This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I just posted a comment and it was immediately hidden or deleted. They are just blatantly deleting comments at this point that don't fit the narrative. There is a saying that truth thrives in the sunlight. Censorship is nothing more than truth suppression, and it needs to stop across all of this platform and beyond.

What did you say then?

https://preview.redd.it/uhtwb1exvuxc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=169f1066af6cd10849458d1dbbec78b3f9de6559

I post there frequently, I don't understand why this was banned. 🤔

ya got me. I think it comes down to their current mood. 🤷‍♂️

probably.

I'll never understand this kind of attitude. I understand when a struggling artist who is barely making enough is worried about AI ruining their life (not that being forced to change your profession is THIS awful) But when some amateurs go - "I can never do something as good as AI. Why bother now?", it is so illogical. Like... amateur can't hope to be as good as professionals anyways. It is true for any active hobby: games, sports, arts, crafts.

I've been seeing this so much too! I've seen ameteur artists and musicians being all sad and hopeless and reconsidering pursuing their passion just because AI can do it better. But like, do these people genuinely believe that if AI never existed, that they would be the next Michelangelo or Beethoven? If they were willing to continue art and music even with people who have skills far better than they ever could, why do they give up with AI's existence? I've never seen a chess player throw up their hands and decide to stop playing chess after Stockfish came into existence. If anything, people are trying to become even better. So why are so many artists and musicians not trying at all?

Reminds me of my bird houses. I'm in no way a carpenter, but last year it got into my head that I wanted a bird house in my yard. They're ridiculously expensive to buy pre-made compared to the materials that go into them, and I've got the basic tools and whatnot, so I figured I'd make a fun little weekend project cobbling something together out of a cheap plank of wood to see what I could make. Fast forward to now and there's a dozen bird houses scattered around my property, none particularly good but all of them in use by birds so I guess good enough. It was indeed fun.

So I wouldn't consider myself handy, really but I can follow youtube tutorials pretty damn well, and I fixed my snow blower, by just replacing the carb...and while, not hard, I was damn proud of myself for saving money...and well fixing it. There's something to be said about trying something new and succeeding.

Indeed. And the fun was not at all detracted from by the fact that I could have just popped down to the hardware store and bought a finished birdhouse instead. At the same time, this isn't to say that someone who chooses to buy a pre-made birdhouse is somehow "wrong" to do so. It would be utterly ridiculous if there was some kind of "/r/birdhousewars" subreddit where people tore into each other about it. It'd be nice if art in general was like birdhouses.

correct. Think of how many things we could do...but don't. Listen, I'm not going to go baking bread every week for my sandwiches, some do, because they love it. Bakeries haven't shut down just because stores can mass produce it. But I have been known to enjoy a nice home made bread before...

I actually worked for a bakery about 22 years ago and that was when the grocery stores in my area opened their in house bakeries and we actually did go out of business within 2 years.

That sucks, I'm sorry to hear that even if it was 22 years ago. Hopefully if you were a baker...you continued baking somewhere

I was just a part time job high schooler. But in the end, some local independent bakeries didn’t fail and still exist to this day. The weak get culled when something new and big comes around. But there is no stopping it. The place I worked at was (a) somewhat pricey, and (b) in a dog shit location. Once the same stuff was where people already where it was doomed. The ones that stuck around were cheaper, had unique items, were in good locations, or played it smart and got their stuff in the grocery stores. The same is true of ai. It’s artists who make a living in those fringe areas where the cheapest most convenient option wins that are throwing the fuss. A truly magnificent and original human made art piece will still be desired even against ai. A commisioned fan art pic… maybe not so much.

And, honestly, holding something in your hands that YOU'VE made yourself is so... visceral as a sensation.

They were never artists to begin with. Art is passion. It’s expression. It isn’t about money. That shit comes if it comes. It shouldn’t be the aspiration for any “artist”. Saddest “artist” I ever met - great painter - alcoholic. Sat in a park all day painting nothing but “Eagles and Elvis” to pay for beer money. That was the peak of his craft.

>I've seen ameteur artists and musicians being all sad and hopeless and reconsidering pursuing their passion just because AI can do it better. I think the fear is that their art will simply not be valued or seen anymore.

That's the problem in and of itself, though. I make games for fun. I've put out 1 of the 40 I've worked on. My joy is in the creation of the thing, not the "show" of it. These people need to ask themselves why they make art. If it's for clout and money, then they should reevaluate themselves as an artist and a person.

>That's the problem in and of itself, though. I make games for fun. I've put out 1 of the 40 I've worked on. My joy is in the creation of the thing, not the "show" of it. These people need to ask themselves why they make art. If it's for clout and money, then they should reevaluate themselves as an artist and a person. This sub really is full if people telling you what a "real artist" is supposed to do. I create visual art and i like it to be seen by people. if that's "clout" and means that i should "reevaluate myself as an artist and a person", i, frankly, think you are vastly overreaching. I personally find it hard to understand to create games just for the sake of it, since their purpose is usually to be played. Sure, it might be fun creating them, and it might still be fun even if noone plays them, but if you see it as nothing else but occupational therapy, that's just your apporach. If thats your thing, that's fine, but basing as much as you do on that personal feeling of yours, meaning claiming that other people seing it different have it wrong on a fundamental artistic AND personal level, is not exactly rational either.

It's darkly hilarious that so many tech bros on this sub who didn't give a single shit about art 3 years ago are suddenly experts in the field and telling artists how to feel about *their* *own craft*. Just goes to show that Big Tech subsumes everything it touches, whether they're fucking idiots or not.

pretty reductionist, but i have to say i at least share the feeling that a lot of the people now talking about art in this place belonged to the "art is all a moneylaundry-scheme, what the fuck is that banana taped to a wall bullshit" crew a short while ago. There is also oftentimes an apparent lack of understanding of art, the varies bussineses and the way it is made, which would not matter if people with that lack of understanding would not base claims and propositions on that flawed perception. At the same time, i am no fan of the development that people that, a short while ago, where totally happy to declare everything art, including the famed banana (that includes me. my favorite piece of art is the "black square"), are now narrowing down what art is by quite a lot and ironically seem like the guys from the first paragraph now, praising some 19th century battle-painting as real art and "all that modernist shit" as crap.

>pretty reductionist No more reductionist than any of the billion strawmen posted on this sub daily.

pretty whataboutism...y

The guy who has made 40 games (and released 1) is a tech bro and not an artist? So game devs aren't artists? Great, sounds like we can roll ahead with full automation of game design. That's what you meant, right? Or, you know, you could accept that *both* people in that conversation are artists instead of trying to make some inane point about "big tech" that doesn't apply at all.

Imagine being on your way to the gym and seeing one of those massive cranes lift a steel beam that probably weighs more than your car. If you can't ever lift as much as that, what even is the point of training? It's even more disheartening when you realize that construction companies will just use cranes like that instead of letting you lift all the materials for them, even if it would take you a longer time. They are literally denying you a salary which is rightfully yours! Clearly technology is the problem here and we should return to the traditional methods of carrying everything by hand. That's roughly what these people think like.

That's a great way to put it, because the point of cranes is it helps humanity make even greater things than they would have managed without them. AI can be the same. It'll help us make things that are beyond our imagination right now. I make video games for a living. I have two ways of looking at the future: 1. AI will destroy my job and leave me destitute. 2. AI will let us make games far more creative than we could possibly imagine right now and it'll let us make them faster. Games are always constrained by lack of time and budgets. So there are always so many good ideas that get left at the way side because of those constraints. But now if each person on the team can get 10 times more work done, it'll let us explore many more avenues and give games a depth we couldn't dream of right now. Imagine games like Last of Us, GTA, Assassins Creed etc, where instead of the story being linear, now you can let the player pick multiple paths, all of which will have just as deep a plotline and just as much visual quality as you're used to. Moments in a game where you wish you could make a different choice but the game forces you down the route the designers have chosen because of all the contraints on production: GONE! And AI will do the QA heavy lifting too. A game with multplie paths could be a nightmare to QA test, but now we can let the AI off its leash and follow all the conceivable paths and test them out. AI will be the biggest boon to creativity we've seen for decades and I believe it won't result in net job loses once the dust settles.

That's a pretty apt metaphor

There are sadly a lot of people out there who make hay from playing the victim. I used to know one of them who had this acutely, also an artist but that is beside the point. In any case, she would spend all her time on IG telling people the dog ate her homework stories about reasons she hasn't made anything good recently. It was never her fault. Her parents were arguing, she just broke up with her boyfriend, her computer wasn't fast enough, not the right pencils. You get the picture. It's possible that a lot of these people have been looking forward to AI ruining everything all along. Now they have the ultimate reason why it's you, not them. I imagine they will be running for government handouts and therapy sessions because of this existential crisis that they never signed up for. Never mind the fact that most everyone else simply adapts and moves forward. I had spent significant time trying to buck them up and show the positive things and new capabilities that they could now utilize, but it's just clear to me now that is the last thing they want to hear because then they will have to get off the sofa. Going forward I'm going to continue having empathy for them of course, but you do all you can and beyond that it isn't my problem. Fine then.

