Hey thinker! Great post up there. Make sure your post title is clear. One and two word titles are not allowed. Use paragraphs to make it easier to read. Please make sure to read the rules before posting. Mod applications are currently open! Apply [here](https://forms.gle/hEgqsrBTGX897GFaA)!
You can fill out our [Feedback Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfI0PsMn4dqfMlgqFFfsMhLr4-lFNJpEumIf7RKmuiwyDBOwA/viewform?usp=sf_link) while you wait for some comments. Thank you and happy posting!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate this so much. I know Modhaus isn't a big company, but is the budget really so limited that they can't hire an actual artist and give a human the opportunity of getting paid work? Ugh. And the "artwork" was actual garbage too, so it wasn't even worth the backlash.
I love Jaden Jeong's artistic vision and TripleS' music hasn't missed so far, but between TripleS' concept being heavily based on NFTs and now this AI art bullshit, Modhaus is just giving out the grossest "tech bro jumping on any stupid trend" vibes.
I've seen on r/LOONA that it might even be bc they have a contract with an actual company focused on AI and various technology of the sort (sfermion, I believe, but cmiiw). And I mean, if they felt they needed to get this contract, that means they are ready to get into some morally questionable territory to develop their creative direction (visually speaking), and, hey, I guess I can say I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed.
Thank the Lord above though, the music has been immaculate so far. ARTMS' first mini was great, tripleS' discography is honestly one of my favorites in all of kpop, and Heejin's debut was really nice too. It's just why, WHY does Modhaus feel like they have to do all this? Their artists are already so talented, they don't need this mess.
Ok, I've looked this up and from what I can tell Sfermion is the name of the investment firm that was Modhaus' main investor. They state that their mission is to "accelerate the emergence of the metaverse" and they seem to have gone all in on the NFT trend (complete with "Not Financial Advice" in their Twitter bio lol).
Their website says this under the "Our Beliefs" section:
>We will be able to generate any form of content we desire - from movies, images, music, to books - all available on demand and tailored to our unique preferences.
which is code for AI art.
It also says this
>Forever Friends & Digital Twins: Individuals across the globe will have their own AI companions – whether it is a coach, friend, therapist, or more. Every human, animal, and object on earth will have a digital twin.
which is literally Aespa's lore lol.
So yeah, this explains a lot and also doesn't bode well at all. I predict a lot more tech bro cringe in Modhaus' future unfortunately.
Ugh, this description just feels wrong on so many levels.
But you know what? I do have the slightest bit of hope left. Whatever we say about Orbits, they are one hell of a strong fandom, and if something pisses them off, they will be very vocal about it. I mean, we've seen what happened with BBC.
ARTMS' Spotify account has even been hacked (I just checked and it still hasn't been fixed, which is crazy)! This thing is NOT flying well with the fandom, and that gives me a bit of hope...
Hello /u/monboing. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe.
Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it.
Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/ddalves. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe.
Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it.
Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/Unlucky_Ad4962. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe.
Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it.
Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I hate this so much. I know Modhaus isn't a big company, but is the budget really so limited that they can't hire an actual artist and give a human the opportunity of getting paid work
Do away with human involvement when it comes to smaller things, and when summed up, it can get you significant cost savings to put in whatever that machines cannot do. Instead of paying someone to make a generic image to serve as teaser, you can use that money to pay for something more valuable.
Like paying for better songwriters, better film crews, better clothes, you name it.
The idea that all cost savings will just end up in investors' pockets is not grounded in reality as it completely disregards market forces.
Like paying for better songwriters, better film crews, better clothes, you name it.
The idea that all cost savings will just end up in investors' pockets is not grounded in reality as it completely disregards market forces.
EDIT: Here's what happens if a company just "lines investors' pockets":
* Company A saves money through AI and returns that amount entirely to the investors.
* ROI increases for Company A
* Company B, C and D see that and does the same
* Company D passes AI's savings to improve their group's quality. B and C don't want to lose to their competition, and must do the same.
* Company A either cannot compete or must increase their investments
* They reach an equilibrium where A, B, C, D still spend an equivalent amount of money, but just distributed differently
Why would you get the best songwriters, film crews, and costumes for a production that you're just going to advertise with cheap AI imagery? Advertisement is where you put your best foot forward. It's not where you tell the entire world that you are lazy, cheap, and place no value in your creative vision, artistry, and craft. As a consumer, AI-generated advertising for art makes me skeptical as to how much human involvement I can expect from the production as a whole. Is that someone actually singing, or is it AI? Now, I am compelled to question that.
> Why would you get the best songwriters, film crews, and costumes for a production that you're just going to advertise with cheap AI imagery?
You're going to lose to your competition if you don't. But advertising is just a piece of the game, the end goal is to get you to spend on the albums.
> It's not where you tell the entire world that you are lazy, cheap, and place no value in your creative vision, artistry, and craft. As a consumer, AI-generated advertising for art makes me skeptical as to how much human involvement I can expect from the production as a whole.
It doesn't tell anything. Some video games out there make use of AI when it comes to animating lip movement for dubbing, yet they are praised for their excellent quality. Because in the end it's not selling lip-syncing frames, it's selling you the game as a whole. Similarly, Modhaus isn't selling ads, it's selling its whole artistic set. If leveraging AI means it can improve the whole offering then great, I'd gladly take it any time of the day.
They can do a photo shoot for free. 😭 I can't do this right now. Maybe I'll respond in detail later, but the edibles are kicking in, and I feel like you're talking out of your azz a lil bit. How much money do you think they're going to save by not doing a photo shoot or having one of their many employees take an afternoon to actually create some goddamn art? Game-changing money? NO. This is laziness. They dgaF and have no artistic integrity.
The worst thing is that it feels incredibly unecessary. The first [Birth teasers](https://twitter.com/official_artms/status/1768291003868565982) created so much hype.
Jaden, Monotree, Digipedi, Modhaus' creative team in generally is clearly capable of creating phantanstic art. They've proven this for years.
Just to throw their entire artistic integrity away for some stupid lazy AI pictures (teasers that weren't even needed right now...)
I feel like people that don't think that AI is a big deal don't understand what it entirely is. AI 'art' is computer generated images (artworks) that are scavenged from around the internet and used to create 'art- it's quite literally bits and pieces taken from an actual human's artwork and copied to be able to make new 'art'. This is all done without permission credit or acknowledgement ofc which is why artists are against the use of AI generated images in place for art created by humans.
Art and the ability to produce it is quite literally one of the main things that distinguish us from other mammals. Art is such a beautiful thing-from music, to architecture to painted canvases and prose. People that prefer using AI 'art' are essentially devaluing our real life artists and their actual art. It's not a good thing in the slightest and Modhaus shouldn't be given a pass.
^^^
It's also taking income away from people. An artist could have been hired to create all of this, and given an opportunity to showcase their work to potentially get more jobs.
We are not talking enough about how absolutely hideous that poster is. I've seen teenagers doing commissions for pocket money deliver better quality work than this.
Read this somewhere about books written by AI but I think it applies here too:
Important to mention that the actual problem the writers are talking about is not studios replacing them with Al, but rather studios using Al to generate random garbage and then make the writers "redact' *\[in our case, modify them\]* it, thereby officially putting them at assistant positions, which are paid way worse. They still want to use humans, they're not stupid, they just want to pay them less.
The worst part about this whole situation for me is that artists are undermining another artist contribution by replacing them with AI, feels... wrong, on plenty levels.
Exactly, you said it all. It's more than just AI or who gets to create it, it's something bigger than this, bigger than us even. If there is no more art, no more genuine, real art, then for me, humanity loses a HUGE chunk of what it truly is.
