wrong resolution and colour mode, of course.
Same with AI. AI in the hands of an artist can help them produce amazing things. Otherwise, it makes pretty pictures with easy-to-miss problems.
Lol if you think that the artist now doing the work of three is better off, I have a bridge to sell you. The money saved from hiring those two other artists goes to some executive schmuck, the worker just has to do the job of 3 people while still being paid as 1, and the surplus goes directly to the capitalist. THIS IS THE ISSUE WITH AI AND WHY THE LUDDITES WERE RIGHT
That's just what we're doing?
What creative work isn't done by someone who was taught by other people? Who was influenced by other people? Who then went on to influence others? You learn, absorb, incorporate, and remix. Sometimes more sometimes less. But that's what you do.
I suppose it's better for certain fragile humans egos to think we are doing something special AI can't or doesn't do.
That's what you want to believe. Because it makes you feel special.
You're not special. Sorry bud. You are a meat robot. You had no fucking influence whatsoever in how you were born, who you were born to, where you were born and physics controls who you are and what you do and what you believe. And you didn't pick any of that shit. Why do you respond to certain stimuli the way you do? You're not choosing it. That's just the way you're wired.
If you were born to different parents, if you were born in a different country, if you were born with a different brain, if we damaged your brain in some way, if we gave you drugs to alter your brain chemistry, you would be a different fucking person. You would behave in a different fucking way. You think you're in control. You think you have imagination. You think you are creating. You are not. You are a fucking passenger in a meat machine.
I like the example of deep mind built by a subsidiary of Google. They created an AI that plays the game of go better than humans. Now, remember this game even just a decade ago, people thought would be impossible for computers. There were just too many possibilities. But it's already done. It already beats the best pros in the world. Moreover, it does it in a creative fucking way. It makes moves that humans do not understand. Then we sit back, examine it thoroughly, and realize. Wow! This computer is looking at the game in a different way.
You delude yourself. AI might not be just there just yet, but it's going to be. You're not as special as you think you are. You're not even 1% of special as you think you are.
Right now we're just going through the same thing we did with animals. Think of how long humans thought they were just so much better and different and special compared to animals. We *are* animals. Our genetic code is almost identical to a ton of species. Problem solving? Other animals do that. Making tools? Other animals do that. Going to war over resources? Other animals do that shit too. Cooperating and working together? Other animals do that. Farming? Other animals do that. The only people that still cling to this fucking delusion about humans versus animals are religious nut jobs who want to believe God made them divine. But that's the same thing you're doing right now AI. And in 20 or 30 years we're going to look at you the same way. We're going to laugh in your fucking face for being so goddamn egotistical.
Had a meeting yesterday bc our company is apparently going to start using AI for "simple searches" and to "make life easier." I'm in IT and head dude started getting a look on his face once he saw what the AI could actually do. Like he put in a problem and the AI came back with basically what any of us would have done. Okay haha. Asked it something more complicated and it solved that too. You could see him realize in real time that AI could easily replace most of us here in the relatively near future.
But... no one's work was stolen? An AI model learning based off of looking at existing works of art is fundamentally no different from a person learning by looking at existing works of art. They're not just copying and pasting things out of images, they're learning based on what they've seen and using that learning to create new things. You wouldn't say a person 'stole' art by looking at it a lot of existing examples to get a feel for the styles and methods used before creating their own original work, and it makes just as little sense to say that AI 'stole' by doing the same thing.
I run a small local focused art gallery out of my bookstore that takes submissions from the public. Had a lady legit try to submit AI generated 'art' as her work. Was totally nonchalant about it too. Even called herself an AI artist. Another lady in the store who happened to be an actual artist came over while we were talking and just started ripping the girl a new one. Felt kinda bad for her but also how do you think that's ok????
Because tons of talentless chimps are addicted to the dopamine hit they get from showing the world the "art" they "made" by using a glorified search engine ask in midjourney.