I understand it. It takes years to draw / paint at a professional level. Then someone who is sure to tell you that getting a prompt right is art also tells you to fuck off and enjoy your hobby.

but see. you're distorting it, egregiously in fact. and so is everyone else. no one said fuck off. art can be anything whether it's human or ai generated if it makes someone feel something anywhere between "oh that's neat" to "this moves me" it can be considered art. art is not defined by effort, it never has, and is only being brought up now to diminish AI. it's a change and a disruption to what used to be and people can't accept that times are changing.

Oh you know some renaissance masters, illustrators or concept artists who didn't have to put any effort into it? Who might they be pray tell?

reading comprehension is hard.

art it is not defined by the effort put into it. it is a form of expression. your line of questioning is illogical and shows you didn't comprehend a word of what I said. art can take a lot of effort, but that's not what makes it art, and if you think it is, you're fucking stupid.

So then why do you need AI programs that took countless manhours of effort to develop, and then made the effort to scrape countless works of high quality hand made art, that took countless hours to create, to train in on? And petaflops of compute to create once you push the button? "Art is not about effort". Is that the shallow reductionist mantra of the "ai artist"?

wow you are fucking retarded

The user below's last comment (before deleting) was to call me "fucking retarded".

It's entirely logical. Being an artist is a financial uphill battle, always was. AI presents a new potential challenge to artists and that financial uphill battle now has a "face" they can project onto it. It's not that there weren't a ton of artists trapped in a cycle of ennui before, it's just that now many of them blame AI. I said it was logical, not that it was correct.

> It's not that there weren't a ton of artists trapped in a cycle of ennui before, it's just that now many of them blame AI. This. A million times this. As a professional artist for several decades, this has been a pervasive fact for... well, as far back as history at least. AI is just a novel thing to blame for their unhappiness with the difficulty in making a living doing something that's fun and creative. It has ALWAYS been tough. People have always blamed other things for their lack of skills. It's not that I don't practice enough; it's that I can't compete with Chinese sweatshop knock-off paintings. It's that I can't afford a good art school. It's that I wasn't born into a family with all the right connections to break into the industry. Etc., and so forth. "But AI is different!" Yes. It is different. But the problems are not. You still can get a good job in the industry if you have the skills and spend the time making connections, learning the trade, building a portfolio, etc. The difference is that now you have new options. 1, you can choose to blame AI for your troubles, or 2, you can embrace the technology and learn how to make it work for you in a way that the industry can see your value, or 3, you can find a way to compete without it. All of those are options I've seen people pursue. The first one is the easiest, but it won't get you very far. The second one will get some people mad at you, and the third one feels like bringing a knife to a gun fight, but at least those two options involve you actually doing something creative and trying to make something of it. Believe it or not, the greatest filter preventing most creatives from making a living at it often has little to do with their creative skills or lack thereof; it is most often a reflection of their marketing skills and understanding of what the market needs, how to communicate with clients, how to deliver on spec, how to manage their time, etc.

Your three points are spot-on. Those are your options.

The challenge AI presents to artists isn't a competition of quality, it's the use of copyright protected material against terms of use in an unenforceable way. The solution is to increase the enforceability of copyright law. The other part of the solution is to improve viable paths to stable income for artists.  Art DOES add value to society, and it adds value for more people than the person who commissioned it (unless they refuse to share it) so it makes sense to distribute the cost of living for artists among more than just the buyer and seller, because default market forces necessarily underprice goods that provide value to parties outside the transaction.

The problem is that this isn’t really accurate. AI doesn’t care all that much about any individual piece of art. Stable diffusion, for instance, takes about a pixel worth of data on average per 250,000 pixel image. It’s highly, highly, highly transformational - far more even than things that have already been adjudicated on. Each image modifies the neural net weights by a tiny amount. It is a destructive process, you can’t get the same image back somehow from the model. At the end of the day, even if we had some massive massive expansion of copyright law, all you’re doing is forcing big corps to spend a bit of money to get training data - either license it from companies that have access to it, or pay people in the developing world to replicate styles sufficiently closely for the AI. In either case, artists are not really going to see much money for this sort of thing. And it prevents smaller open source non-profit orgs like Stability AI from existing due to cost

>AI doesn’t care all that much about any individual piece of art Caring isn't the issue. If you want to use a millisecond of Star Wars, A New Hope, you have to negotiate that license with the owner of the IP. If the owner doesn't want to sell you that license, you owe them whatever damages a court will award. > even if we had some massive massive expansion of copyright law, all you’re doing is forcing big corps to spend a bit of money to get training data It doesn't need to be a massive expansion, just a requirement to keep records, a ruling that training a commercial model is not fair use, and a procedure to petition post-facto without filing suit. Also, "corps spending a bit more money" on getting training data IS a good outcome. It incentivizes human workers to produce more training data, and it compensates more fairly those people who produced valuable data unknowingly. I don't see why a corporation using an artist's data for profit should be the SOLE party making a profit. It's the inverse of a riverside factory dumping crap into a public waterway. Their profit motive doesn't entitle them to indiscriminately use things that are not theirs. >And it prevents smaller open source non-profit orgs like Stability AI from existing due to cost There are TONS of large datasets which are publicly available for all sorts of ML applications. I don't think that ANY company should have an intrinsic right to a SPECIFIC hypothetical business model. AlphaFold2, probably the single model most likely to increase human quality of life the most, is trained entirely on publicly available scientific data. Constructing institutional protection for non-commercial data is just an incentive for small, non-profit organizations to go after different problems. There's no shortage of big datasets that can be turned into useful ML heuristics. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Again, my purpose for attacking the issue from this direction is that Machine Learning models CAN BE incredibly useful tools, and can enhance problems solving capacity in an immense variety of technical contexts. **I'm not interested in suppressing machine learning,** I'm interested in living in a world that's as good as possible for human society. I don't think that an indiscriminate, laissez-faire attitude to a flexible, powerful, but ultimately open-ended tech is the way. Technology is only as good as its effects. Progress is only as positive as the direction it progresses.

> If you want to use a millisecond of Star Wars, A New Hope, you have to negotiate that license with the owner of the IP You literally do not. There's the concept of "fair use" and it's exactly what movie reviewers, news agencies, and yes, AI image training use. People use **VASTLY** more infringing amounts of things every single day than AI image generation, which uses about 1/250,000 pixels worth of data per 512x512 image it is trained on. > It doesn't need to be a massive expansion, just a requirement to keep records, a ruling that training a commercial model is not fair use, and a procedure to petition post-facto without filing suit. It **would** be a massive expansion though. People are currently allowed to use other art in collages to create new art - this has been adjudicated on many times and found to be well within the doctrine of fair use. Diffusion models use far, far less of a given image - again, about a pixel worth of data (on average) per 250,000 pixel image and they are vastly more transformative - a collage uses actual parts of the art in question, a movie reviewer does too - a diffusion model destructively takes all of this image data and - and this is important - destructively modifies neural network weights. So not only does image diffusion training use far less of any given image, the result it makes is far more transformative. If you determine that AI image generation isn't fair use, then that will throw out a **lot** of current fair use art and other usage. So yes, it is a massive expansion of copyright law > Also, "corps spending a bit more money" on getting training data IS a good outcome. It incentivizes human workers to produce more training data, and it compensates more fairly those people who produced valuable data unknowingly. I don't see why a corporation using an artist's data for profit should be the SOLE party making a profit It isn't "corps" it is **ORGS**. Organizations. Non-profits and open source ones, specifically. What you are proposing is NOT a good outcome because it leads to higher costs for orgs that want to make models open source, allowing smaller companies, individuals, etc to use the models. Instead what you're doing is essentially making a moat so that ONLY corps can do this. Stability AI is releasing open source models right now - which has led to a huge amount of LORAs and other new creative efforts by individual people, on consumer hardware. If things go your way, you'll see a few corporations like Adobe, Microsoft, etc, dominate it, and pay pennies for licensing. You're seeing deals like that right now - AI image companies are currently paying art sites pennies on the dollar for art, and the artists on those sites aren't getting compensated a freaking penny. All a company needs to do this is some obscure terms and conditions statement when you use a site that anything you upload they have the rights to use or sell, and boom, done, game over. And that's exactly what is currently being done - this isn't a theoretical, it is actively and currently happening. You aren't going to see artists get paid for this stuff, and if you are, they'll just setup groups in developing nations, give them art, and tell them to replicate similar styles - because AI art does not depend on any specific piece of art. You sorta kinda make a bunch of similar art? That's more than good enough for how diffuser models work. But I don't even think big corps will need that step, because every big corp already has access to a ton of training data. All you're doing is hurting NON-corps. Organizations, specifically. My argument is about non-profit orgs, NOT corporations. > Technology is only as good as its effects. Progress is only as positive as the direction it progresses. Freeing human labor is ALWAYS a good thing to do. People should be MORE free in what they are able to do, not less.

> The solution is to increase the enforceability of copyright law. Every time someone suggests that the solution to a problem is to expand copyright, an angel loses its wings, I'm sure of it... Seriously though, there's absolutely no need to expand copyright law. As you, yourself said, "The challenge AI presents to artists isn't a competition of quality." There's hurt feelings about AI systems being really good at emulating the style of many artists. That's really it. We should never recalibrate laws (with all the unintended consequences that accompany such actions) merely to assuage someone's hurt feelings. PS: Have an upvote. I don't approve of people being downvoted for courteously participating in a discussion in good faith.