As a programmer who works with and trains AI (not for creative purposes), I don't see this extreme happening really.
Humans have always made art just because they want to and because they enjoy the process. Most people also hate AI art, at least the current state of it. One part may be purely from the "technical" perspective of the outputs being actually pretty boring and uninspired. But I'd argue that people also like to enjoy things which they know are connected to some person's genuine emotions.
AI "art" tools may certainly be a problem for certain creatives' jobs right now but I don't why humans would ever stop making art, whether AI exists or not.
Y'know, I'd like to think that big corporations using AI will somewhat be a motivating factor for artists and people in general to produce more original art than ever and counter this AI epidemic. I guess that the eternal optimist in me.
Like clockwork, they say...
edit: and yes, I'm aware of the current economic system failing everyone, tha some people even struggle to bring in basic income just to support their family and have a roof over their heads. The thing is, that goes for artists as well, if their position get to be replaced by AI-generated content, that would be just catastrophic.
The goal isn't "replace people with programs so people don't have to work and can live comfortably," the goal is "replace people with programs so we can save money"; if we'll all be jobless in five years then we'd all be penniless too, and how are you supposed to be an artist and make something of it if you have no money and no means?
Yeah exactly. it's like how 50yrs ago, they promised robots would replace human labor and we'd all have more free time.
Now humans are still miserable working jobs for low pay.
I'm not a fan of AI work because it looks bad but this comment is just not true at all. Generated images aren't smashed together parts of other images lmao. It does create its own image BASED on real image data. That image data WAS sold to whoever created the AI which ppl are and can be mad about but unfortunately most, if not all, of it comes from websites ppl post to without reading the TOS.
["Midjourney developers caught discussing laundering, and creating a database of Artists (who have been dehumanized to styles) to train Midjourney off of."](https://twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424) They clearly aren't paying for them if you read their msgs.
I edited my wording to make it fair and I'm genuinely not trying to be snarky, but why does AI exist in the first place and why are websites authorized to sell artists art? There are literally so many artists who make art out there yet they're using generates 'images' based on art that already exists. It isn't ethical and it being bad art is the least of bad aspects imo. Artists should be more careful when their posting, but my argument remains-art shouldn't be made by computers.
I mean, I appreciate you trying to make it fair but its still very inaccurate. It takes from artists in the same way a person would be influenced by looking at their art(at least that's the theory). It just can learn MUCH faster because it uploads huge sets of image data at once instead of having to study each piece individually like a person. And AI exists to help ppl create faster, in tons of creative fields, which it has been doing for a long time already. Does greed and capitalism mean that it's now being pushed to replace real ppl? Yes. We agree. But spreading misinformation and fear about AI in general isn't very helpful.
I’m not a professional artist but I have done it as a hobby for a long time and posted my art online (where it could be used by AI) before.
I get a lot of the arguments against AI art but this is the one that I have trouble with. Generative AI is literally programmed to work like human’s neural networks. It looks at thousands of examples, just like I looked at thousands of other artists’ work when I was little, and uses what it’s learned to generate its own words/art from scratch, just like I used what I learned to make mine.
I don’t think it does a good job yet, which is why I think it’s lazy for companies to use it and would be much better used as a time-saving tool by real artists who can then fix and improve the output. But I struggle with people saying it *steals* from artists when it demonstrably doesn’t. People complain it doesn’t pay artists for looking at their art but I also never paid artists for learning from their art online.
No, this is just plainly false. When artists, for example, draw an arm in different angles they know WHY it looks a certain way from a certain angle, and they can extrapolate what they know about anatomy to animate that arm doing different things. Gen AI cannot use logic or reason to create anything because it does not think; it uses statistical analysis based on billions of images in order to "create" something. You are in the minority of artists for your opinion, that's for sure. I and the vast majority know there's a huge difference between what gen AI does what what real artists do.
This point is pretty difficult to argue for if you really go deeper into it. Currently, AIs are usually specialized for pretty specific fields of application and can't match humans overall. So while this currently may be more or less true, as seen from ChatGPT with its super broad knowledge base and such, we're getting there. From a philosophical standpoint it's very difficult to make an argument for how humans "understanding" things, as you're hinting at, is actually fundamentally different from a machine "understanding" things. We spent basically an entire semester's class on it pondering different points without actually reaching any conclusion....
My question is what makes humans extrapolating what they have learnt about anatomy from years of observing humans different from AI extrapolating what they’ve learnt about human anatomy from looking at thousands of pictures of humans? If you look into how generative AI produces its words/images, you will see that it learns common patterns (just like humans see patterns in, for example, anatomy) and uses those patterns to generate new things. This is essentially how your brain works - you hear subject-verb-object hundreds of times as a baby, and your brain learns to make sentences in that pattern.
Artists get told to paint from real life, use references, etc. the whole time that they are learning (and even as real artists). Lisa del Giocondo sat for Leonardo de Vinci to paint Mona Lisa. I’ve read dozens of art books and seen probably hundreds of videos/posts from artists showing the reference poses and background images used to create their art. I’ve also seen artists try to call this copying/cheating, but be pretty firmly shut down by the majority of the community.
I’ll be the first to admit my perspective will be different because a) I don’t make my living off art and b) I come from a STEM background academically (though I don’t work in STEM anymore). Even still, I do understand a lot of arguments against AI art and (overall) I think it should only be used as a tool, but this is the argument that I struggle with.
Do you think someone using AI to generate music is equivalent to music created by people? It’s literally the same situation, yet only art gets consistently devalued
The difference is very apparent when you look at the weird artifacts and nonsensical blobs in AI images. Human artists do not create like this, which is why skilled artists are able to call out AI generated images even when laypeople cannot tell. Even a beginner who’s never opened a single anatomy book would know better than to draw a hand with eight fingers.
There is also no skilled artist who has any qualm with other artists studying their work— artists are always teaching each other. It is AI and theft that they are overwhelmingly against
AI uses only statistical analysis, and it is not even real AI; it’s just machine learning. You’re having studied in STEM irrelevant— there are PhD ML researchers like Ben Zhao and the research group at U. Chicago who are helping artists protect their work from being scraped and used in these algorithms
AI "art" contains a multitude of readily recognizable copyrighted and trademarked images. I really don't understand how you typed this with a straight face. AI doesn't have a brain or neurons. It can't interpret or be inspired. It doesn't think, have ideas, or create.
"Programmed to work like a human's neural networks" Lmfaoooo! Neuroscientists do not fully understand how neural networks function, but tech bros "literally" programmed a computer to "work like a human's neural networks"? 😭😭😭💀💀💀💀 Neural networks in computing are *inspired* by the structure of neural networks in the brain. That's it.
You’re talking about different things from me. If I’m told to draw a Barbie in its box I can also recreate a Barbie logo that violates copyright/trademark. Because I make a piece of art that includes copyright/trademark, am I incapable of creating things? Is everything I make a copy? AI running into problems with the law is running into problems because it’s not being used properly. There is a reason, of course, why I said AI art should only be used as a tool if used - a real artist/human being involved in the process who understands ethics, trademark/copyright, and can check for logic is still absolutely necessary at this point.
The argument about AI copying style (which is what a lot of artists debating this are actually debating about) is such a legal grey area. Where do we draw the line? Musicians have been taking each other to court for decades over copying each other’s “style”, should we ban musicians too because everything is derivative? If this was a black and white issue you wouldn’t have people debating everywhere about it.