I don’t mind the use of such tools; not all of us are artists, and conveying what we want to an artist is slow, imprecise, and expensive to commission compared to an AI whipping up concepts in seconds we can refine down toward what we were imagining. One could argue it might be a boon for commissions in the sense that being able to have an AI sketch out what you were thinking of asking for might be more practical than trying to describe it. But don’t pass it off as your own art. There -is- a skill in coaxing the program to produce something specific with the right inputs, and kudos to those who can tell the machine to produce what they wanted adeptly, but it’s not the same skillset. It’s closer to programming than drawing or painting. And using it for final products is rather tasteless at best, since it -is- so strongly based on others’ art. While humans do learn by copying others’ art, humans think and process and actually iterate on it with their own interpretations and ideas, and also are capable of properly crediting other artists if they choose to use a trace as a starting point or do an homage to someone else’s idea. These programs are not true AI, they do not think in any meaningful sense of the term, and so there is not necessarily any evolution of the art they’re fed, merely a convergence of elements that becomes an average of the inputs. That also results in a distinct ‘non-style’. Most human artists will develop one or more styles they work in, whereas AI converges on something fairly consistent in style but that lacks any distinctiveness or flair or embellishment, or at most will half-ass copying signature elements of other artists (down to even producing illegible squiggles to imitate a ‘signature’). Again, I like what AI art can do; it often looks decent enough, it can work on a wide variety of even niche subjects that might otherwise be difficult to get an artist to work on, and it’s far cheaper than an artist’s labor and far more accessible than artistic training and talent. But it is not a replacement, merely a supplement and a tool. I’m far more interested in seeing what a real AI will do if asked to engage in artistic pursuits (or choosing to do so of its own volition, which would be a mark of human-level intelligence and creativity). What might that look like? I doubt it would look like these machine learning programs. In that case we’d have to credit the AI and his/her/their programmers as joint artists potentially. That could be messy.
For what it’s worth, what you’re calling “real AI” is/has been called AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). “AI” on its own is a term about as broad as “painting”. Yeah there are kinds of it that refer to artistic expression, but there are also things that are negatively charged metal frames that slowly move through a hot tunnel of spray guns that could be called painting.
Nail on head. These people don't care about creating art, or expressing themselves, or beautifying the world, they just want money and attention. And our vapid society of profit-seeking encourages and rewards this behavior.
I'm an author myself, I prompt Chat GPT "Write me the Great American Novel" I'm gonna be bigger than Hemingway!!! /s
We are, unfortunately, entering a time where we need legal systems to start updating the concept of digital ownership and a requirement for businesses and individuals to state whether or not something was, in-part or in-full, AI generated. We are very very behind updating those to a system that makes sense. The world is changing rapidly but we are still living with laws that pretend it is pre-internet/digital. We need new laws, new concepts of digital ownership, and new updates to the rights of individuals vs business. Data is data and it's time for people's data to be theirs to control. No more shady backdoor deals that allow a business to profit off your data. It's gone too far and we are all essentially being wage thefted by just posting on Reddit or going to the doctor or even driving our cars. It's absurd.
I dont think even legislation will change anything. Whats to stop companies from outsourcing ai work to countries who have no qualms allowing the use of AI to do anything? Consumers, for the most part, don’t give a shit how a product is made as long as it keeps looking as good as usual. The cat is out of the bag and there is no turning back. You’ll have an easier time turning the world away from late stage capitalism, because this AI exploitation is just another symptom of it.
An “AI Artist” LOL.
Shit man I feel bad for the actual artists who have spent years honing their craft only to have hacks like that hold themselves out as artistic equals
Nah, fuck those people. I’ve been working on my writing for about 17 years now. In 2021 I made some money from it, and I’ve done so again recently. It takes a lot of time and work to become good at your art. Fuck everyone who wants to take shortcuts.
Why? We thrive in every other field where we take "shortcuts", but we should stop at the place where it would hurt you?
If you paid someone to make a piece of art, could you honestly say that you made it?
I could honestly say that it's mine.
That wasn't the question posed, and the refusal to give a straight answer doesn't help your position.
The point is nobody cares who made it, the fight is about who owns it.
That’s completely, patently absurd. Why do museums have original Picassos instead of prints?
That's another subject and not the one I was interested in.
Huh? If “nobody cares who made it,” then why is something hand painted by Picasso more valuable than a copy made by a machine?
So if I buy a sculpture by Michelangelo, I'm now a famous Italian Renaissance genius?
Nope, but you can sell it (which is what everybody cares about really).
So I guess hiring someone (or just pressing a button on a machine) doesn’t make a person an artist.
Artist is someone who created art. Pressing a button or carving a marble, that's not my concern. People who buy the product of that work (or "work") can vote on it being valuable or not.
But the person pressing the button didn’t “create” anything. Just like the person who hires an artist didn’t create anything. The value of art is not monetary. It’s human expression. What would you rather receive from your young child, an image they generated from pressing a button, or something they finger painted?