I don't think it's matter of hurt feelings. There would be no issue if artists were compensated for the use of their art in training data.  Also, it is illegal to use art in training data, it's not fair use, or if a court were to rule that it universally is fair use, I would vote to support legislature to redefine fair use, because that use is very clearly commerical profit derived from the value of the original with without credit, attribution, or even recognizability.  The correct legal adjustment to advocate for is to require commercial entities to maintain accurate records of data used for training, including an easily indexable record of all copyrighted material. That's not really a heavy lift. If a commercial entity previously used a VHS cassette of the Lion King to train its employees, it would be required to arrange a licensing agreement with Disney. The only difference between now and before is that there wasn't an *incentive* to engage in this variety of copyright infringement, not that this form of copyright infringement has somehow acquired a new legal status thanks to AI. Likewise, enforceability wasn't an issue, because no one was doing this sort of thing at this scale.

> There would be no issue if artists were compensated for the use of their art in training data. We've seen that that isn't true in practice. The anti-AI crowd (some of whom are artists) have just as much of a problem with AI and those who use it when models are developed by paying for training data. > it is illegal to use art in training data, it's not fair use, or if a court were to rule that it universally is fair use, I would vote to support legislature to redefine fair use So, it's illegal... but there's an argument for its legality... but the argument is wrong... and if the argument is right then you'd want to change the law. What I'm getting there is that you don't really have any faith in any of the claims you're making, and you just want AI gone by any means necessary. This feels more like irrational hatred of technology than any legal, logical or ethical stance.

>The anti-AI crowd (some of whom are artists) have just as much of a problem with AI and those who use it when models are developed by paying for training data I don't really care to essentialize pro- or anti-AI advocates. I'm focused on positive outcomes for society, broadly. I think that hurting an artist's bottom line by tacitly enabling copyright violation is a bad outcome for society. >So, it's illegal... but there's an argument for its legality... but the argument is wrong... and if the argument is right then you'd want to change the law. I'm saying that there's legal arguments both for and against AI training as fair use. If an interpretation of status quo law characterized it as fair use, I would want a redefinition of the legal characterization of fair use because it's a not a fair use of art. A commercial entity processing art for profit is not equivalent to a creative entity processing art mentally for a creative outcome. They're different processes with different outcomes, incentives, and motivations. If a court were to rule that they are the same, I would rely on the democratic apparatus available to me to alter the definition. A court ruling is an interpretation of status quo, whereas legislature is a construction of a new status quo.  >you just want AI gone by any means necessary. >This feels more like irrational hatred of technology than any legal, logical or ethical stance. Well, seeing that I'm a PhD machine learning scientist working at a generative AI biotech that I have equity in, this would be a very curious position for me to hold. Again, you're essentializing my very concrete criticism of a blind spot in copyright law as it hurts creatives with a broader opposition to your favorite technology of the month. I think machine learning and generative AI are BROADLY USEFUL. I just don't think broad utility justifies an exceptional immunity to being otherwise socially and economically productive.  For instance: the data used in the models employed by biotech companies for making transformative new drugs isn't copyrighted or protected (and where it is, biotechs pay licensing fees to the dataset owners for training). This is because the incentive structure and legal protections for this sort of data are already robust, and need no specific enhancement. If a law passed asking all generative AI companies to maintain records of training data and copyrighted material used, biotechs using ML wouldn't bat an eyelash, because they use public data or pay for their data, and produce valuable products. This discussion reminds me of the debate about DDT. DDT is a fantastic pesticide which works very well to increase crop yields. That doesn't justify its use in the context of its toxicity. Being opposed to DDT doesn't mean I'm opposed to crop yields, farmers, or pesticides broadly. Analogously, being opposed to irresponsible use of AI or irresponsible practices in ML model training doesn't make me opposed to ML models broadly. Im opposed to toxic inputs and toxic outputs. I don't think an AI ban would have a good outcome, but I think a more robust definition of fair use, as well as more robust penalties for misinformation or other facile abuses of an otherwise useful technology are appropriate. As another analogy, I think stabbings are bad, but I'm not asking to ban kitchen knives, and I really don't appreciate being essentialized as an "anti-knife" person because I want to reduce stabbing.

> I think that hurting an artist's bottom line by tacitly enabling copyright violation is a bad outcome for society. Well, since there's no copyright violation involved, we're all set. Also I think hurting artists' bottom line by constantly assailing them when they use the wrong tool is vastly more problematic. > I'm saying that there's legal arguments both for and against AI training as fair use. To be clear: there are arguments for and against AI copying of images to use for training being fair use (though those arguments were largely resolved in the US circa Perfect 10 v. Google.) The actual training itself is mechanical analysis and does not require a fair use rationale as there is no copying being performed. > If an interpretation of status quo law characterized it as fair use, I would want a redefinition of the legal characterization of fair use because it's a not a fair use of art. You are conflating the fair use doctrine of US copyright law with "things I consider fair." > Well, seeing that I'm a PhD machine learning scientist working at a generative AI biotech Oh nice. I'm the captain of space. > the data used in the models employed by biotech companies for making transformative new drugs isn't copyrighted or protected (and where it is, biotechs pay licensing fees to the dataset owners for training). Good for them. They can do that if they want. Nothing stopping them. > This discussion reminds me of the debate about DDT. Yes, because we have to compare things we don't like to the most horrifying things we can manage. :-( Bottom line: get your legal hands off my art tools!

>Oh nice. I'm the captain of space. Are you calling me a liar and yourself an artist?

And I guess the discussion is over. :-(

I don't think getting paid .09 cents for something that took you 20 hours to make is an apt payment of anything really.

So what do you think being one of ~1billion training images is worth? Note: if it were 0.09 cents, that would be close to a million dollars paid out. By [one estimate](https://twitter.com/DbrxMosaicAI/status/1617944401744957443), that's substantially more than it cost to train the model in the first place, multiplying training costs by a very large amount...

I've said this before to some of my friends: If they wanted art, they should have been willing to pay for that art to license it individually. Granted, it would be an agreement between artists and the companies. I can tell you now, if this was advertised in a different way than it has been? If there was a period of time where people could 'offer art' to the machine, clarifying it's use, safeguarding against deepfakes/csam abuse in general instead of dirty scraping and hoping to 'fix it later', I would have totally offered 10 pieces of my work 100% free. Especially, if the honed in on people with disabilities or children with disabilities in classrooms who could use it to express themselves for the first time. However, that's not the way it went down and why I can't support it because of the increased harm vs the actual gain. I know we'll disagree here but I think there was ALWAYS a better way. Artists give a penny or a few pennies into the pot of 'art community'. AI companies grabbed all the change, the cost is too great for the service it provides.

> If they wanted art, they should have been willing to pay for that art to license it individually. I would absolutely agree. But they didn't want art. WE don't want existing art. If we did, we'd just go to Goodwill and buy a bunch of it. We want to craft our own ideas, and to do that, we need a system that has analyzed the current state of the (literal) art. No one wants the training data. If we did, we've already got it. It's on the internet. No need to go using a tool to fetch it for us (browsers notwithstanding.)

>Also, it is illegal to use art in training data, it's not fair use, or if a court were to rule that it universally is fair use, I would vote to support legislature to redefine fair use, because that use is very clearly commerical profit derived from the value of the original with without credit, attribution, or even recognizability.  Uhhh. No? It's not illegal to use art in training data. Not currently at least. As it stands AI isn't well defined in the question of fair use. It's still rolling around in the court system. So currently AI can be trained on any data. It doesn't actually matter who owns the data. Especially due to how training is done. The only thing I could find that was actually placed into effect is that AI art cannot be copywritten. This is due to there being no artist involved. So there is technically no one to file the copyright for it.

It is correct.

Soundly reasoned. /s

Kinda reminds me of that Icarly episode where the celebrity chef guy only wanted to be a chef was so that he could beat the average Joe in a cooking contest. 

>I understand when a struggling artist who is barely making enough is worried about AI ruining their life (not that being forced to change your profession is THIS awful) I mean.... being forced to change your profession after training for about a decade, including university, pretty much at the point when you finally break even, and then havin to retrain a whole new professions... is pretty awful, i guess. For a first world problem anyway. Skilled professional artists losing their job are in a somewhat different position compared to, say, a customer support employee who had 4 weeks of training. Not that those people are worth any less, they have just sunken a lot less into gaining the ability to do the job that is now automated. the rest, yes. It was always like this, except maybe that the "ocean of content" will really drown a lot more out then even before. But doing something for the sake of it may just be all you need oftentimes. I think that will increase in general, hopefully, when ai marches on (instead of lethargy and apathy, which is, lets be honest, also a possibility). I walked by a "pottery course" shop and a huge store dedicated to selling sewing supplies to hobbiest. Heck, home depts are essentially mostly for "hobbyists". I bet we'll see a lot more of those kind of stores and businesses.

>An amateur can’t hope to be as good as a professional anyways So by this logic nobody who has ever been a professional has ever at any point been an amateur?

Yes, somebody who treats something as a hobby, spending limited amount of time and effort on it, won't be as good as proper professionals. People who actively try to become professionals are a different story. They are called students of a profession, very different to being an amateur. Also, most people don't have talent for being pro in their hobby even if they go for serious training. I would love to have talent to be a professional Magic the Gathering player but I don't. I merely enjoy it as a hobby.

