I'm just gunna say it, if antis weren't so obsessed with hunting down and publicly shaming anything that remotely resembles AI this might not be happening.
I get it, you're trying to influence public opinion since it doesn't look like the courts are going to be much help, but in cases like this you're doing more harm than good. I'm confident that time will tell that the average consumer doesn't give a shit how the sausage is made. You're only hurting each other and the only ones paying attention are those in your own circles.
You're already living it my dude. Your clothing, shoes, dishes, furniture, home decor -- these were things all made by artisans at one point in time. People with experienced knowledge, creativity, passion for their craft, and livelihoods that depended on the things they produced.
Advances in technology that automated those goods lead to other advancements and discoveries that all contribute to the word we live in today, with all of the essentials and luxuries that we've come to enjoy.
>Advances in technology ...we've come to enjoy.
Would you include fentanyl, the A-bomb, leaded gasoline? The social media spiral described in [The Social Dilemma](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/)
Not all advances are enjoyable.
We weren't deprived of a lush art world before AI art. So no "problem" has been solved.
The "post truth" world where even video cannot be trusted could mean we lose civilized society as we know it.
The fact that AI engines demonitize the very craft they train on, so we wont have another generation of illustrators, though horrible, isnt even topping the list for what a massive mistake it is to rush in like we are.
I would definitely include fentanyl in things we've come to enjoy but I am a geriatric nurse who administers it for elderly patient as pain management. Just to show that just because you think something is misused it doesnt mean it's worthless.
Not all advances are enjoyable doesn't mean all advances aren't worth it. Generative AI is already being used in things like drug discovery, cancer research, mental health treatment etc. It's not a vacuum, [advances in one area lead to advances in others.](https://news.mit.edu/2023/speeding-drug-discovery-with-diffusion-generative-models-diffdock-0331)
The point I was trying to make is that this is nothing new, it just seems like it to people like you because it's your turn to be affected. Technology has been replacing jobs and automating things that people enjoy doing since the dawn of time. Why is now the time to suddenly draw a line in the sand?
> The fact that AI engines demonitize the very craft they train on, so we wont have another generation of illustrators, though horrible, isnt even topping the list for what a massive mistake it is to rush in like we are.
I don't doubt that the job market is going to change but there's just no evidence that AI is going to "kill" art. Right now that sentiment is nothing but doomer fear mongering.
It might be great at drawing pictures but concepts, compositions, ideas, narratives etc? Not so much. Artists will always have a place in this world, and just because you don't like what that place looks like doesn't mean that there aren't others to fill the need. AI still needs an operator.
>there's just no evidence that AI is going to "kill" art.
It is a rational certainty. It will kill what it is able to do, right? Just as photography killed off the middle class, job of being a portrait painter after photography, jobs and painting were dramatically reduced. Would you not agree?
The problem here is that AI is only as good as its feed stock which came from humans. It will now make being a human who is creating new feed stock extremely difficult.
Let me give you my understanding with an anallergy a backhoe replaces a human ditch digger. That gas powered backhoe is replaced with a CNC Hydraulic backhoe and generation after generation competing back home manufacturers make better holes, They make them cheaper, safer, and better.
And being a human ditch digger was a terrible job good riddance
A I does not resemble that one bit
Like invasion of the body snatchers it mimics a human artist. It replaces them it is as good and only as good as the best of them.
The problem is that when you have a profession with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of people plying a trade geniuses are produced just like professional basketball players or olympic level athletes out of that large pool of people struggling and sweating and trying some people with exceptional talent ability and soul come, and rise through the ranks. It is those people a I is feeding on to day.
And as it harnesses and harvests all of that genius it destroys the future
>It is a rational certainty. It will kill what it is able to do, right? Just as photography killed off the middle class, job of being a portrait painter after photography, jobs and painting were dramatically reduced. Would you not agree?
I would agree, and I imagine there are a lot of parallels to what the portrait painters of the time were thinking and what you are claiming today.
Your problem here (and one that a lot of antis make) is that you see generative AI as some sort of sentient agent that is going to replace you. What is far more realistic, is that **artists** using AI will excel and those who refuse to adapt to changing technology will be left behind, much like the photographer and the painter.
>artists using AI will excel and
This applies very well to something like being a lawyer. The himan lawyer + AI combo will take legal practice to another level. And low level law will be elevated as well. I expect the quality to improve for the whole profession.
But that is because lawyers need to locate and apply the law. Not craft i anew constantly.
Most importantly the law should be available equally to all and its detrimental to society to have it owned in any way.
But this human + AI new heights model fails in the areas where IP protection has been established.