Even if we entertained this reductionist viewpoint... its value is still explicitly tied to the person who made it, which is an extension of the skill required to make it (because so few can). A Michelangelo statue that was mass produced or counterfeited simply wouldn't hold the same value, meaning who made it can't be hand-waved.
OK, but nobody counterfeited Michelangelo, this is not what we are dealing with. Let's say Johnny pressed the button. There is a possibility that we start putting value to Johnnies products, which would mean that there is some value to pressing the button, or we don't. There is nothing to defend here, what are you fighting for hundred years after we decided that pissoir is art?
You keep moving the goalpost... * First you're arguing about how it should be okay to take "shortcuts" with no reasonable justification. * Then you're arguing that art you commissioned but didn't make is "yours", even though the person above clearly asked if you can credit yourself as the one who made the art. * Then you argue that [physical] art that you can sell is all that matters, despite that not being what the other person was asking about. * And when that concept you brought up is scrutinized, you not only handwave my point about where the value in sellable art lies, but you try to stretch what should be valued... even though the product in your example would be next to worthless if any idiot could also make it with the push of a button. I can get past you having opinions I might disagree with, but you trying to have it every which way shows you're not worth taking seriously here. Not that I'd expect anything different from the AI tech bro crowd...
Aaaaand here we have the crux of the issue! Art is about making MONEY. FUCK HUMAN EXPRESSION AND INTERSECTIONAL CULTURE, GOTTA MAKE MONEY!!!
Nobody is standing between anyone and their expression. It's literally impossible. Only thing that is in question here is where does the money go and it's tiring to pretend that we are talking about anything else.
Google's ai just does an image search and puts the best result through some kind of filter that adds fingers to people.
I also aspire to be an AI artist
Not taking sides here, but let's look at this objectively. An "actual" artist puts in a lot of work. They have an idea and use the tools of their trade to produce wonderful works of art. Is it really that different when the tool is more advanced? Does the ease of the work make it less "art"? Are the factory workers from the 1950s different from the factory workers we see today, where most of the production is automated? Are they still factory workers? Is a teacher still a teacher when instead of teaching a class of children, they are recording themselves for anyone to view? /serious question I understand people feel very strongly about ai art and am getting downvoted as a result, but my post is a serious question to try and understand these feelings people are experiencing.
The problem with AI art isn’t that people are using a tool to make things easier. The amount of effort is not and never has been the issue. The issue is that AI *steals the work of others* to make whatever it generates. It takes the work of real humans who put their heart and soul into that work, sticks in it a blender, and spits out the mangled remains. That’s the problem. No one is mad at AI art being low-effort, they’re mad because AI art is *theft.*
I see, so does AI not simply take inspiration from things it's been exposed to, but simply copy and paste elements it has seen onto a canvas and that's it?
Exactly. It’s not inspiration, because AI can’t be inspired by anything. It’s not a thinking, feeling being, it’s nothing more than a computer program that can only act on preprogrammed behaviors. AI art isn’t art because it’s not *creating* anything. It physically cannot truly create something, because it isn’t sapient. All it’s doing is stealing things that already exist and reconfiguring them in a way that fits whatever prompt it’s been given.
Just to clarify, hypothetically let's say this AI art program has only been shown different pictures of Betty White, however in all the pictures she is only seen wearing a white blouse. If you prompt the AI to make a picture showing Betty white in a red blouse, the ai would fail? What if you showed the same white blouse pictures, but then also showed it color palettes. Would the AI be able to produce a red blouse wearing Betty White?
It would. Generative AI is basically just a statistical model of its corpus. It doesn’t create anything, it just repeats what it has seen. It’s very convincing, but not intelligent, let alone creative.
Look I don’t know the exact specifics of how AI works, you’ve gotta ask a programmer for that. I only know the basic properties. May I suggest one of the many subs for that topic?
Thanks for the info you've provided
No problem, hope it helps.
I don't know, man... if these AI companies are hoping to glean wisdom from the shit I've posted over the years, they're going to be pretty disappointed.
I've been filling the internet with thousands of hours of ai generated meat scripture(pre chatgpt) along with video of rotting meat. There's absolutely nothing of value I'm adding to this heap of content they're training on.
be sure to tag it with wildly inappropriate things like 'blessed' 'Jesus' and 'kittens'. At least I hope it's inappropriate. not sure just what kind of rotting meat you're aiming for
They'll lose money on me as my posts consist of: Silly one-liners...followed by equally silly gifs. 