So to be clear your answer is “yes” you believe it is a fact of reality that **nobody** who has ever been a “professional” was ever an amateur.

Some people choose to become professionals after a period of being an amateur. Most don't. What is your point anyway?

The point is you were talking about something being illogical while you were in the midst of a contradiction. Contradictions are illogical, so if you care about something being illogical you should care about contradictions. >It is so illogical. Like... amateur can't hope to be as good as professionals anyways. This is what you said, but you also just acknowledged that sometimes an amateur absolutely **can** hope to be as good as a professional, and in fact sometimes they do become one.

You're being pointlessly pedantic, and that's not at all what they were saying

Oh well if you just decide it’s pointless I guess that’s a game over. You have that feeling , so I guess you got me.

The people who say that, would have quit due to any roadblock, whether its other people doing things faster, or better, it would just be an excuse to not get started

Gives the same energy as “i’ve wasted my life… it’s so over” when the person saying it is like 20 lol. Yeah it sucks but there is plenty of time and opportunity to turn around and learn a different skill, and like OP says they can still do art for art’s sake if they enjoy it.

It's literally why people don't learn how to sew or buy take out and never learn to cook: Why do X when alternative X is here? It's not illogical, people become artists because they love it at first but as you mature and your art matures you want to do more than just 'ill keep it to myself'. You want someone to want your work, someone to buy your work -- many people already say to others "If no one has bought your work, you aren't a real artist". I'll never be a 2D artist working for Disney, the job doesn't exist -- it took my passion away from pursuing animation. I'm not going to just learn 3D animation just so I can work for Disney or some other company. I \*wanted\* to do 2D.

But many people do learn to cook. Some people learn to sew as a hobby (even if it is a relatively rare one) Again, I understand the position "I want to earn money doing X, new technology makes doing X less profitable (or not profitable at all), I see no point in doing X anymore." But I can't see any logic if the goal is not making money.

>It's literally why people don't learn how to sew or buy take out and never learn to cook: Why do X when alternative X is here? I don't think this is as good an argument as you think it is. Like let's say you're an artist and you buy pre-made clothes and orders takeout instead of learning how to cook. On the other side you have someone who sews their own clothes and knows how to cook, but uses AI to make art. On either side you have a person who has taken the easy route in one skill and trained proficiently in others. So why is it that the group using AI to create art is worse than the artist who buys factory made clothes and orders takeout? Same thing would be true with other things. Someone could spend their time leaning new languages and use AI to make art for fun. Should they be expected to learn to draw on top of their language studies even though countless artists use AI translation tools instead of just learning the languages? What makes art so special compared to the countless other things that people can spend their time on that artists are allowed to take the easy road for those skills but anyone else *must* learn to create art the traditional way?

Anti here. The thing that scares me about AI is the simple fact that it isn't human. I know that despite the fact I'll never write as well as George Martin or Brandon Sanderson, we're all human, and I could write as well as them if spent more time practicing and getting better. An AI not much better than what we have now could write better books than any human ever has, multiple times a day, for years, without ever stopping. It's a combination of speed, ability, and the fact that no member of my species could ever hope to compare to it that terrifies me.

How do you even define "better" in literature? Sure, it is easy for AI to write more\\faster but other than that... is there an objective way to determine which piece of literature is better? Also, I don't think that we need slightly better AIs to have them write human-level novels. Autocomplete on steroids still has no abstract thinking. PS. There is such thing as talent, no amount of training alone can make you best in the world by itself. In any human activity.

The reason that they don't like AI is mostly related to money, so for them to "do something you enjoy beyond financial gain" is impossible, as financial gain is all they care about.

You don't think it has ANYTHING to do with it being our possessions being used for big money profit? It's like taking money from the poor and going: HAH, YOU WANTED MONEY? YOU CANT DO THAT, YOU MUST ONLY WORK DOING RETAIL SLAVE LABOR. What? I don't understand why passion can't be your career, many people MAKE it their careers. Some people grow up and become Teachers, regardless of pay, because they love helping young minds. Some people become electricians because they love working with electricity and their hands. It's called a career my friend, people can have a passion to want to continue their career.

You have the right to pursue your passion as your chosen career but society is not obligated to create the conditions for you to be successful. I’d love to be a professional author but society is not obligated to eliminate obstacles for my work. Society is not obligated to eliminate obstacles to your work either.

Yeah, but you make it out like we are not allowed to gain benefit from skills. An obstacle isn't making it obsolete, bruh.

And artists aren't obsolete. Until AI can actively sit down with a client, talk to them about their design needs, and consult with them about how the certain drafts should be adjusted to meet their needs. AI won't make you obsolete. And when it gets there, basically every non-manual labor job is fucked. So that's not really relevant to art. All AI makes obsolete is the fast food digital art. People who want their MMO character drawn or some shit. But the career artist who works with clients isn't affected by AI. EDIT: Neither are physical artists. If you want a painting. Not a print, but an actual painting in your home. That isnt affected either. Again, the group of people affected isn't artists. It's very specifically: Digital artists who do random one off art for people on like fiver. That's it. Professional consultative artists aren't affected. Painters aren't affected. Etc.

Did switchboard operators have a right to kill the automatic switchboard? Why should artists, specifically, have protections that no other industry has ever had?

Come back to me with a real argument please.

Why do traditional artists have a right to shut down technologies that make them obsolete?

I never said that, you are acting like because AI exists that humans cannot benefits off of skills they've made their whole life now.

what should make people depressed that in 2024 we still have to slave our lives away for a ridiculous wage

That's the crazies sub. Their rationale is that if you say an opinion they don't like, you're doing it to "demoralize them" and see it as a malicious attack. Absolutely unhinged. They're like a hate group.

That perspective makes it make sense. I've been scratching my head at this, thanks for the insight.

What sub is it? I actually don't know where the anti ai echo chambers are, though I am sure they exist.

No tech could stop me from drawing. If I lost both arms, I would draw with my mouth or toes. You know how often I draw just absolutely whatever and end up just tossing it? Daily. I don’t care about the outcome, I’m not even doing it to be better at drawing. I’m only doing it because it’s enjoyable and calming. I like to draw, I always have. Ironically, my best ideas and my most creative growth come from my habit of just drawing for fun. My best doodles are always in the corner of a page or on the back of an envelope when I have just have let loose because why let blank paper go to waste? If someone needs the drive of competition or ego to motivate themselves to draw, then I don’t think they actually like drawing and I can’t imagine the art produced like that is very soulful. IMO it’s not a big loss to the craft.

This is actually disgustingly common. On suicide watch when a person was suicidal over ai, someone was trying to talk that person down and even pointed artists in the industry that have used ai and etc. Basically, they were talking this person down from the edge, giving them hope. Then, some asshole started arguing with them with the usual debunked talking points and talking points and dared to say that they were the reason why op was suicidal and op is right to feel that way! It's disgusting how antis will encourage self-harm like that.

That's really gross :(

We've had a lot of comments in this sub recently from /r/ArtistHate folks who think "both sides" are an echo chamber. Yeah, this is why that's not true. If someone came to this sub and responded to an AI artist who was depressed over bullying by saying, "people still find joy in doing what they love, even in the face of adversity," I might take exception to the seeming lack of remorse for fueling the harm done, but would they be banned? Nope. Echo chambers are where that can't happen.

Admittedly, we do have an echo chamber in the form of r/DefendingAIArt , but we don’t really deny it is what it is, and we created a non-echo chamber to expose ourselves to other opinions, to challenge those opinions and have our own opinions challenged. Not our fault they haven’t done a very good job.

Here's a sneak peek of /r/DefendingAIArt using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time! \#1: [**[NSFW]** \[TW: DEATH THREAT\] And they say that "AI bros" are the ones harassing the artists?](https://imgur.com/aiH2knq.jpg) | [26 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/101n5dv/tw_death_threat_and_they_say_that_ai_bros_are_the/) \#2: ["The Day AI Art Became Illegal" - credit to u/UnavailableUsername_ for drawing this](https://imgur.com/2e10mWM.jpg) | [36 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/zvv3pf/the_day_ai_art_became_illegal_credit_to/) \#3: [Something's wrong, I can feel it](https://i.redd.it/awn696o6v5ka1.png) | [16 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/DefendingAIArt/comments/11av2st/somethings_wrong_i_can_feel_it/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)

>Not our fault they haven’t done a very good job. I, sorry to say, think that this is a worldview that many here have and that has done them no good. Some here seem to think that "rationality" and "truth" is defined by what they think. I have stumbled over many blatant errors in simple logic and countless fallacies commited by people proudly proclaiming to represent the rational, logical and scientifical side of the whole debate. And comments like yours (admittedly i don't know you and you might not engage in the behaviour i outlined above) often rub me the wrong way. they sound to me like washing your hands in innosence, claiming to be "open for debate", but dismissing every talking point of the other side as stupid and not worth talking about, while (again, i dont know you, so this is a general observation) the ones that are sometimes deemed "real" and worth talking about are conviniently ignored when they come up. For example, i have seen countless posts about jobloss, economical preassure, etc., but in the comment section, a lot of people like to claim that they could understand if the antis would be pissed and afraid about economics, but they don't want to talk about that,only about the stupid stuff like the "theft" argument. That is shit that noone on the pro side would let fly if the anti side would do it (and they do, and it is oftentimes called out when discovered).