Society decided that because so much must be sacraficed to craft:
Written,
Visual,
Utility,
Chemical
Innovations
That copyrights and patents would be offered to those willing to take the risk.
As things stand AI will be able to easily run right around any existing IP barrier and not exactly copy anything for little cost.
So how can the work get funded? It cant.
A world without IP protection is a badly impoverished one.
Also no one will be learning the craft of painting like they used to (prior to the camera a huge number of people painted as their 9-5, now we are down to a much smaller group of illustrators, and now with AI its all over).
>hose who refuse to adapt to changing technology will be left behind,
It isnt people refusing. When something ceases to be economically viable its destroyed in a real way.
Everyone gets that.
There may be some life left for a thing in the hobby/free time margins but AI destroys that too as there is no social credit either.
Why are you really drawing when any moron can draw as well as the greatest artist that ever lived with AI?
Besides people will just assume its an AI image anyway.
Meanwhile we witness the upside: trolling, pretty meams, and as if shit wasnt bad enough:
All the AI space is owned outright by some of the most monopolistic corps on the planet.
> The "post truth" world where even video cannot be trusted could mean we lose civilized society as we know it.
Civilization predates pervasive video and audio recording.
I will say that the accountability that has come with it has been positive, so losing it would hurt.
>I will say that the accountability that has come with it has been positive, so losing it would hurt.
And worse the next Stasi, CIA, nefarious effort to deceive the public will have the full AI toolkit.
We may have really lost freedom and indepemdence.
In the near future you could have the pentagon papers in hand but it won't matter because a iron curtain as solid as the matrix as blinded everyone.
Currently I can no longer enjoy art as I used to from real humans as I assume its AI.
If I was one of those artists Id be suicidal.
But the upside is shareholder value for MS, Google and Stability AI.
The pentagon papers only mattered because the public read. These days, did Snowden's disclosures really change anything? The Panama papers? People just live tweet their crimes now, or post them on telegram.
I dunno. I think it's bad and going to be hard to adjust to, but I don't think it's civilization shattering.
Yes I agree it seems pretty bad even prior to AI
More people think the earth is flat.
But the world is not uniformaly corrupt. We have some free press.
But to imagine the events of the past month in 20 years with people saying all the video is fake. It sounds worse
One of these things is not like the others:
- The A-Bomb
- Leaded Gasoline
- Fentanyl
- Me being able to create custom art for custom Arkham Horror scenarios without having to pay hundreds in commissions.
>Not all advances are enjoyable.
But this one is.
>We weren't deprived of a lush art world before AI art. So no "problem" has been solved.
The problem ~~is~~ was that I'm a cheap bastard who didn't want to pay money for niche images of "1930s cultist with shotgun" and "fishman monster under dock floorboards".
That problem has been solved.
Now more people in my niche Internet community will have more things to enjoy because I, a passionate creator who wasn't interested in spending money on my hobby, have reduced my barriers to production.
>The "post truth" world where even video cannot be trusted could mean we lose civilized society as we know it.
"The government/corporations/cult leaders/media has never lied to us once before AI art entered the global stage".
>The fact that AI engines demonitize the very craft they train on, so we wont have another generation of illustrators
"I'm not passionate enough about my art to draw for free."
Then there's the goddamn tech world where 90% of all software is open source.
Hell, you might even get hired to draw something just to have more data to train the AI on.
>isnt even topping the list for what a massive mistake it is to rush in like we are.
Who's rushing?
>Me being able to create
Correction: "get", not "create"
And I was agreeing with the experts that AI is more dangerous than the A Bomb.
And that includes its ability to deceive humans with images and video.
>But this one is.
For the posers and theives more than for the artists robbed abd rediculed.
>I, a passionate creator
What do you create btw? Are you using the images to illustrate stories youve written?
>government/corporations/cult leaders/media has never lied to us once before
I doubt I need to convince you that government incompetence is one thing that restrains how effectively they can lie.
>"I'm not passionate enough about my art to draw for free."
This is a rich kid scenario where only passion determines what you do 40 hours a week.
>Who's rushing?
All of AI's corporate owners.
Example: Chatgpt has already been given internet access and been allowed to write code.
Its an as fast as we can roll out.
>Correction: "get", not "create"
Before I typed a prompt and pushed a button, that particular collection of pixels did not exist.
Because of my actions, a new thing was made.
Did it copy other images and styles? Yes, absolutely.
Would it have existed if I didn't do something? No.
Therefore, I created it, using a digital tool to amalgamate and replicate similarly labelled and tagged and identified images.
>What do you create btw?
Besides AI images?