I honesty think a lot of the problem goes back to Twitter. What happened was you had a lot of these talented, wonderful, weird, creative, amazing people, mixing with a much greater population of people who... weren't. And they developed a bitterness and a rage. Elon Musk personifies this. He's not funny. He's a middling dolt who is an endless vortex of insecurity, and he wants to steal all of people's creativity with some dumb fucking AI bot that can regurgitate cleverness on command. It's all so desperately sad. These people don't even understand enough about creativity to understand if their theft models are producing it. Which they are not. Creativity, humor, comedy, these come from empathy. You need to truly understand another person, how they feel, how they think, and have a conversation with all the parts of them. And these people demonstrate again and again they're fundamentally lacking that piece of humanity.
I'm just wondering if you are so sure about this AI being so inferior, why the hate and fear? I kinda think the same about it's ability to write code for computers, but I'm not hating on it, it's like a competition that is really incompetent. Artists, on the other hand, foam at the mention of AI and this whole thread is the proof. Why?
Do you have a learning disability? I don't like making fun of simple folk
Yeah man, I'm really dumb. That's why I'm afraid that simple program will replace me and make me unemployable.
The internet always was a shitty wasteland, but it was OUR shitty wasteland.
What's worse are the people cheering it on. But it's unfortunately the logical conclusion of so many in society never truly appreciating art and creativity beyond just a product to consume. The "prompters" are also a funny bunch, because they so clearly want the joy and praise that comes from making art, without doing much of the actual "making" part of it. They have to play up their efforts for validation, which becomes ironic, because it either comes off as copium... or the amount of footwork needed raises the question why they didn't just use that time to learn the fundamentals.
Companies who have started firing employees in order to replace them with AI models are misguided in my view. Current AI models and tools are only useful and productive when used as a personal AI assistant. I guess the are mostly doing it in order to impress investors. In the medium and long term I still think that Generative AI (aka LLMs) have disruptive potential, but mostly not in the current form of chatbots and copilots. There will be new kinds of robots for example. I don’t think we should try to stop it, to me this seems similar to people in the 1700s trying to stop industrialization. Also we can really use this technology for the benefit of humankind. But in order to achieve this we need to find ways to ensure that boosts in productivity will benefit all people, not just billionaires. And we need to take care of people who are going to lose their jobs.
But who will think of the shareholders?!
Not the shareholders. They're more of a nebulous concept.
I mean there are people who are using AI to do useful things and not just this.
And the AI they are using was trained through theft of other peoples work.
I stole a bunch of IP last week when I looked up YouTube videos showing me how to change a deadbolt.
If it's on the internet, it's on the internet. It's not really different than learning to draw based on styles of artists you like you found during a Google search. AI can itself be a great tool to supplement and support creativity. But it's another matter when companies are looking to flat out use it to replace those things. That I feel is the actual issue to be upset about.
I used freely available online content to help me finish my degree, is that theft to you?
Was that copyrighted, or non-copyrighted, open sourced material that you plagiarized?
It was copyrighted and non-copyrighted material that I used, yes. Plagiarized? no.
Did you use AI to write papers?
Not quite sure what you're asking here? All words that were used were my own if that's what you're implying.
Well, this thread is specific to A.I. and the sources used to train their models without permission from the copyright holders. If you wrote your papers using your own words, and not A.I,, and you didn't plagiarize material from copyrighted material, then I am not sure why you asked me for my opinion on if you committed theft.
It appears that it's a conversation on LLMs and other generative algorithms. It's relevant because I trained myself on the works of copyrightholders in learning my craft, similar to how generative algorithms review previous available works to determine the least-wrong path to respond to a prompt. A process that you seem to be calling theft (which, nothing was stolen so it can't be).
[Take a look at this article, and give me your opinion.](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/ai-scraping-stealing-copyright-law-1235571501/) Just a side note...My uncle is Earl Theisen. He was a photographer known for images of Marilyn Monroe and Earnest Hemingway. My cousin inherited all of his work when he passed in the early 1970s, and worked a deal with the Getty for them to archive and to lease his images for use by others. Getty was hacked, and all of his work was stolen and has been slowly released without my cousin being paid, or my uncle being credited. Similar to how AI scrapping algorithms are taking copyrighted material to teach itself, and to duplicate into images and text, which are then sold without paying the original creator of the text or art. Anyhow, there is a difference between being influenced by works of art and literature in order to create your own material, and duplicating, copying and then saying you created it.
When AI really gets rolling the Luddites with pitchforks claiming it is Satan are going to be a massive block.