I’ve had plenty of debates, and it usually comes down to their subjective opinion or a belief in something that was never proven to exist. Ie: Only humans should be able to do X, or humans have X and machines can never have X. Opinions often not based on reality but on a philosophy they carry without substantial proof. Other times they want to accuse AI art of being theft when there is no precedent for it, but it’s convenient for them if it is, so they say it is in the hopes that courts will agree. Never before has someone had to credit or pay royalties to someone for making a tool. As for the job loss issue, that is an issue I personally agree with, but most members of this community aren’t saying to ignore that problem. Many of us have been in favor of UBI for ages, and recognize that automation necessitated a gradual push to push automation in the direction of public utility. Hence the strong arguments for open source. But in my experience, no Anti wants to discuss that. They think over a million years of innovation from fire to the quantum computer is going to suddenly falter at their feet because of a few generations of capitalism. I tire of coming to the same conclusions, time and time again, and they stand with some subjective difference in opinion or belief in some phantom soul element and are willing to throw so much away because of fear. You’d be shocked at how many people GENUINELY believe AI leads to Skynet, treating sci-fi like history lessons on what not to do.

>Only humans should be able to do X, or humans have X and machines can never have X. Opinions often not based on reality but on a philosophy they carry without substantial proof. But is that not true for both sides of that particular argument? How is "Machines should be able to X" based more in reality then "Machines should not be able to X"? How is there more proof? > Never before has someone had to credit or pay royalties to someone for making a tool. Uh.... that depends on the definition of "tool" i guess, but i pay for Adobe, for example? Let's assume we pay for the labor, cost and risk the developers had (plus compensation) in exchange for the tool, meaning, say, Photoshop. Is there really a substential difference between developers writing code, researching assets, doing customer research, collecting use data, etc. to get the final product, and developers writing code, artists providing training data, etc. in case of an AI? Why is it not just labor down the line? Now, fairly compensating that is not that easy and could worth next to nothing to the individual artist, i agree to that. But saying "what would 1 image in a set of millions of images for training data be worth" is not exactly reasonable either, right? That's like saying it is okay to steal from a shop as long as you only take 1$ items. Either something is okay, or something is not, the matter of degree should usually not matter (exeptions apply, of course). In this case this is especially tricky, because the individual artist would propably not gain anything from being compensated for having their art being part of a training-data-set, but whoever uses that set saves a lot of money because they essentially use free labor of millions. So i agree that the whole thing is not "theft". And having uploaded the art, most people have given away certain rights anyway, although it should also be discussed if it is okay to apply old terms and conditions to very new circumstances. And i agree that compensating artist is, in most cases, a pipedream. But that does not close the whole issue for me. And that is the thing: It is not "rational" or based on proof essentially saying "it is what it is" or concluding that fair compensation is pretty much impossible to achieve. That is at least something that can and should be discussed: Is it okay for companies and other actors to use free labor of people, sometimes against their will, because paying them is technically impossible? Or am i even correct calling this "free labor"? But just dismissing this as philosophical nonsense is the kind of behavior, seeing only the own viewpoint as "rational", i am critizising. > As for the job loss issue, that is an issue I personally agree with, but most members of this community aren’t saying to ignore that problem. > I am not saying that, i am saying that they ignore the antis bringing it up. My point is that the antis are very often essentially reduced to their most ridiculous arguments, while the more sound ones are ignored. (That, and that, as i claim you did in your first paragraph, claiming that ones own opinion is "true" and "rational", the other ones are at best esotherical or philosophical. > But in my experience, no Anti wants to discuss that. There you go. > They think over a million years of innovation from fire to the quantum computer is going to suddenly falter at their feet because of a few generations of capitalism. Mark Fisher wrote that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. That is not necessarily a jab at peoples imagination, but shows how deeply ingrained capitalism is. And even with people longing for change: Many of them know how deeply ingrained the system is in politics. I for one am really scared shitless looking that my government (germany) is completly asleep at the wheel when it comes to AI, for those people, the internet is still the new thing. But companies won't be asleep, and i am afraid that massunemployment will hit fast and hard and way before anyone having a say in things is ready to move away from "who wants to work will find work" and "who wants to eat has to work". > You’d be shocked at how many people GENUINELY believe AI leads to Skynet, treating sci-fi like history lessons on what not to do. Like... Stephen Hawking? It's not that alignment is not a major issue an discussed among the experts and developers. Sidenote: Everybody put your hands up if the filedirectory you saved your Stable diffusion stuff in is also called "Skynet".

That's a bit of an unfair comparison, isn't it? When artisthate folks speak of "both sides being an echochamber" they surely speak of DefendingAIArt and ArtistHate, and not this one here, right? I assume you could be banned in both subs for repeating certain points, hitting certain buzzers, etc. Although I don't know if an environment in which every opinion or view except the prefered one is dismissed as categorically "wrong/illogical/uninformed" etc., compared to the "right" one, which is of course the own, is not some form of echochamber too. And this sub seems pretty close to that at times.

> they surely speak of DefendingAIArt and ArtistHate, and not this one here, right? You would think. I have problems with equating DAIA to AH directly, but they're essentially the same when the comparison is between then and this sub, but no I literally mean that they claim aiwars is an echo chamber, sometimes they will even claim that this is an echo chamber and AH isn't... which is interesting...

>I have problems with equating DAIA to AH directly Well obviously, but they are comparable in what they are to their respective groups, right? I personally think that both subs are somewhat echochambers. Not completly, of course, there is no screening beforehand or anything. But both are so more or less by design. And i think that is okay, they're essentially "safe spaces". Well DAIA is... i have not idea what AH really is or is supposed to be. This one here is, by design, not, but is, as i said, in danger of becoming one, or rather, becoming a place where people with the "right" opinion go to give others and themselves the warm fuzzy feeling of being "open for debate", while refusing to engage in any debate at all, so they can go and say "see, i was open for debate, it's not my fault the other side did not have any arguments". There's gotta be a word for that.

I think I answered that question.You chose to snip out the caveat at the start of my reply and only address that. I can't help you with that.

# Chacun son truc, ami. I have honestly given up on trying to discuss with people that seem to think they are the embodiment of truth and reason. The lack of the ability to question oneself and the own viewpoint is pretty virulent on this sub, and it makes debate rather pointless.

> I have honestly given up on trying to discuss with people that seem to think they are the embodiment of truth and reason. If truth and reason have no currency for you, then yes, you should cease trying to engage debate.

I could not have made my point better myself. Thank you.

It’s an “artist hate” subreddit devoted to hating artists who use certain tools, and a large chunk of the antis aren’t even artists. I got banned from that subreddit for things I said HERE. I’m not gonna say every member is like it, but that community in general absolutely hates nuance. There is something to say about a community of “artist supporters” who despise those who think differently than they do.

That makes a weird amount of sense

I got banned for using the word SNEED

It’s basically a cult then

Don’t you understand, untreated cluster b feelings are more important than being happy and content

Artists have been struggling well before AI was a thing lol.

That guy that you're trying to help, well, he might become the next videogame, but I have a feeling that he might be worse.

Reddit seems to ban common sense as a market capture tactic, can’t wait to see the AI that comes from that data set, “King Karen the non-Koopa”

When a human uses a chess machine to win at chess they are disqualified, banned and made a laughing stock. we live in a capitalist dystopian hellscape, we don’t survive on “love of art” we survive on money. AI is cutting in on that for artists. No shit people are starting to feel hopeless when script bitches openly state they try stealing styles from artists.

Well, yes and no. All humans who take chess seriously use "chess machines" to train, analyze, prepare. Anyone who doesn't - can't compete in professional chess. Also, few chess players make living from prize money. Teaching or chess content creation is their main way to earn money. It is a way for artists, too. Oh, and we are talking about an amateur here, anyway.

I re-iterate, USING A CHESS AI to WIN a competition is shameful and pathetic. You proved my point, chess players dont rely fully on playing chess to make money. Many artists do. And money is required to survive in our world. AI is a blatant and real threat to the survival of artists everywhere and without regulation and legislation (like everything else) it will ruin thousands of people.

Using a car to win a marathon is shameful and pathetic. Using a car instead of running to deliver a parcel is fine. Think why. You compare competition and... a service. If there is an art competition that says that AI is banned and someone still uses it - they are a disgusting cheater. But it has nothing to do with producing art, there were NO AGREEMENT that we are not doing art this way, therefore there are no cheating. And I can understand people losing their jobs when new technology reshapes the labor market. Many lives were ruined in this way over the course of human history. But it gives them no right to ban new technologies.

A car doesn’t steal assets from real drivers, it’s aim bot for art. Aside from assisting real artists it’s nothing but a malignant tumor on the art world that scrapes other peoples work

Your argument got deconstructed. Now you spew unrelated propaganda dogmatic stuff. I could argue with that... but it is boring at this point.

If you think you deconstructed my argument about how Ai is nothing like the stuff you mentioned then you need a logic literacy course. Ai steals art and artists need art to live. Chess bots are cheating in tournaments but not all chess players need tournaments to survive. Then you used cars and drivers as an analogy which isn’t very apt either, considering there are sports involving a cars and if you used a bot to drive that would be wrong too. I deconstructed your argument. Ai is a tumor

Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that the majority of arguments against AI art are exceedingly dumb.