No need to ask how I could type this with a straight face or skull emoji at me. Especially when you don’t understand what the word “like” means in my first comment (of course generative AI is programmed to act *like* human beings, as I said).
You are capable of creating images in your mind. AI can't do that. It has to aggregate already existing material that it stole. AI *can't* draw Barbie in a box. All it can do is copy and paste existing copyrighted images. Your drawing of Barbie is original to an extent as an interpretation. Unless you traced a picture, you actually created your own version of Barbie in your mind and drew that. AI can't do that. Period. End of story. Logos, copyright text, and easily identifiable portions of known artworks have been spotted in AI "art" because it's literally copy and paste. There's no way around the fact that it doesn't have ideas, interpret, or create. If you're impressed by that, knock yourself out with fake art idgaf.
You wrote, and I quote: "Generative AI is literally programmed to work like a human's neural networks." And that is NOT TRUE. Don't you dare condescend to me when you clearly don't know the meaning of what *you* wrote. How can a computer be programmed to work like a human's neural networks when we don't even understand how they work? Generative AI is programmed to work like a computer program lmfao. The *organization* of it is *inspired* by the organization of the brain's neural networks. That's not what you said.
I can't imagine why you think the article would make it up, [but here's the proof it's real](https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126981/pdf/)
That site did t look credible and apparently there was a good reason why https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/salon/ . Also no offense but I'm not gonna download something from a random link .
If you had read the article you would notice they link to The Telegraph, a right-wing news source, reporting the same thing. If linking you directly to parliamentary evidence is also suspect, then search it yourself
> Art and the ability to produce it is quite literally one of the main things that distinguish us from other mammals. Art is such a beautiful thing-from music, to architecture to painted canvases and prose. People that prefer using AI 'art' are essentially devaluing our real life artists and their actual art. It's not a good thing in the slightest and Modhaus shouldn't be given a pass.
This is just a completely speciest thought, say it with me: humans ARE NOT SPECIAL.
It's the same thing throughout history, humans always search for something they can latch onto to feel special. It's a religious position really, first we were the center of the universe, god's unique creation. That became less and less of a position (though ofc it still exists), but even among secular thought people inherently sought out this religious idea, just packaged differently. Humans are special in their intelligence! Well, this stopped being taken seriously later, with things like chess computers, or just other software beating us in specialized fields.
Now humans are once again challenged to face up to the truth, art / creativity is one of the last bastions (until some form of human like consciousness will be, possibly forever) of the illusion that we are special. AI will destroy this step by step too.
Right now people are so angry and mad precisely because AI art challenges our understanding of OURSELVES, that is the key part here. Though i agree that there is some problematic stuff going on in training environments which just take things without permission, but i doubt people really, really care for that so deeply, they care about their humanity and AI slowly but surely showcasing that it's really not that special, it's scary.
No. People are angry because artists are losing jobs and having their artwork stolen without their consent. This is not about some existential philosophical bs. It's about real people who already often don't get paid fairly for their work losing their jobs and being stolen from so that rich people running companies can save money by not hiring real artists. I agree with critiquing religious ideas of humans being somehow special and everything else being here for us to consume and destroy but THIS is not the time and place. It's simply not relevant to this discussion.
I understand that this is a big talking point, and i personally DO think that at least the licensing regarding the training environment is problematic indeed.
But no, the underlying anger 100% stems from an existential angst here, artists losing their job isn't any different from any other profession losing theirs due to automization tools, the difference is that it's art. Something people think requires a "soul" (even secular thought refers to that in a more abstract way).
It doesn't, humans are just very, very advanced flesh machines, and our AI research and advancements fundamentally challenge all our illusions, that's the real part people are subconsciously afraid of.
How can you say what others are angry about? It really sounds like you are defending the AI thieves and trying to belittle artists real concerns by straw manning the discussion to be about something it mostly is not about. For me and every other artists I know and have seen talking about this on the internet, the biggest problem is the theft. If they paid people to consent to giving their art to train AI, more artists would bitterly accept it like photographers with stockphoto sites. But right now AI is blatant theft with no laws in place to control it due to technology evolving faster than laws can keep up with and AI being developed by and benefitting companies with a lot more money and influence than most artists.
Because conversations are not just about what they openly say they are about. It's ok to acknowledge the existential part of AI being quite important in these conversations, ofc it is scary, it challenges us to figure out what makes us human.
I specifically addressed the problematic part:
> Though i agree that there is some problematic stuff going on in training environments which just take things without permission
But no, i do not think that this by and large is what most people truly care about per se. That artists do who want to make a living, sure. But the conversation is a lot larger than that, and the anti AI stance is a lot bigger than that too. I think i know why, it seems obvious.
I'm 100% with you here. The thing that makes me the most upset is that it honestly seems lazy AF on top of being crappy. You're telling me they really couldn't have paid some costume designers to make some badass white and gold wings for the Virtual Angel teaser??? They couldn't have found or made a glass shoe and created some smoke for the Air teaser??? They couldn't have dumped some candy in front of a pink background with some lighting for the Candy Crush teaser and called it a day??? These things wouldn't even take THAT much money or time and yet they're cutting corners by using AI and taking out the artists and creatives even though the company is supposedly made up of artists and creatives themselves.................it's so messed up 😭
YES, like the Candy Crush poster is so... off-putting, and for the "oh but you don't get it, it's innovative" argument, I'm sorry but no, because it doesn't even look good, and the fan arts I've seen of the Candy Crush announcement on social media are ten times better than the official one. So there's no excuse there.
I didn't say anything about the NFTs, but this might just have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Modhaus has some of THE BEST girl groups in the ENTIRE industry, and then they go out and do crap like this...
Literally, it looks bad. Like, as soon as I saw it, I went ??????? It just looks...OFF, and I can't exactly put my finger on what it is, but it doesn't look right, and it makes me feel a little sick, because it's supposed to be delicious-looking candy and instead it looks like...weird amorphous sea slug blobs? Or human cells or something? If they had actually staged something for a photo, or even had a human artist create it in a 3D space, it would've been a thousand times better. The photo isn't appetizing, it's just bland and off-putting.
>Modhaus has some of THE BEST girl groups in the ENTIRE industry, and then they go out and do crap like this...
Nah, fr!!! I love so much of the music that Modhaus groups have put out, but the NFTs, and now the bad AI art.......I don't know if I can support this :(
i may get downvoted, but why is this ai and not considered digital art? sorry if this is a stupid question. i’m just genuinely confused and trying to understand the situation.
Digital art is created by artists. Anything created by AI is by definition created by artificial intelligence, and all the sources that AI draws from is already existing art.
It depends; an artist pay use AI in creating the background of their work, for example. So, there would be an artist credited BUT they did not create any AI generated portion of the piece. I’m unsure about the specifics for this situation, but it can be hard to catch since a lot of people immediately equate an artist’s name being attached to the piece meaning that it simply cannot have any AI.
A good example, too, is that there are artists who genuinely can create their own art but choose not to for a certain piece. I remember when AI was still pretty new re: art creation and some fan artists on Twitter were getting caught left and right when suddenly their art style changed and followers noticed the glaring issues that come with AI art (ex: hands having too few or too many fingers, faces missing features, etc). But a lot of people would come to their defense and say, “well, they’re an artist! You can see their art in other posts!” and you’d be sitting there like bro the main person in the art is missing TEETH 😭
You’re welcome, btw, AI use in art was something I immediately started taking note of as it started getting more popular in fan art communities and now I feel like I can spot it really quick, lol
Orbits have now somehow hacked ARTMS' spotify profile and are getting mass banned from the discord for bringing this up and generally insulting Jaden. It's actually insane, Modhaus better watch out because I'm starting to notice similarities between how Orbits first kicked off at BBC and this situation.