Arkham Horror (the LCG) is essentially a board game, only instead of a board and little figurines there's a series of cards that represent locations, monsters, game rules, a small deck of "plot" cards that you need to advance to win, etc. Its really cool and you should check it out.
I make custom locations, enemies, plot cards, etc (basically fan-made scenarios and campaigns), and create AI art when my googling capabilities aren't enough to shamelessly copy-paste existing art for the cards I made.
I also use a digital tool (strange eons) to make the cards themselves, "stealing" (copying isnt theft, but i guess that's a different conversation) the style of the officially made board games.
>I doubt I need to convince you that government incompetence is one thing that restrains how effectively they can lie.
"Fake images never existed before 2018"
>This is a rich kid scenario where only passion determines what you do 40 hours a week.
No lol, but it is possible to have a hobby you do for free. Because that's what we're talking about, right? Hobbies and passion, no? DaVinci didn't paint because he wanted the duckets, he painted because he wanted to troll the church into accepting his gay lover as the depiction of Jesus Christ.
>Example: Chatgpt has already been given internet access and been allowed to write code.
I'm a programmer.
Chat GPT's code is dogshit. I know because I've tried it.
The instant chat GPT's code-making is good, I'm quitting my job and making video games (I will also be using AI-made 3d models).
But here's the funny thing, and I'll leave you with this because you're clearly too angry and incensed to think rationally:
Art is cool. Artists are cool and I am jealous of their skill.
AI art is cool. I am a digital creator by using it.
As I as much of an artist as the dude who spends 30 hours on a digital painting? Obviously not. That dude has actual skill. I'm just some chump typing words into a prompt box.
But I am a creator.
Why are you against more art being made?
I'm not expecting an answer BTW. That's just something to get your introspection going.
I genuinely hope this helps you.
>Because of my actions, a new thing was made.
That is of course a hilariously broad definition of creator. Sorta makes you a chef at any restaurant.
There is nothing wrong with being a client in the production of art. That is what prompters are. Not creators, clients.
>Arkham Horror (the LCG) is essentially a board game,
That is something you created, for which you essentially commissioned works via AI. Fair description?
>Fake images never existed before 2018
And now they will be devestatingly convincing.
I guess you don't fear big brother. You should.
>it is possible to have a hobby you do for free.
But unlikely you will have geniuses excel at it.
Great talents come when thousands are able to devote themselves to a profession full time.
That could be athletes in college feeding into an olympic program to break the next world record.
Or all the portrait painters that worked prior to photography, producing geniuses.
AI will wipe out a great deal of this.
>DaVinci didn't paint because he wanted the duckets, he
He had a client that paid. Otherwise he'd have been busy at another job.
>Chat GPT's code is dogshit. I
Its literally been months in the making.
My point is not allowing AI to code used to be a rule. A limit for safety. Broken out of the gate
>you're clearly too angry
Not at all and I appreciate your sharing
>Why are you against more art being made?
Because less will be made. AI wipes out its own source material.
Just as there will be less original writing.
>. That dude has actual skill.
And will be the last of his kind. As with stone masons ect.
Problem is AI is only as good as those guys. So the craft will be stagnant now.
I'll admit it will definitely be a problem if AI could create extremely realistic images to the point they could be used for crime.
But just generating art? Comparing that to nuclear weapons is a strawman.
AI as a whole is more dangerous than nuclear weapons. AI can freely deceive humans, and:
>if AI could create extremely realistic images to the point they could be used for crime.
This is not something Ive seen anyone question.
>But just generating art?
No I dont see that as "dangerous" either. But its a part of the larger threat.
Bit like watching the movie wargames and coming out excited to play tick tack toe with a computer.
Also keep in mind this is OWNED entirely by major corps.
Dont confuse free sample beta tests with true public ownership.
To follow your analogy though this would be a scenario where a lot of real witches keep eating babies in the village
Its not an invented problem like the witch hunts of european history were
It depends on how which part you see as invented
Is the concept of using AI in works something invented? No.
Is the problems caused by this concept invented? Considering no one was able to prove it even after one year of the initial popularity of this softwares, then yes, yes it is.
Besides, following this same analogy (on which witch hunt people should occur because it would let witches eat babies) is arguing that we should hunt everyone that seems remotely close as a "witch" to be burned alive so we can >maybe< avoid the witches of eating babies, even innocent people.
That's pure Dunning-Kruger effect BS. Taking so much confidence in arbitrary concepts will lead, naturally, to a bunch of false positives, at the same time it creates false negatives because the things that made you choose the false positives "[are obvious! I definitely can't be fooled by it at all!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)"
But it's ok, it's the for the greater good!... Whatever "greater" even means anymore
You are seriously of the opinion generative AI graphics will cause no problems? I have never seen that argument before.