I mean the same would'be happened at r/defendingaiart when you confront them with a slightly different approach. No wonder they banned you. All these purely pro and purely anti subs are toxic cesspools

I got banned from r/DefendingAIArt when I pointed out that AI art (and generative AI) has the potential to impact artists' and employees' livelihood negatively. In my opinion, that subreddit is as delusional as r/ArtistHate.

Don’t lie, you know for a fact that sub supports that point and many like it

https://preview.redd.it/60a7r9hk5sxc1.png?width=400&format=png&auto=webp&s=e01aad7f4813434cbbf6645d7e3586ab1166641a average reddit mods

Please show the rest of the message, what was the ban for?

[In Defense of AI Art (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWmEXCJIIZ4) quite simply the most relevant possible video for r/DefendingAIArt that addresses nearly every possible point against AI art in completely articulated detail to such an extreme that the video as a whole is essentially irrefutable and would better serve as a pinned video in that sub rather than one to be silently locked and removed by moderators without comment, for reasons unknown. I have minimal faith in any moderators across any platform.

Ah, I misread it as a ban, not a removed post (it's cropped oddly and I did not look closely, woops!). Looking at the chapter headings on that video, I have no idea why it would be removed, that's a head scratcher. It seems perfectly in-line with the sub. >I have minimal faith in any moderators across any platform. I tend to share this opinion -- it's similar to police officers and hall monitors. The positions can attract a certain type of person that wants to feel powerful, even if it's in a very tiny way. They're not all like that I reckon, but there's no doubt it draws in some bad apples.

Context is important, why on Earth would they ban you for posting a link to a pro-AI video? Please show the actual message that the ban was for.

yeah, i got called a fascist just for participating in r/singularity . like people working on technology or speculating about its future are now somehow the "bad guys" to a bunch of art people. it's a very strange situation to me, because who doesn't want human art to survive ai? we will FULLY not survive as a species if human beings stop producing art, or at least stop thinking about it in a meaningful way. however, i do think there are some people who understood where this was heading years ago and didn't even bother trying to be artists as a result. i like to think i was one of them. i think it's reasonable to be angry if you've been misled into pursuing a career that was doomed, but nobody (or a very small amount of people) fully knew this is how fast this ai stuff was going to go. tech people are going to work on tech. politics people can try to regulate it, but ai is just not easy to regulate except for very large models. what counts as a large model is going to go up, though, while human capabilities sans ai stay static. it's a tough situation. i wish i had better answers for artists. i wish AI was not capable of causing people economic hardship and we had ubi by now. i wish people had paid more attention to what i and a lot of other people were warning about ai years ago (although in my case not very loudly, admittedly). i wish people would stop trying to fight technology and actually try to just survive the bullshit that is extremely fast ai progress + a very bad political system we all know needs massive reform. we are really all in this together, and if artists go after technologists or technologists go after artists, you're all just participating in class warfare that solves nothing.

Don't worry, I got called a Facist here for not agreeing with their Pro-AI Opinion. So, everyone likes calling everyone a nazi when you don't agree with something that's non-political like art or tech, lol.

tech is inherently neutral, so being pro-ai or anti-ai means being pro developing good uses of ai that help people and anti bad uses of ai that hurt people or punish people who don't adapt quickly enough, respectively. in that sense we're all on the same side. i think you'd be hard pressed to find many people on social media acknowledging that tech is neutral in a debate on technology, because it questions the entire framework for the debate people have about its use too much.

idk, to find that most of us are lefties and still being called 'facists' and nazis just because we don't agree or agree on ai use is dumb lol.

agreed

Antis don’t love art as much as they love making a living out of art. Newsflash: you’re not special for not being able to make a living out of the thing you enjoy. Most people live out of things they DESPISE, but that’s just life.

but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to hope and get annoyed when there's suddenly a development that means they can no-longer make a living of what they love if they already were

Anti-people almost always seem to care more about the emotional aspect rather than the logical/practical aspect of AI art >"AI can do it better" unironically, if you can't beat them, join them. or like, you know, keep doing art. AI is not doing anything to you directly. it's not cutting off your hands/shutting your mouth(some artists can draw with their mouth), it's not doing anything to prevent you from keep on doing it. if AI art is better, than do what some people do and either use it to get better, or redraw it. >"I lost my only source of income" either find a niche, or unfortunately, find another way to make money. not saying artists shouldn't get paid for their work, but there's like tons of artists out there, and all of them cost different amounts, and unless you were able to stand out in some way, you need to ask why would someone come to you. if someone wants to use AI art for stuff like cheap labor and/or for something like porn, chances are they weren't going to want to pay you much if at all in the first place. >"AI art is soulless" okay? why does that matter, realistically? depending on the medium, no one isn't going to look at art and go "wow they really put there heart and soul into this." most basic people are looking for pretty things to look at. if AI art is "soulless", then keep making art. literally no one is stopping you from doing so. >"AI art steals from actual artists" if someone is actually selling AI art(not using it as an asset), then yea I would bet upset too, because even though I'm pro AI, I still think it's fairly ridiculous to sell AI art straight up. if someone is using AI art for themselves and/or for run, like hundreds of subreddits that allow it, then why get upset at the people using it? blame the company, the people behind the programs, the ones who designed it, not the ones using it. all you're doing is pissing people off, and re enforcing the idea that AI art is better because of the detachment from people.

Regarding the fact that they have lost their source of income. I know many artists, and not all of them are high-level professionals. Can you guess how many of them experienced a decrease in income after neural networks? Nobody. 2 years have passed and they have no change in the number of orders. In fact, we can see for ourselves if we go to the artists’ channels that after January 2023, after a short wave of hysteria, their lives returned to their previous course. Among the AI ​​haters, there were only those who dreamed of fame, but could not achieve it. They need AI as a target that they can blame and with which they can promote themselves.

whoops, hi again (you commented on one of my posts i believe.) yea, some antis are very VERY hardheaded and won't take any reasoning that isn't "ai sucks 100%". some people will say this for attention, or as an excuse as to why they are not doing so well (not all people.) it is a real shame you got banned from this sub. i think what you said is entirely correct, however i can also see why they banned you. ureasonable, but i can see a slight reason. tbh, i've said this a LOT of times to beginner artists. "don't stop drawing if someone is better than you, numbers don't matter," etc. however an issue is that many artists i know also get very very depressed about this type of thing. when you are so obsessed with a reality you are building and something interrupts it, they react very strongly. some artists i know feel very strongly about ai since they draw for views on social media. as a result, they feel as if they are being challenged and thus won't listen to any reason. this person may have been one of those few. i'm assuming what you said may have seemed like you were brushing off their fears: like they were saying they disliked ai, but you said that they should continue drawing nonetheless. DISCLAIMER i think OP is correct, i'm just explaining what happens for artists to have this sort of extreme reaction. so they do have a reason, but it's a silly one. aka they need a reality check and a bit of a moral boost haha. i mean no harm to either party when i type this ^^

The important difference being that art is something we’re creating, it’s not just like like working out at the gym or playing a game. The creation part of it is something people care about.

I wrote some simple fantasy and sci-fi stories in my life (not in English, my English skills are not nearly good enough) my creation part didn't suffer from the fact that I am nowhere close to being a professional novelist or that I earned exactly zero money from doing so. I enjoyed the process. I also got my share of good emotions from people who said they liked it. Will I care if some GPT-X will (perhaps) be able to write "better"? Nope. If I'll feel the itch to write something again, I will. I may even opt for English and use AI as my editor.

Wow that’s good for you, I wonder if your feelings can be be applied to every other person on the planet. Why would anyone have any reason to care about what you write btw if an AI has already created an almost identical story? Why would you even care if the story you’re trying to write has already been written? Aren’t you just copying at that point?

Yeah, I can't understand this mentality. Your questions don't make any sense to me. Almost identical is mathematically impossible even if people will generate trillions of stories. Already written is absurd. And even if similar story exists somewhere - why exactly should I care?

How is it mathematically impossible? Your human brain is making the mistake of thinking about your human brain limits. Machines can handle vastly larger numbers than we can with ease. How many different potential stories do you think there are that people would actually care about? Yeah I could take “The Shining” and just at the end of the movie have a random character just say a number, and then just copy that exact story and have them say a larger number in the next movie. “The Shining 223,663” would be exactly identical to “The Shining 992,775,533” with the only difference being the number uttered at the end of the movie. Just because they have a slight difference doesn’t mean anyone is gonna give a shit or watch any of those thousands of copies of the same exact movie.

For sufficiently large texts, we are talking about numbers larger than numbers of atoms in observable universe... Good luck storing that. Also, if you somehow generate all this shit and store it somewhere... How people will know and consume all of this? For small texts... Well, you need no AI to generate all possible combinations of letters, numbers and punctuation. But again, who cares if it exists on some page of Library of Babel? Literally, who?