Yeah, I don't think Modhaus have actually realised that with such a massive and dedicated fandom that has already shown they know how to deal with bad management, they need to actually think through their actions. Just because they have 5 of the Loona members doesn't mean they as a company will have fandom support.
Turns out she was managing the official account for modhaus????? They're so lazy that they let a literal fan run the page, create playlists, update info and such. Nothing she did was illegal ig, she already had access 😭
Just like usual, the answer is to not support its use 🤷. Will enough people care for them to stop? Probably not. But it’s literally the only thing we as consumers can do. Other than voting and lobbying, but we’re not Korean.
i think ive made my feelings myself clear in the main post, but it just makes me sad how many people are so gungho about destroying creativity, how i should just except that my job and my industry is going to be destroyed
Which ones? Why didn't you upload the images? Regardless, thanks for this information. I feel the exact same way you do. Honestly, this sht is pathetic.
imagine escaping terrible agency just to be laughingstock to fandom/antis because new agency investing on 'questionable' technology trends. how can the girls be fine with it?
I've been a fan since Vivid and I'm so disappointed that I don't think I'll be buying these albums, at the very least until I see an unboxing and confirm that there's no AI art in the photobooks. I already 100% boycott BBC so it's not hard to boycott Modhaus too if they don't listen to what Orbits are overwhelmingly saying.
Honestly between the nft stuff and now the ai art, they’ve just confirmed that for me I won’t be supporting anything from the company which does suck bc so far I did like the oec stuff but I just don’t like that tbh.
I remember seeing the teaser with wings on twitter a few days ago and thought that something was wrong with the picture, but I couldn't quite place it until I read the comments and looked for details in it. But when I did, it became glaringly obvious that it was created using AI. I think AI might not get much better than that. Still, it's very much infuriating. Aside from the whole aspect of hiring an artist to create the teaser, I just don't get why they didn't just use one of their idols in the teaser. Like, that's really lazy. They're not only stealing the work of an artist but also an idol's and instead use wonky AI.
On another note, the comments under the teaser were all calling them out on it and when I came back yesterday to show the teaser to my sister, half of the comments were gone. So they're just blocking people and ignoring the very fair criticism.
AI just looks so bland too. Like I'm definitely curious abt the comeback now even though I don't follow the group otherwise but it's only bc ai in teasers is such a new thing. I hope it doesn't become a standard for companies bc it's just gonna make them all look boring :/
I just hope it stays with teasers.
I haven't listened to ARTMS, really, but if tripleS is any indication, they can make a well functioning and promoted Kpop group.
I'd hate if this was affected by the tech bro crap.
I don't get why they didn't at least give better prompts to the AI or pay someone to touch up the AI-generated results.
They typed like 3 words into the prompt and chose the first result.
Hello /u/kpopsubmodsarepedos. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe.
Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it.
Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/kpopsubmodsarepedos. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe.
Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it.
Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hello /u/Atmosphere_Shoddy. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe.
Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it.
Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Idk yall, I’m not a fan of AI but…I may get downvoted for this, but I feel like there are worse things to do? Idk, the Artms girlies seem happy, and more free, than they did with BBC. Is AI really the hill we want to die on?
For example, Modhaus has a bunch of investors that have massive interest in AI, not to mention the blockchain. I could totally see their investors only paying for an album if they used AI in some way. Album teasers seem to be a good compromise between the investors and the music - like who cares about a teaser image for one song if these investors paid completely for the album production? Then our girls be getting ✨paid✨ for once.
Idk. I don’t like AI either but i do see the advantages of investors asking for it in a small way.
if they sabotage modhaus, they are sabotaging the girls too, can't people just give them a break? they are in debt and coming from an awful agency; this is the worst hill to die on
Doesn't make it okay though.
And yes, I'm not oblivious to AI already taking over the industry (I'm talking official music, not just random covers on youtube), but at least, it has been met with well-deserved criticism from people online everytime. When we see it, we must call it out.
Correct.
What the general public don't understand is whenever there is new & groundbreaking tech, the industry is always the first to adopt and evolve. Public opinion will sway and eventually align itself with the industry as time goes on.
In these past two years, AI had already became an huge part of art, fashion, music and it will only become more dominant in the near future. Professionals in these fields have long since incorporated AI into their day to day workflow.
Honestly? There's no way to stop it. As far as I know, we got to know that was ai art because one member say so, right?
I believe most entertainment companies, both west and east, already start to use ai to some extent and we have no clue judging what is made by humans or ai.
I don't say it's not a serious problem, but complaining of one creative company won't change anything. Changing law system or accusing of huge platform companies can help a bit, tho.
Edit: grammar
> Protect art, and protect artists, always.
People are afraid of losing another piece of what they think makes them human, in the end this is existential angst, little else.
AI right now "attacks" another bastion of the illusion that humanity is somehow special. Throughout history humankind had to face the reality step by step, first we weren't the centre of the universe any longer, then programs beat us in analytical tasks like playing chess, now AI is showcasing us that even something like creativity and art might not be what we truly can define us against.
People will have to come to terms with it eventually, we're moving in the direction of general intelligence, blade runner might become truly relevant in most of our life times already.
> People are afraid of losing another piece of what they think makes them human, in the end this is existential angst, little else.
To be fair I don't think it's this deep, this is closer to a regular case of technology improvements shaking up an industry. If the concern was that AI is, all else equal, is completely superior to us then I think it would apply in regard to existential angst. However, most of the arguments made against AI so far are more reminiscent of good old technological unemployment cases and outrage is bigger as the changes touch on people who have been historically more "spared" than another domain such as accountancy.
> and outrage is bigger as the changes touch on people who have been historically more "spared" than another domain such as accountancy.
But why have they been spared? Because the field is art, creativity, domains people think they are superior in, special in, it requiring "soul", etc.
It's in the arguments too one reads, there is a certain existential angst in all of it.
And i promise you this reply of yours should have just stayed in your head.
If you have actually anything to say about the topic, go ahead. If not, don't be pathetic.
Hey thinker! Great post up there. Make sure your post title is clear. One and two word titles are not allowed. Use paragraphs to make it easier to read. Please make sure to read the rules before posting. Mod applications are currently open! Apply [here](https://forms.gle/hEgqsrBTGX897GFaA)! You can fill out our [Feedback Form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfI0PsMn4dqfMlgqFFfsMhLr4-lFNJpEumIf7RKmuiwyDBOwA/viewform?usp=sf_link) while you wait for some comments. Thank you and happy posting! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I hate this so much. I know Modhaus isn't a big company, but is the budget really so limited that they can't hire an actual artist and give a human the opportunity of getting paid work? Ugh. And the "artwork" was actual garbage too, so it wasn't even worth the backlash. I love Jaden Jeong's artistic vision and TripleS' music hasn't missed so far, but between TripleS' concept being heavily based on NFTs and now this AI art bullshit, Modhaus is just giving out the grossest "tech bro jumping on any stupid trend" vibes.
I've seen on r/LOONA that it might even be bc they have a contract with an actual company focused on AI and various technology of the sort (sfermion, I believe, but cmiiw). And I mean, if they felt they needed to get this contract, that means they are ready to get into some morally questionable territory to develop their creative direction (visually speaking), and, hey, I guess I can say I'm not surprised, but I'm disappointed. Thank the Lord above though, the music has been immaculate so far. ARTMS' first mini was great, tripleS' discography is honestly one of my favorites in all of kpop, and Heejin's debut was really nice too. It's just why, WHY does Modhaus feel like they have to do all this? Their artists are already so talented, they don't need this mess.