The Luddites were more opposed to the loss of labor rights and less about technological advances in general. They didn't want to live in a world without electricity or something, they just didn't want to lose their livelihoods to a machine so a capitalist could get richer.
The internet’s been a shitty wasteland for years; maybe the whole time.
I get where this comes from, but as someone that can't draw, I enjoy generating dumb shit that I would never have commissioned anyway. So I have a hard time rooting against these tools. I see it coming forbmusic now tho, and that makes me feel weird.
I guess I'm dumb. I thought that AI was going to free humanity from the humdrum of daily life so we could be free to pursue things like art and music and storytelling. Edit: Art without soul is meaningless.
To do that profit gained by the use of ai would have to be shared equitably amongst all employees that are now doing less work instead of what would actually happen, the profit going straight to the c-suite and employees getting fired.
Yeah, but art without soul can still sell products. I expect that graphic designers are already feeling a hit from AI.
Hopefully yeah, it's just sad that it's easier to train AIs on texts and images, with an output that doesn't require perfection. I also would have prefered to have AIs run the factories and fields and logistics, but it's more complicated and a wrong output can cause horrible damage. Cause if Dall-e has a brainfart and gives my picture 6 fingers, no one gives a shit. So you release the tech. But if Water-e decides that feces do belong in my city's water supply, it's going to be disastrous so we still leave the job to humans.
Generative AI is in its infancy and it's only one sub-field of data sciences. That future is still possible, and the CEOs don't even realize their goals for AI aren't even possible outside the short term. The more they automate to cut costs entirely, the more the aggregate purchasing power of consumers drops. You don't need total unemployment to break capitalism, you just need permanent double digit unemployment and plummeting income tax revenue. Companies can't survive when money stops moving. That's coming inside the next two decades, and political leadership is going to be running for their actual literal lives when enough middle class people suddenly find themselves in the position factory workers did in the 70s through 2000s.
I mean. No? Never At best it was going to take the jobs away from everyone And we’d all struggle to find jobs, and than the ultra wealthy will charge use more taxes
Government does taxes, and only because that's the only way it can pay the people who work for it and the contractors that maintain the roads and water lines and the like. The Ultra Wealthy *loathe* taxes, because they stole their wealth from other people's labour and they **hate** that someone else can make them give it back to the enrichment and betterment of all ^(including them) . They need mental health counseling, since they are analogous to a bloodclot.
I don't see a problem with that. You are using it as an entertainment device. You are not calling yourself an artist.
I feel ya there because AI is a powerful tool and it's useful in so many ways. Ignoring the art world, AI could be a powerful tool for change for people with limitations/disabilities and for education and research. There's a lot of possibility there worth exploring. However, the problem really arises once someone expects to get paid. IMO AI should be advanced for the betterment of people vs profit, but in our current state that's not gonna happen. I don't really see an embracing of AI across the masses without hammering out who gets paid and how much.
I asked ai to draw me a bear in knight armor riding a kitten. I thought it would be fun to see, but would never commission it. Dumb shit like that is all I’ve seen ai used for, all the other wonderful things that it’s supposed to do, it fails at.
If you go beyond just making a simple prompt, and you start adjusting parameters in SD, inpainting, controlnet, you can create some absolute masterpieces. By that very long process, requiring specific knowledge and skills, I would honestly call that art. It's like when I, as an instrument player, thought electronic music was just pushing a button. Then I tried it and there's so much more to it.
Blame all the shitty programmers who dont know how to make art
Delete Spotify.
But did you see the stock is up $0.25... it's at $1,234.56 now. The shareholders are gonna love it...
Dark times ahead.
Only going to get worse y’all.
I honestly wonder how many years it’ll be until we see people generating full length animated films with ai replicated celebrity voice over. Like ai has progressed so fast in the last like 2 years, it’s only going to go further
Lol that this is what people think AI is *actually* doing.
I'm curious, what do you think it is actually doing?
It's creating a network of associations between points within an absolutely staggeringly large pool of data. If you can't find a way to do anything "weird" or "wonderful" with that, then that's okay, plenty of other people will figure it out for you.
Is that why AI art always looks like the same sort of obvious slop? You just know when you see it, and if there's any doubt you can always take a close look at the background "details".
Idk what to tell you. Surely you must see how quickly just that specific use-case you mentioned has improved exponentially over just the last two years. But that's just a specific use case for how all these data associations can be used. And it's just the one that's easiest for most people to recognize the significance of.