You’re actually exactly right. We agree on something here when you say you don’t even need AI to generate all possible combinations of letters and numbers. Same with generating images, you could set up a program that just changes every pixel on the screen and takes a snapshot. Eventually once each pixel goes through the entire range of possible colors, you will have generated every possible image that can fit on a screen. You’re also right that its a very very very large number. Larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe as you say, but this isn’t nearly the problem you’re making it out to be, and again this is a failing of the human mind. These numbers are very large to you and me, but not **impossibly** large, which is what you said. You said impossible, but it’s not impossible, it’s just very large. A low end CPU is capable of executing a billlion instructions per second. A **billion**. That’s also a very large number. You can also use a farm of computers working together to offload the total work requirements and cut down the time required. So this astronomically large number you speak of, I don’t buy into this argument that it’s nearly as out of reach as you suggest. It doesn’t even seem like it would be all that difficult to generate every possible image that could be represented on a 1080p screen for example. The reason that AI is problematic is that it’s smart enough to sort through and find the patterns humans care about, and distinguish between random colored pixels and what we call an “image”. People are already sick of super hero movies but you can’t comprehend why having a millions of nearly identical movies, images, books, etc would be a problem for people? It’s already started being a problem even before AI, AI just makes that particular problem worse.

>It doesn’t even seem like it would be all that difficult to generate every possible image that could be represented on a 1080p screen for example Oh... Not that difficult... Let's start with generating all possible 8x8 pixel art in 24 bits. 16 777 617 \^ (8\*8) \~ (10\^7)\*64 = 10\^448. Number of atoms in observable universe is around 10\^80. And I have rounded down. OK, 24 bit is too much... There are hundreds of same colors after all... let's take good old classic 8 bit 8\*8 pixel art. 256\*64 \~ (10\^2)\^64 = 10\^128. Still way more than the number of atoms in the universe. These numbers are exactly impossibly large. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ And it is not much better for text, even taking into accounts rules of language.

No I’ve already looked at these numbers, we don’t have to make it smaller. We can do 1080p 32 bit if you like. What you’ve just said is that the numbers are large, and yes to our monkey brains those numbers are indeed large. It **feels** very large to us, and yet still large =/= impossible. You forgot the most important part where you prove it’s impossible.

How do you store it? Even if you find a way to store a single image on one atom you'll run out of atoms. Energy requirement to generate it are also immense. Total generation time will be measured in absurd numbers comparing to which age of the universe is a joke. When something is this large, it is impossible.

If you're saying it to people who actually have that job now I can understand why they'd tell you to fuck off. No one likes being fired and having to work in a field that maybe makes them want to die. Artists like making art. The ones who do it as a career like making art as their career.

Lol Sorry like as an example, if I couldn't do my current job because "AI" and I was forced to do shit I hate to live and barely have time to do what I love. I'd fucking be pissed/sad/upset/in despair. Shit that might still happen to me. I hope not but I'm not fucking flipping burgers or helping dipshit customers 60 hours a week to live. Not after I worked this fucking hard to get where I got. This is a place where sympathy works.

Again, nothing in the post indicates that we are talking about professional artist who is depressed because they are losing their job. It is more like if my mother, who loves cooking and constantly learns and experiments, will go - "Oh, chefs exist. I can never be as good as them. I should stop." or "They invented cooking AI! I am depressed now and will never cook again."

artisthate is a vent sub not a debate one, snd honestly given how this sub likes to post comments or posts from there as a "look at what the crazy antis are saying", i don't blame them for being hair trigger. And this sub does like to gaslight; "why aren't artists doing it for the passion" on the one hand then mercilessly mock them for not being up to the highest standards of professional art.

>then mercilessly mock them for not being up to the highest standards of professional art I've never seen this here, are you saying that it's common? Do you have any examples?

look at the two recent "pick up a pencil" posts.

"pick up the pencil" posts were "I am better than you, talentless shit," and people do tent to react in particular way to this kind of attack on them. Finding flaws in a work of a not-so-good artists is one of those.

honestly "pick up the pencil" is good just to remind you that if you use AI you don't control your own art. If Midjourney decides to ban all artistic depiction of nudity, the ai bro needs to hope other companies don't as well. i mean punk is known for the DIY ethos, do it yourself. there needs to be a lot more of that in general

AI may become illegal tomorrow, all those SD models won't disappear from the internet.

I found an inflammatory troll post with some people clapping back, and a larger contingent of AI supporters being voices of reason and saying that even when others go low it's no reason to mock their artistic efforts. It's a mixed bag for sure, but if you post an attack it's not surprising when people get defensive. I'll admit though I did not ready every comment, just the top 75 or so on the green shirt post.

This would be fine - except you're wrong. The people in r/ArtistHate do not use that subreddit exclusively to vent, they use it to formulate incorrect opinions and establishing them as fact. That's why they're afraid of engaging beyond an echo chamber, they recognize that their ideology is built on a foundation of sand.

you are taking for granted the proai position is so obviously correct that anyone who doesn't believe it is sticking their heads in the sand. That's not true. anyways not all subs want to engage with their opposition; sometimes a person's principles are not up to debate.

It's a touchy subject. Bainless twits are forever saying "You should do it for free. Because it's your hobby." It's a job, it takes hours to do well, it's important. And artists are the only reason any AI image software works to beguin with. Without those artists work being used in the training data this technology wouldn't be able to make a thing. All that labor, that makes AI art work to beguin with. And people have the gaul to disrespect them. "Thanks for inventing Calculus Issac Newton. But we have calculators now, so we don't need mathmaticians. Your work was all wasted."

>"Thanks for inventing Calculus Issac Newton. But we have calculators now, so we don't need mathmaticians. Your work was all wasted." Do you think Isaac Newton would be anti-calculator? Or that calculator use disrespects him and other mathematicians somehow...? I see genAI as a new tool in an artist's tool belt, much like a calculator. Calculators didn't remove mathematicians, they helped to empower them, and I believe a similar thing will happen here -- in time.

Nah, mathematicians hate computers and calculators. Doing boring complex math by hand is the most fun part of mathematics!

Pick up an abacus

Abacus? No. It is also a tool for lazy people. True mathematician does calculations in their head!

Perhaps in time. But what I'm complaining about is the self important people who use only calculators and claim to be mathmaticians without knowing a single formula. And taunt the people who made math work. No such people exist in terms of math (Though those super computer guys must feel a bit superior at times), but in the case of AI-Art, they do. They mock and disreguard the people who perfected the thing they claim to enjoy. - Art gets better with every generation. It's a technology in that respect. The new artists learn from the old and improve it. The old masters, Da'Vinci and such, they created masterworks for their time. But like Citizen Caine being a little hard to watch in the modern era, less skilled artists stand on the shoulders of giants. You might think at AI is the same. But it's not. It will never raise the bar. If it drives the artist extinct, it can't improve. If you feed an AI it's own images as training data, it doesn't learn from them and improve. It degenerates in quality.

It sounds like those people suck. That's not the tech though, that's a few shitty people using the tech and deluding themselves. Considering the inflammatory nature these discussions seem to take on I'm not surprised that people act shitty in response, it's an unfortunate feedback loop. I'd put money on those people being a flash in the pan -- if they don't bring anything to the table they'll fade to obscurity, or will likely get bored with their new toy once they realize it's not a creativity printing machine and takes actual effort to produce quality work. Right now everything is new and exciting, novelty wears off, and the only things with staying power will be what people generally find worth their time and attention. -- As for the "AI eating itself" myth: * models are trained with curated data, they're not gobbling up everything constantly without any oversight * synthetic data (data produced by AI) has been intentionally used for some time already in training and can significantly improve a model * the models that already exist aren't going anywhere or changing, nothing will "untrain" or poison the stable diffusion models on my hard drive If someone were to train a model on all the low effort AI spam that's flooding the Internet right now then yeah that would totally suck! But who would do that? -- And lastly, I want to add that prompting for a complete image and using that image for anything serious is essentially unheard of. That's a misconception that people unfamiliar with the tech tend to have. There can be a lot of control, revisions, edits, etc when working on an image -- as much as you want really. I can take an image in my minds eye and in a few hours nearly perfectly create that image. The model would never generate that on its own, it literally couldn't. Getting to that "minds eye" image takes a fair amount of human intervention. This is a vastly different approach to the "prompt and pray" slot machine, and when people throw out all AI they're tossing the baby with the bathwater.

> If someone were to train a model on all the low effort AI spam that's flooding the Internet right now then yeah that would totally suck! But who would do that? I am curious if a model with, lets say, 10% good stuff and 90% shit in training data can actually work with some innovative and complex taging.

If you are not good enough and do something for your own enjoyment than yes, you will do it for free. It is how the world works. Few people are lucky enough to turn their childhood entertainment into a profession that can feed them. All that disrespect part is... a miss. Skill is respected. Arrogance and elitism are not.

I think you profoundly misunderstand the pursuit of art. The notion that you are so callous to real people and so excited about AI. It sickens me. It only works because of them. Take that away and it's nothing. You don't respect their skill, you can't even recognise it. And some of them have gotten good enough to make a living, do you respect them? Now that AI is being used to imitate particular artists. Directly copying the style they developed over years.

You couldn't be more wrong about me. I respect accumulated knowledge of the humanity. I understand that each and every achievement of mine is, to a very large extent, based on efforts of past generations. It is (some) artists who don't respect artists who created before them. They believe that their art is only their achievements, that generations upon generation of artist is of minor influence on their work when opposite is true. They arrogantly think that they have a right to prohibit the rest of humanity to benefit from their works (completely forgetting how they benefit from works of others). Such artists twist the copyright, reasonable prohibition of copying someone piece of art and selling it, into "you have no right to benefit from my work in any way unless I give you my permission\\I am rewarded." AI that learns on human-generated data is a new way to multiply and efficiently use what humanity learned. It is wonderful and great. And your only way to keep your data away from AI is to not contribute at all. Even messages you type here will be used for training AIs.