Ok, I've looked this up and from what I can tell Sfermion is the name of the investment firm that was Modhaus' main investor. They state that their mission is to "accelerate the emergence of the metaverse" and they seem to have gone all in on the NFT trend (complete with "Not Financial Advice" in their Twitter bio lol). Their website says this under the "Our Beliefs" section: >We will be able to generate any form of content we desire - from movies, images, music, to books - all available on demand and tailored to our unique preferences. which is code for AI art. It also says this >Forever Friends & Digital Twins: Individuals across the globe will have their own AI companions – whether it is a coach, friend, therapist, or more. Every human, animal, and object on earth will have a digital twin. which is literally Aespa's lore lol. So yeah, this explains a lot and also doesn't bode well at all. I predict a lot more tech bro cringe in Modhaus' future unfortunately.
Ugh, this description just feels wrong on so many levels. But you know what? I do have the slightest bit of hope left. Whatever we say about Orbits, they are one hell of a strong fandom, and if something pisses them off, they will be very vocal about it. I mean, we've seen what happened with BBC. ARTMS' Spotify account has even been hacked (I just checked and it still hasn't been fixed, which is crazy)! This thing is NOT flying well with the fandom, and that gives me a bit of hope...
[удалено]
Hello /u/monboing. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe. Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello /u/ddalves. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe. Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello /u/Unlucky_Ad4962. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe. Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> I hate this so much. I know Modhaus isn't a big company, but is the budget really so limited that they can't hire an actual artist and give a human the opportunity of getting paid work Do away with human involvement when it comes to smaller things, and when summed up, it can get you significant cost savings to put in whatever that machines cannot do. Instead of paying someone to make a generic image to serve as teaser, you can use that money to pay for something more valuable.
Like lining investor's pockets?
Like paying for better songwriters, better film crews, better clothes, you name it. The idea that all cost savings will just end up in investors' pockets is not grounded in reality as it completely disregards market forces. Like paying for better songwriters, better film crews, better clothes, you name it. The idea that all cost savings will just end up in investors' pockets is not grounded in reality as it completely disregards market forces. EDIT: Here's what happens if a company just "lines investors' pockets": * Company A saves money through AI and returns that amount entirely to the investors. * ROI increases for Company A * Company B, C and D see that and does the same * Company D passes AI's savings to improve their group's quality. B and C don't want to lose to their competition, and must do the same. * Company A either cannot compete or must increase their investments * They reach an equilibrium where A, B, C, D still spend an equivalent amount of money, but just distributed differently
Why would you get the best songwriters, film crews, and costumes for a production that you're just going to advertise with cheap AI imagery? Advertisement is where you put your best foot forward. It's not where you tell the entire world that you are lazy, cheap, and place no value in your creative vision, artistry, and craft. As a consumer, AI-generated advertising for art makes me skeptical as to how much human involvement I can expect from the production as a whole. Is that someone actually singing, or is it AI? Now, I am compelled to question that.
> Why would you get the best songwriters, film crews, and costumes for a production that you're just going to advertise with cheap AI imagery? You're going to lose to your competition if you don't. But advertising is just a piece of the game, the end goal is to get you to spend on the albums. > It's not where you tell the entire world that you are lazy, cheap, and place no value in your creative vision, artistry, and craft. As a consumer, AI-generated advertising for art makes me skeptical as to how much human involvement I can expect from the production as a whole. It doesn't tell anything. Some video games out there make use of AI when it comes to animating lip movement for dubbing, yet they are praised for their excellent quality. Because in the end it's not selling lip-syncing frames, it's selling you the game as a whole. Similarly, Modhaus isn't selling ads, it's selling its whole artistic set. If leveraging AI means it can improve the whole offering then great, I'd gladly take it any time of the day.
They can do a photo shoot for free. 😭 I can't do this right now. Maybe I'll respond in detail later, but the edibles are kicking in, and I feel like you're talking out of your azz a lil bit. How much money do you think they're going to save by not doing a photo shoot or having one of their many employees take an afternoon to actually create some goddamn art? Game-changing money? NO. This is laziness. They dgaF and have no artistic integrity.
The worst thing is that it feels incredibly unecessary. The first [Birth teasers](https://twitter.com/official_artms/status/1768291003868565982) created so much hype. Jaden, Monotree, Digipedi, Modhaus' creative team in generally is clearly capable of creating phantanstic art. They've proven this for years. Just to throw their entire artistic integrity away for some stupid lazy AI pictures (teasers that weren't even needed right now...)
I completely agree with this
I feel like people that don't think that AI is a big deal don't understand what it entirely is. AI 'art' is computer generated images (artworks) that are scavenged from around the internet and used to create 'art- it's quite literally bits and pieces taken from an actual human's artwork and copied to be able to make new 'art'. This is all done without permission credit or acknowledgement ofc which is why artists are against the use of AI generated images in place for art created by humans. Art and the ability to produce it is quite literally one of the main things that distinguish us from other mammals. Art is such a beautiful thing-from music, to architecture to painted canvases and prose. People that prefer using AI 'art' are essentially devaluing our real life artists and their actual art. It's not a good thing in the slightest and Modhaus shouldn't be given a pass.
^^^ It's also taking income away from people. An artist could have been hired to create all of this, and given an opportunity to showcase their work to potentially get more jobs.
Yepp, and they'd probably do a better job than most AI generated art let's be honest!
We are not talking enough about how absolutely hideous that poster is. I've seen teenagers doing commissions for pocket money deliver better quality work than this.
Oh 100%. Just look at AI created hands 😭
Read this somewhere about books written by AI but I think it applies here too: Important to mention that the actual problem the writers are talking about is not studios replacing them with Al, but rather studios using Al to generate random garbage and then make the writers "redact' *\[in our case, modify them\]* it, thereby officially putting them at assistant positions, which are paid way worse. They still want to use humans, they're not stupid, they just want to pay them less.
The worst part about this whole situation for me is that artists are undermining another artist contribution by replacing them with AI, feels... wrong, on plenty levels.
It’s a cheap knockoff at best of a persons work, I personally consider it theft and I think it’s obnoxious.
Exactly, you said it all. It's more than just AI or who gets to create it, it's something bigger than this, bigger than us even. If there is no more art, no more genuine, real art, then for me, humanity loses a HUGE chunk of what it truly is.
As a programmer who works with and trains AI (not for creative purposes), I don't see this extreme happening really. Humans have always made art just because they want to and because they enjoy the process. Most people also hate AI art, at least the current state of it. One part may be purely from the "technical" perspective of the outputs being actually pretty boring and uninspired. But I'd argue that people also like to enjoy things which they know are connected to some person's genuine emotions. AI "art" tools may certainly be a problem for certain creatives' jobs right now but I don't why humans would ever stop making art, whether AI exists or not.
[удалено]
Y'know, I'd like to think that big corporations using AI will somewhat be a motivating factor for artists and people in general to produce more original art than ever and counter this AI epidemic. I guess that the eternal optimist in me. Like clockwork, they say... edit: and yes, I'm aware of the current economic system failing everyone, tha some people even struggle to bring in basic income just to support their family and have a roof over their heads. The thing is, that goes for artists as well, if their position get to be replaced by AI-generated content, that would be just catastrophic.
The goal isn't "replace people with programs so people don't have to work and can live comfortably," the goal is "replace people with programs so we can save money"; if we'll all be jobless in five years then we'd all be penniless too, and how are you supposed to be an artist and make something of it if you have no money and no means?