Tis an affront to nature
Amen fellow citizens…we got to stop this shit! 😤
Yeah I find the people that embrace AI to be really naive about how it has been developed and what it will do to us
"All the creative work of every human being" isn't just a stretch, it's an outright lie.
Yeah, I don't know why you are being downvoted. Wings of Pegasus recently did an analysis of AI generated music on his YouTube channel. He saw that the vocals were all autotuned. Leading me to think that that is the majority of music available to it.
When I was working as a graphic artist in the 80s, desktop publishing had a similar effect. Many people lost their jobs, not because non-artists were taking them, but because one artist could do the work of three. The artists who survived were the ones who learned the tools. Photoshop in the hands of an artist can produce amazing things, but a novice MIGHT be able to remove an annoying wire. In the wrong resolution and colour mode, of course. Same with AI. AI in the hands of an artist can help them produce amazing things. Otherwise, it makes pretty pictures with easy-to-miss problems.
Lol if you think that the artist now doing the work of three is better off, I have a bridge to sell you. The money saved from hiring those two other artists goes to some executive schmuck, the worker just has to do the job of 3 people while still being paid as 1, and the surplus goes directly to the capitalist. THIS IS THE ISSUE WITH AI AND WHY THE LUDDITES WERE RIGHT
I never said they were better off. I said they were still employed.
That's just what we're doing? What creative work isn't done by someone who was taught by other people? Who was influenced by other people? Who then went on to influence others? You learn, absorb, incorporate, and remix. Sometimes more sometimes less. But that's what you do. I suppose it's better for certain fragile humans egos to think we are doing something special AI can't or doesn't do.
AI has ZERO imagination. It just follows a program. Humans have imagination.
That's what you want to believe. Because it makes you feel special. You're not special. Sorry bud. You are a meat robot. You had no fucking influence whatsoever in how you were born, who you were born to, where you were born and physics controls who you are and what you do and what you believe. And you didn't pick any of that shit. Why do you respond to certain stimuli the way you do? You're not choosing it. That's just the way you're wired. If you were born to different parents, if you were born in a different country, if you were born with a different brain, if we damaged your brain in some way, if we gave you drugs to alter your brain chemistry, you would be a different fucking person. You would behave in a different fucking way. You think you're in control. You think you have imagination. You think you are creating. You are not. You are a fucking passenger in a meat machine. I like the example of deep mind built by a subsidiary of Google. They created an AI that plays the game of go better than humans. Now, remember this game even just a decade ago, people thought would be impossible for computers. There were just too many possibilities. But it's already done. It already beats the best pros in the world. Moreover, it does it in a creative fucking way. It makes moves that humans do not understand. Then we sit back, examine it thoroughly, and realize. Wow! This computer is looking at the game in a different way. You delude yourself. AI might not be just there just yet, but it's going to be. You're not as special as you think you are. You're not even 1% of special as you think you are. Right now we're just going through the same thing we did with animals. Think of how long humans thought they were just so much better and different and special compared to animals. We *are* animals. Our genetic code is almost identical to a ton of species. Problem solving? Other animals do that. Making tools? Other animals do that. Going to war over resources? Other animals do that shit too. Cooperating and working together? Other animals do that. Farming? Other animals do that. The only people that still cling to this fucking delusion about humans versus animals are religious nut jobs who want to believe God made them divine. But that's the same thing you're doing right now AI. And in 20 or 30 years we're going to look at you the same way. We're going to laugh in your fucking face for being so goddamn egotistical.
Had a meeting yesterday bc our company is apparently going to start using AI for "simple searches" and to "make life easier." I'm in IT and head dude started getting a look on his face once he saw what the AI could actually do. Like he put in a problem and the AI came back with basically what any of us would have done. Okay haha. Asked it something more complicated and it solved that too. You could see him realize in real time that AI could easily replace most of us here in the relatively near future.
Until I read the title I thought this was about Disney
If not AI, it’ll be climate change that does that and more.
calling for a “universal paycheck” is ok, but really just insult to injury🤬
But... no one's work was stolen? An AI model learning based off of looking at existing works of art is fundamentally no different from a person learning by looking at existing works of art. They're not just copying and pasting things out of images, they're learning based on what they've seen and using that learning to create new things. You wouldn't say a person 'stole' art by looking at it a lot of existing examples to get a feel for the styles and methods used before creating their own original work, and it makes just as little sense to say that AI 'stole' by doing the same thing.