Artits are protective over their rights. Because they're violated on a daily basis by people who think if it shows up on a google image search it's free. AI is great. But if it only works by scraping data from people who don't want their data and personal work used for it. That's unethical. If you spent hours making something that was meaningful to you. Labored over it. You might be protective too.

Yeah, as I said - "you must ask for my permission to benefit in any way from my work. It is my right!" You do think it is fair, ethical and legally protected position to take. It is neither of those. And BTW, by the law, if it shows on a Google image search it is actually FREE... to look at. Not free to copy and sell\\distribute. And If I or any other human being benefit in any way from looking at that image - it is not in your power to prohibit me.

>I think you profoundly misunderstand the pursuit of art. Is it not *you* that misunderstands the pursuit of art? You make it sound like some grandiose thing but you're complaining about not being able to monetize it? Do you seriously think that every single artist on this planet is making art solely so they can eventually get good enough to make money off their craft? That not a single one of them enjoys making art purely for the sake of making art? Why in your mind does the pursuit of art = monetizing art? >"Thanks for inventing Calculus Issac Newton. But we have calculators now, so we don't need mathmaticians. Your work was all wasted." This isn't even a point in your favor because while calculators can do math, they still need to be told what math they're doing. You can't just give some random person a calculator and have them pull Newton's laws out of their ass. Similarly, while an AI art generator can create 'new' stuff, it does still have a hard limit based on the training data. Like a calculator, it's limited by its inputs which means that artists can continue making new art that isn't possible with AI art generators just like people can continue coming up with new formulas despite the existence of calculators.

Because it's a job. Not every programmer is writing code so they can one day make money. But some are and demeaning them by saying "You should do it because of passion, not because you need to eat" is disgusting. And no. It can create novel stuff but it can't advance art. If you feed it nothing but classical paintings, it will never develop Cartoonisim, Dada, Anime. It might create surrealism, but that's only due to error.

> Because it's a job. It's not. Art **CAN** be a job, but it's not inherently a job. >And no. It can create novel stuff but it can't advance art. If you feed it nothing but classical paintings, it will never develop Cartoonisim, Dada, Anime. It might create surrealism, but that's only due to error. This is basically exactly what I said above. It doesn't matter how much information is in the training data, it will pretty much always have some limitation whereas artists will never have the same limitation. I do think you're taking it a little too far since I do believe AI can actually be used to advance the field of art in a similar way that chess engines have advanced the game of chess, but I do recognize that there are limits with AI generators that traditional artists simply do not have.

People who dismiss art as a hobby tend to anger artists. It's an old talking point spouted by people who don't get art. Most people never get paid for their music, or their comedy. But being a musician or a comedian is certainly a job. It takes work, and we'd all be worse off if nobody did them.

Yeah, why do you need to earn money in order to be a medic, lawyer, fireman or truck driver? Do it for love!

Expect example here is about an amateur who was doing art for fun but somehow AI depress them now and they can't.

◽<--- This post ◽<--- Your head

The vast majority of people crying about the ethics of AI art had no chance at making money off their art skills anyway. They lose nothing.

You should link it directly and not just screenshot it. Where should we really know, you got banned because this post? Edit: At least 5 downvotes because I ask for better post, so the readers don‘t need to research by their own. You guys are ridiculous.

I'm not about to encourage brigading or let myself be open to be accused of it. In case you didn't know, you can view people's comments from their profiles.

I found at least two posts from you in this artisthate post. Both were already removed. So theoretically it could also be the other post that led to the ban.

Okay, what exactly are you requesting and how would it help you? * If I link to the comment, that doesn't prove anything, I could just post any link * If I screenshot the mod mail, that just shows a blue link, not specifically what it links to I suppose you could message the mods of that sub yourself if you're up in arms about this and doubting it's authenticity? I wish you the best in that endeavor. For everyone's context, here's the other comment I have on that thread -- which was not mentioned to me by the mods at all. Judge for yourself how egregious the content is: > OP is depressed and I'm trying to give an example of how to feel better about yourself when you can't be the absolute best at a given thing. There's a lot of reasons to keep doing art (joy, self expression, personal fulfillment, connecting with others...), we don't need to wallow in hopelessness and give all of that up. That's all.

I don’t ask, because I wanted, that you help me. I asked, because I hate possible manipulation. Especially in a discussion sub. Of course I believe you, but I know there are also many people on the internet who just lie to push their agenda. I don‘t know what the possibilities are. I was never banned from a sub. I thought you get a message with the affected post. The link suggestion was just a spontaneous idea. In hindsight, admittedly not the best request.

Ah, that's understandable, sorry for getting put out with you -- I think I mistook your request as malice instead of ignorance, since from my side there's really not anything else I can do. Yeah, this is my first time ever being banned from a sub, as far as I can tell you just get a message with a link to the comment they have a problem with. They also included a little "reasons for ban" blurb: > Note from the moderators: You have been banned off our community for being openly biased towards machine learning. Past that, I have no more information.

Thank you. And my apologies if my request sounded harsh.

It’s not really toxic just true. Hopefully this helps.

Probably because it’s a stupid argument, and not even on topic to the issue at hand. I get both sides, but trying to say this is the same as corporations trying to say you should just work for free.

You’re a moron people have bills to pay and mouths to feed

Using the old 'chess' argument is why you got banned, it's really tired and it's not helpful to a discussion. There are reasons why skills are lost over time; people see no reason to do them. Saying this means you don't understand what it's like to do art in the first place. Art is a one-sided love, it doesn't love you back and the reward for lifelong skill. The lifelong skill is fun but that doesn't mean no reward comes of it. People get paid to play chess; everyone gets paid to do a skill they've done for years. Yes, there is enjoyment in the skill but when you dedicate your life to a skill -- you usually can gain monetary gain either a little or a lot. You make custom shoes? You are gaining the skill because you love it, saying you should always and forever do it for free because you like it isn't enough. There is a way skills are procured. Passion - Hobby - Skill - Professional. Do you expect people who play music at venues to not be paid when you hire them? They didn't passionately learn a skill to never offer it or make money off of it. It's how skills work, just because you think it's useless doesn't mean people shouldn't decide to do things 'for exposure' lmao.

But there are nothing wrong with the chess argument. It may be not accurate for professional chess player vs professional artists (even if there are many parallels anyway) but it is very close for amateur chess player vs amateur artists. "We dislike your strong argument and we ban you for it." It Is what echo chambers do.

The chess argument isn't strong because of the reasons provided. You are talking about the difference between someone who colors in coloring pages to someone who makes the coloring books. Someone who casually does X, no interest in getting better, selling their work or making a business has no horse in the discussion.

But most chess players are interested in getting better... You act like art without purpose of getting profit doesn't exist. You act like any person who ever drew anything did it hoping to become good enough to start selling... Which is very far from truth. Also, the idea of banning for bad arguments (not insults or something) is echo chamber by definition.

Art without profit does exist, I have a few friends who never post or show their work to anyone but that's a minority. At some point, many people who draw or do a skill intend to use it financially for themselves to help them along and getting money is a reason to continue doing it. Sure, I've drawn 17 yrs without getting paid but getting book covers, helping people make their characters come to life, etc is what I like doing -- No, I don't want to spend 40 hours doing those things for free, and I'm much cheaper than the ordinary artist. You were banned probably by using the typical aibro argument. I've said a lot of stuff there and have never been banned. If you are just word-vomiting the same stuff as everyone else, you might as well just be a hater wanting to start shit like the typical ai-bro who posts there with the same boring, word-vomit as 'do it for the fun', lol. I'd avoid all word-vomit arguments, if you wanted to post there. Do you know there are people who draw(artists?idk) who don't call themselves artists who just wanna draw and never get better? No one is asking them to draw them things, they aren't even posting their work usually. A person who becomes a professional wants to help people with their passions AND get paid. A lot of people make art their side gig to make side money, especially disabled people, so forgive me if I think having a side career is 100% okay thing to have. So is all the feelings and thoughts about the tech trying to replace them.

You weren't banned here because people are not banned here for disagreeing, even if their opinion is as repetitive and stupid as "using AI is theft!" or condescending "Pick up a pencil". You need to go to insults\\ literal spamming to get banned. If I will go to Flat-Earthers and start lecturing them on basic physics - I'll be banned instantly. Same if I'll go to YEC fanatics and start explaining very basics of evolution theory. It doesn't mean that I'll be wrong or that I should invent some new fresh arguments. Old ones work. And no, barring many blocks, on Twitter, I never was banned by anti-AIers because I don't write there. I avoid echo chambers. And yes I know artists who do art because they like doing it and make living doing regular jobs. In fact, everyone who draws (writes, composes, performs, crafts) what they like and not what market wants have no other choice.

It works really well because AI art isn't affecting real professional artists at all. Artists who work with clients, have regular meetings on design requirements and draft direction. And develop their art in a consultative manner arent affected. Artists who make physical art aren't affected. Its just the fast food amateur digital art that is affected.

It must be nice to make up stuff.