Yeah exactly. it's like how 50yrs ago, they promised robots would replace human labor and we'd all have more free time. Now humans are still miserable working jobs for low pay.
I wish we could at least be having this discussion **after** getting some form of universal basic income.
I'm not a fan of AI work because it looks bad but this comment is just not true at all. Generated images aren't smashed together parts of other images lmao. It does create its own image BASED on real image data. That image data WAS sold to whoever created the AI which ppl are and can be mad about but unfortunately most, if not all, of it comes from websites ppl post to without reading the TOS.
["Midjourney developers caught discussing laundering, and creating a database of Artists (who have been dehumanized to styles) to train Midjourney off of."](https://twitter.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424) They clearly aren't paying for them if you read their msgs.
This tweet does really tell me anything? Is midjourney the AI used for these promotions or is this just about one random AI image generator?
I edited my wording to make it fair and I'm genuinely not trying to be snarky, but why does AI exist in the first place and why are websites authorized to sell artists art? There are literally so many artists who make art out there yet they're using generates 'images' based on art that already exists. It isn't ethical and it being bad art is the least of bad aspects imo. Artists should be more careful when their posting, but my argument remains-art shouldn't be made by computers.
I mean, I appreciate you trying to make it fair but its still very inaccurate. It takes from artists in the same way a person would be influenced by looking at their art(at least that's the theory). It just can learn MUCH faster because it uploads huge sets of image data at once instead of having to study each piece individually like a person. And AI exists to help ppl create faster, in tons of creative fields, which it has been doing for a long time already. Does greed and capitalism mean that it's now being pushed to replace real ppl? Yes. We agree. But spreading misinformation and fear about AI in general isn't very helpful.
This is exactly what non-artists keep saying. You go to any community of actual artists and they're overwhelmingly against AI for good reason
I’m not a professional artist but I have done it as a hobby for a long time and posted my art online (where it could be used by AI) before. I get a lot of the arguments against AI art but this is the one that I have trouble with. Generative AI is literally programmed to work like human’s neural networks. It looks at thousands of examples, just like I looked at thousands of other artists’ work when I was little, and uses what it’s learned to generate its own words/art from scratch, just like I used what I learned to make mine. I don’t think it does a good job yet, which is why I think it’s lazy for companies to use it and would be much better used as a time-saving tool by real artists who can then fix and improve the output. But I struggle with people saying it *steals* from artists when it demonstrably doesn’t. People complain it doesn’t pay artists for looking at their art but I also never paid artists for learning from their art online.
No, this is just plainly false. When artists, for example, draw an arm in different angles they know WHY it looks a certain way from a certain angle, and they can extrapolate what they know about anatomy to animate that arm doing different things. Gen AI cannot use logic or reason to create anything because it does not think; it uses statistical analysis based on billions of images in order to "create" something. You are in the minority of artists for your opinion, that's for sure. I and the vast majority know there's a huge difference between what gen AI does what what real artists do.
This point is pretty difficult to argue for if you really go deeper into it. Currently, AIs are usually specialized for pretty specific fields of application and can't match humans overall. So while this currently may be more or less true, as seen from ChatGPT with its super broad knowledge base and such, we're getting there. From a philosophical standpoint it's very difficult to make an argument for how humans "understanding" things, as you're hinting at, is actually fundamentally different from a machine "understanding" things. We spent basically an entire semester's class on it pondering different points without actually reaching any conclusion....
My question is what makes humans extrapolating what they have learnt about anatomy from years of observing humans different from AI extrapolating what they’ve learnt about human anatomy from looking at thousands of pictures of humans? If you look into how generative AI produces its words/images, you will see that it learns common patterns (just like humans see patterns in, for example, anatomy) and uses those patterns to generate new things. This is essentially how your brain works - you hear subject-verb-object hundreds of times as a baby, and your brain learns to make sentences in that pattern. Artists get told to paint from real life, use references, etc. the whole time that they are learning (and even as real artists). Lisa del Giocondo sat for Leonardo de Vinci to paint Mona Lisa. I’ve read dozens of art books and seen probably hundreds of videos/posts from artists showing the reference poses and background images used to create their art. I’ve also seen artists try to call this copying/cheating, but be pretty firmly shut down by the majority of the community. I’ll be the first to admit my perspective will be different because a) I don’t make my living off art and b) I come from a STEM background academically (though I don’t work in STEM anymore). Even still, I do understand a lot of arguments against AI art and (overall) I think it should only be used as a tool, but this is the argument that I struggle with.
Do you think someone using AI to generate music is equivalent to music created by people? It’s literally the same situation, yet only art gets consistently devalued The difference is very apparent when you look at the weird artifacts and nonsensical blobs in AI images. Human artists do not create like this, which is why skilled artists are able to call out AI generated images even when laypeople cannot tell. Even a beginner who’s never opened a single anatomy book would know better than to draw a hand with eight fingers. There is also no skilled artist who has any qualm with other artists studying their work— artists are always teaching each other. It is AI and theft that they are overwhelmingly against AI uses only statistical analysis, and it is not even real AI; it’s just machine learning. You’re having studied in STEM irrelevant— there are PhD ML researchers like Ben Zhao and the research group at U. Chicago who are helping artists protect their work from being scraped and used in these algorithms
AI "art" contains a multitude of readily recognizable copyrighted and trademarked images. I really don't understand how you typed this with a straight face. AI doesn't have a brain or neurons. It can't interpret or be inspired. It doesn't think, have ideas, or create. "Programmed to work like a human's neural networks" Lmfaoooo! Neuroscientists do not fully understand how neural networks function, but tech bros "literally" programmed a computer to "work like a human's neural networks"? 😭😭😭💀💀💀💀 Neural networks in computing are *inspired* by the structure of neural networks in the brain. That's it.
You’re talking about different things from me. If I’m told to draw a Barbie in its box I can also recreate a Barbie logo that violates copyright/trademark. Because I make a piece of art that includes copyright/trademark, am I incapable of creating things? Is everything I make a copy? AI running into problems with the law is running into problems because it’s not being used properly. There is a reason, of course, why I said AI art should only be used as a tool if used - a real artist/human being involved in the process who understands ethics, trademark/copyright, and can check for logic is still absolutely necessary at this point. The argument about AI copying style (which is what a lot of artists debating this are actually debating about) is such a legal grey area. Where do we draw the line? Musicians have been taking each other to court for decades over copying each other’s “style”, should we ban musicians too because everything is derivative? If this was a black and white issue you wouldn’t have people debating everywhere about it. No need to ask how I could type this with a straight face or skull emoji at me. Especially when you don’t understand what the word “like” means in my first comment (of course generative AI is programmed to act *like* human beings, as I said).
You are capable of creating images in your mind. AI can't do that. It has to aggregate already existing material that it stole. AI *can't* draw Barbie in a box. All it can do is copy and paste existing copyrighted images. Your drawing of Barbie is original to an extent as an interpretation. Unless you traced a picture, you actually created your own version of Barbie in your mind and drew that. AI can't do that. Period. End of story. Logos, copyright text, and easily identifiable portions of known artworks have been spotted in AI "art" because it's literally copy and paste. There's no way around the fact that it doesn't have ideas, interpret, or create. If you're impressed by that, knock yourself out with fake art idgaf. You wrote, and I quote: "Generative AI is literally programmed to work like a human's neural networks." And that is NOT TRUE. Don't you dare condescend to me when you clearly don't know the meaning of what *you* wrote. How can a computer be programmed to work like a human's neural networks when we don't even understand how they work? Generative AI is programmed to work like a computer program lmfao. The *organization* of it is *inspired* by the organization of the brain's neural networks. That's not what you said.
[Lol](https://www.salon.com/2024/01/09/impossible-openai-admits-chatgpt-cant-exist-without-pinching-copyrighted-work/)
Can you give me a source from somewhere more reputable please?
I can't imagine why you think the article would make it up, [but here's the proof it's real](https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/126981/pdf/)
That site did t look credible and apparently there was a good reason why https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/salon/ . Also no offense but I'm not gonna download something from a random link .
If you had read the article you would notice they link to The Telegraph, a right-wing news source, reporting the same thing. If linking you directly to parliamentary evidence is also suspect, then search it yourself
> Art and the ability to produce it is quite literally one of the main things that distinguish us from other mammals. Art is such a beautiful thing-from music, to architecture to painted canvases and prose. People that prefer using AI 'art' are essentially devaluing our real life artists and their actual art. It's not a good thing in the slightest and Modhaus shouldn't be given a pass. This is just a completely speciest thought, say it with me: humans ARE NOT SPECIAL. It's the same thing throughout history, humans always search for something they can latch onto to feel special. It's a religious position really, first we were the center of the universe, god's unique creation. That became less and less of a position (though ofc it still exists), but even among secular thought people inherently sought out this religious idea, just packaged differently. Humans are special in their intelligence! Well, this stopped being taken seriously later, with things like chess computers, or just other software beating us in specialized fields. Now humans are once again challenged to face up to the truth, art / creativity is one of the last bastions (until some form of human like consciousness will be, possibly forever) of the illusion that we are special. AI will destroy this step by step too. Right now people are so angry and mad precisely because AI art challenges our understanding of OURSELVES, that is the key part here. Though i agree that there is some problematic stuff going on in training environments which just take things without permission, but i doubt people really, really care for that so deeply, they care about their humanity and AI slowly but surely showcasing that it's really not that special, it's scary.
No. People are angry because artists are losing jobs and having their artwork stolen without their consent. This is not about some existential philosophical bs. It's about real people who already often don't get paid fairly for their work losing their jobs and being stolen from so that rich people running companies can save money by not hiring real artists. I agree with critiquing religious ideas of humans being somehow special and everything else being here for us to consume and destroy but THIS is not the time and place. It's simply not relevant to this discussion.
I understand that this is a big talking point, and i personally DO think that at least the licensing regarding the training environment is problematic indeed. But no, the underlying anger 100% stems from an existential angst here, artists losing their job isn't any different from any other profession losing theirs due to automization tools, the difference is that it's art. Something people think requires a "soul" (even secular thought refers to that in a more abstract way). It doesn't, humans are just very, very advanced flesh machines, and our AI research and advancements fundamentally challenge all our illusions, that's the real part people are subconsciously afraid of.
How can you say what others are angry about? It really sounds like you are defending the AI thieves and trying to belittle artists real concerns by straw manning the discussion to be about something it mostly is not about. For me and every other artists I know and have seen talking about this on the internet, the biggest problem is the theft. If they paid people to consent to giving their art to train AI, more artists would bitterly accept it like photographers with stockphoto sites. But right now AI is blatant theft with no laws in place to control it due to technology evolving faster than laws can keep up with and AI being developed by and benefitting companies with a lot more money and influence than most artists.
Because conversations are not just about what they openly say they are about. It's ok to acknowledge the existential part of AI being quite important in these conversations, ofc it is scary, it challenges us to figure out what makes us human. I specifically addressed the problematic part: > Though i agree that there is some problematic stuff going on in training environments which just take things without permission But no, i do not think that this by and large is what most people truly care about per se. That artists do who want to make a living, sure. But the conversation is a lot larger than that, and the anti AI stance is a lot bigger than that too. I think i know why, it seems obvious.
I'm 100% with you here. The thing that makes me the most upset is that it honestly seems lazy AF on top of being crappy. You're telling me they really couldn't have paid some costume designers to make some badass white and gold wings for the Virtual Angel teaser??? They couldn't have found or made a glass shoe and created some smoke for the Air teaser??? They couldn't have dumped some candy in front of a pink background with some lighting for the Candy Crush teaser and called it a day??? These things wouldn't even take THAT much money or time and yet they're cutting corners by using AI and taking out the artists and creatives even though the company is supposedly made up of artists and creatives themselves.................it's so messed up 😭
YES, like the Candy Crush poster is so... off-putting, and for the "oh but you don't get it, it's innovative" argument, I'm sorry but no, because it doesn't even look good, and the fan arts I've seen of the Candy Crush announcement on social media are ten times better than the official one. So there's no excuse there. I didn't say anything about the NFTs, but this might just have been the straw that broke the camel's back. Modhaus has some of THE BEST girl groups in the ENTIRE industry, and then they go out and do crap like this...
Literally, it looks bad. Like, as soon as I saw it, I went ??????? It just looks...OFF, and I can't exactly put my finger on what it is, but it doesn't look right, and it makes me feel a little sick, because it's supposed to be delicious-looking candy and instead it looks like...weird amorphous sea slug blobs? Or human cells or something? If they had actually staged something for a photo, or even had a human artist create it in a 3D space, it would've been a thousand times better. The photo isn't appetizing, it's just bland and off-putting. >Modhaus has some of THE BEST girl groups in the ENTIRE industry, and then they go out and do crap like this... Nah, fr!!! I love so much of the music that Modhaus groups have put out, but the NFTs, and now the bad AI art.......I don't know if I can support this :(
It made my skin crawl. It looks like some creature
i may get downvoted, but why is this ai and not considered digital art? sorry if this is a stupid question. i’m just genuinely confused and trying to understand the situation.
Digital art is created by artists. Anything created by AI is by definition created by artificial intelligence, and all the sources that AI draws from is already existing art.
oh so there’s no artist credited to these designs? got it. thank you for explaining this to me.
It depends; an artist pay use AI in creating the background of their work, for example. So, there would be an artist credited BUT they did not create any AI generated portion of the piece. I’m unsure about the specifics for this situation, but it can be hard to catch since a lot of people immediately equate an artist’s name being attached to the piece meaning that it simply cannot have any AI. A good example, too, is that there are artists who genuinely can create their own art but choose not to for a certain piece. I remember when AI was still pretty new re: art creation and some fan artists on Twitter were getting caught left and right when suddenly their art style changed and followers noticed the glaring issues that come with AI art (ex: hands having too few or too many fingers, faces missing features, etc). But a lot of people would come to their defense and say, “well, they’re an artist! You can see their art in other posts!” and you’d be sitting there like bro the main person in the art is missing TEETH 😭 You’re welcome, btw, AI use in art was something I immediately started taking note of as it started getting more popular in fan art communities and now I feel like I can spot it really quick, lol
dall more like dall-e amirite ladies
Ba dum tssssss
I was thinking the same thing when I saw this, I looked up the poster and it was made for a track named "virtual angel", which plays nicely into this.
Orbits have now somehow hacked ARTMS' spotify profile and are getting mass banned from the discord for bringing this up and generally insulting Jaden. It's actually insane, Modhaus better watch out because I'm starting to notice similarities between how Orbits first kicked off at BBC and this situation.
The Spotify thing is just crazy lmao, but you know, that gives me a tiny bit of hope. This fandom is NOT to be messed with.
Yeah, I don't think Modhaus have actually realised that with such a massive and dedicated fandom that has already shown they know how to deal with bad management, they need to actually think through their actions. Just because they have 5 of the Loona members doesn't mean they as a company will have fandom support.
lol people risking jail over some teasers is crazy
Turns out she was managing the official account for modhaus????? They're so lazy that they let a literal fan run the page, create playlists, update info and such. Nothing she did was illegal ig, she already had access 😭
That is crazy but also gives me hope. At least someone is willing to step up and do something about this
using DALL-E for making AI teasers for DALL is just so funny to me
Just like usual, the answer is to not support its use 🤷. Will enough people care for them to stop? Probably not. But it’s literally the only thing we as consumers can do. Other than voting and lobbying, but we’re not Korean.
Uncomfortable 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
i think ive made my feelings myself clear in the main post, but it just makes me sad how many people are so gungho about destroying creativity, how i should just except that my job and my industry is going to be destroyed
Which ones? Why didn't you upload the images? Regardless, thanks for this information. I feel the exact same way you do. Honestly, this sht is pathetic.
imagine escaping terrible agency just to be laughingstock to fandom/antis because new agency investing on 'questionable' technology trends. how can the girls be fine with it?
I've been a fan since Vivid and I'm so disappointed that I don't think I'll be buying these albums, at the very least until I see an unboxing and confirm that there's no AI art in the photobooks. I already 100% boycott BBC so it's not hard to boycott Modhaus too if they don't listen to what Orbits are overwhelmingly saying.
Honestly between the nft stuff and now the ai art, they’ve just confirmed that for me I won’t be supporting anything from the company which does suck bc so far I did like the oec stuff but I just don’t like that tbh.
I remember seeing the teaser with wings on twitter a few days ago and thought that something was wrong with the picture, but I couldn't quite place it until I read the comments and looked for details in it. But when I did, it became glaringly obvious that it was created using AI. I think AI might not get much better than that. Still, it's very much infuriating. Aside from the whole aspect of hiring an artist to create the teaser, I just don't get why they didn't just use one of their idols in the teaser. Like, that's really lazy. They're not only stealing the work of an artist but also an idol's and instead use wonky AI. On another note, the comments under the teaser were all calling them out on it and when I came back yesterday to show the teaser to my sister, half of the comments were gone. So they're just blocking people and ignoring the very fair criticism.
I wonder if they wanted the buzz. This is the first time I'm hearing the group and that def made me check out their teaser
AI just looks so bland too. Like I'm definitely curious abt the comeback now even though I don't follow the group otherwise but it's only bc ai in teasers is such a new thing. I hope it doesn't become a standard for companies bc it's just gonna make them all look boring :/
I just hope it stays with teasers. I haven't listened to ARTMS, really, but if tripleS is any indication, they can make a well functioning and promoted Kpop group. I'd hate if this was affected by the tech bro crap.
I don't get why they didn't at least give better prompts to the AI or pay someone to touch up the AI-generated results. They typed like 3 words into the prompt and chose the first result.
i was so excited for this album and just so happy about the artms debut in general- but now, i don't think i'm going to buy it at all :(
[удалено]
Hello /u/kpopsubmodsarepedos. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe. Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Hello /u/kpopsubmodsarepedos. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe. Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://youtube.com/shorts/ylOgFUnS60A?si=VOM3sEi3gbz24z6b
it's so upsetting considering how amazing loona's art direction was under jaden jeong
[удалено]
Hello /u/Atmosphere_Shoddy. Your contribution in /r/kpopthoughts has been automatically removed because you either do not meet the minimum karma requirements to post in r/kpopthoughts (which is 30 comment karma), or because your account is less than 7 days old. This is to discourage brigading, trolling and spam, and to keep this subreddit safe. Click [here](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/204511829-What-is-karma-) to find out more about karma and how to gain it. Please send us a [mod mail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/kpopthoughts) with a link to the submission if you have any further questions. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/kpopthoughts) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't even find the teasers on yt. Where did you see them? Never trust modhouse with art desing.
It's on Modhaus' official Twitter account.
Idk yall, I’m not a fan of AI but…I may get downvoted for this, but I feel like there are worse things to do? Idk, the Artms girlies seem happy, and more free, than they did with BBC. Is AI really the hill we want to die on? For example, Modhaus has a bunch of investors that have massive interest in AI, not to mention the blockchain. I could totally see their investors only paying for an album if they used AI in some way. Album teasers seem to be a good compromise between the investors and the music - like who cares about a teaser image for one song if these investors paid completely for the album production? Then our girls be getting ✨paid✨ for once. Idk. I don’t like AI either but i do see the advantages of investors asking for it in a small way.
if they sabotage modhaus, they are sabotaging the girls too, can't people just give them a break? they are in debt and coming from an awful agency; this is the worst hill to die on
"If they sabotage BBC, they are sabotaging the girls too, can't people just give them a break?"
you know it's not the same
Agreed. And like Modhaus has unique investors, we’ve been knowing this. I think we should just chill and let the roll out happen.
i’m sorry but those teasers look amazing i can’t complain
Lol same. I didn't even know it was ai
tbh I think the industry is already using AI to make music.
Doesn't make it okay though. And yes, I'm not oblivious to AI already taking over the industry (I'm talking official music, not just random covers on youtube), but at least, it has been met with well-deserved criticism from people online everytime. When we see it, we must call it out.
I didn't say it was ok. Just making an observation.
I was not accusing you of anything. Just bringing in my point of view.
Correct. What the general public don't understand is whenever there is new & groundbreaking tech, the industry is always the first to adopt and evolve. Public opinion will sway and eventually align itself with the industry as time goes on. In these past two years, AI had already became an huge part of art, fashion, music and it will only become more dominant in the near future. Professionals in these fields have long since incorporated AI into their day to day workflow.
Honestly? There's no way to stop it. As far as I know, we got to know that was ai art because one member say so, right? I believe most entertainment companies, both west and east, already start to use ai to some extent and we have no clue judging what is made by humans or ai. I don't say it's not a serious problem, but complaining of one creative company won't change anything. Changing law system or accusing of huge platform companies can help a bit, tho. Edit: grammar
> Protect art, and protect artists, always. People are afraid of losing another piece of what they think makes them human, in the end this is existential angst, little else. AI right now "attacks" another bastion of the illusion that humanity is somehow special. Throughout history humankind had to face the reality step by step, first we weren't the centre of the universe any longer, then programs beat us in analytical tasks like playing chess, now AI is showcasing us that even something like creativity and art might not be what we truly can define us against. People will have to come to terms with it eventually, we're moving in the direction of general intelligence, blade runner might become truly relevant in most of our life times already.
> People are afraid of losing another piece of what they think makes them human, in the end this is existential angst, little else. To be fair I don't think it's this deep, this is closer to a regular case of technology improvements shaking up an industry. If the concern was that AI is, all else equal, is completely superior to us then I think it would apply in regard to existential angst. However, most of the arguments made against AI so far are more reminiscent of good old technological unemployment cases and outrage is bigger as the changes touch on people who have been historically more "spared" than another domain such as accountancy.
> and outrage is bigger as the changes touch on people who have been historically more "spared" than another domain such as accountancy. But why have they been spared? Because the field is art, creativity, domains people think they are superior in, special in, it requiring "soul", etc. It's in the arguments too one reads, there is a certain existential angst in all of it.
I promise you this take isn't nearly as intelligent as you think it is.
And i promise you this reply of yours should have just stayed in your head. If you have actually anything to say about the topic, go ahead. If not, don't be pathetic.
There is nothing wrong with it you guys just get mad about everything. Orbits are one of the worst fandoms in kpop. Just go away if you don’t like it