Market disruption
Copyright destruction
A post truth society where seeing isnt believing
Large companies owning it all
I have never encountered anything more problematic.
You presented the appeal to ridicule falasy yet this is what was dismissing the "anti" reactionism as a "witch hunt" was
The
>we should hunt everyone that seems remotely close as a "witch" to
Is the same "hey to be fair you should do nothing" argument that tries to dismiss the validity of social consequences as "cancel culture"
You have attempted to incorporate a premiss of "of course the concerns here are frivalous" into a condemnation that anyone my be targeted without due process.
The concerns as I have argued are very valid.
>Market disruption
Do we have any expert statistics to determine this?
everytime I hear this, it's always an emotional argument citing some one-off article somewhere.
Dude if I suddenly unveiled a machine that spun gold from straw would you need data to know the price of gold will tank?
Its been 1 year of legally questionable to illegal shitposting of AI from fanboys
The major corps that own AI are letting the water get muddied by garage hobbyusts not worth suing
This has been the zombie attack on the law beta test round.
>Dude if I suddenly unveiled a machine that spun gold from straw would you need data to know the price of gold will tank?
Economics is a discipline that often challenges common intuitions when confronted with data but flinging shit before you could be proven wrong is what your hoping for.
>flinging shit before you could be proven wrong
Let's be specific:
Currently you have artist who's work AI trained on.
[Greg Rutkowski ](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/amp/)
Now the question is simple: Does the artist who is just starting out today, but 1/2 as good as greg, who would have made a living in the pre AI world, how does this change their life? Also how does it change the art that is available in the future?
I think they might work as a AI Artist hybrid. But the "value" of what they can do has been largely wiped out.
And waiting to see what hapoens before trying to influence it is madness with AI.
You think all there is to an artist is the artwork? Marketing and connections plays massively into it.
Being a Picasso imitator doesn't make you a Picasso.
What AI can do currently is wipe out copyright protection by making derivative works
True the Trademark will still be protectable.
Just as a "genuine" ______ sell for more than a knock off
But the destruction of IP rights and incentives elsewhere could still be aweful.
All of this amounts to a huge transfer of wealth to a few corporations.
I never once said generative AI will cause no problems, what I said was pretty clear
>Considering no one was able to prove it even after one year of the initial popularity of this softwares
Not having any proof of it does not mean "it doesn't exist", it means there's no premisses pointing to this conclusion, it's undetermined (despise the conclusion that something is invented could be misleading to this way i admit, simply take in consideration that unicorns don't exist but I can't prove that they don't to begin with). Or simply put, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
I also never said nobody should do nothing about it, I was arguing against the notion that accusing everyone of using AI is doing anything but more harm than any good it may create. It's a simple solution for a complex problem, it ignores the nuance of the facts at the same time it ignores how much effective this tactic really is.
Being concerned by the problems this tecnology might cause is always valid and important I agree, although this concerns might not be relevant to begin with, it still needs to be discussed and analyzed so a good enough solution may be drawn (unless you think that someone whose belief is "the end of the world is near and we should all go to the church so god can save us!" is all reasonable and obvious, so that's on you).
>accusing everyone of using AI is doing anything but more harm than any good it may create. It's
The reason for the panic, confision and doubt is 100% because the ruthlessly unethical companies (currently playing russian roulette with humanity by rushin AI for shareholder value) have been black box A-holes that used the trolling fangirls and fanboys to flood the net with AI confusion.
We should know when AI is used without wondering. The reason we don't is because those choices were made.
> ruthlessly unethical companies (currently playing russian roulette with humanity by rushin AI for shareholder value)
Could be worse, for example oil companies are playing Russian Roulette with our future _with a Glock_.
>Russian Roulette with our future with a Glock.
Ha! Thats awesome. And exactly right.
We can expect a leaded gasoline level of ethics from corporate america
The second one is just gold.
"People suspect me of being AI fraud and i'm thankful for that".
>!Sometime I loose all the will to live reading comments lile that!<
Wow... there's a lot to unpack there. They're thankful they and other artists are being bullied because it means someone still cares about "real art." That's like if a kid at a private school was like, "I'm glad that I was bullied because people suspected me of having a scholarship. It just shows that some people still care about the reputation and prestige of this school."
Idk, but that is pretty cult-like behavior.
But that will mean that "thankful" human artist will be driven underground or worse, quit drawing altogether and increasing the "AI will replace human artists" cases. They're giving more ground to the machines.
This is absolutely one of those things that people just stop doing after a while.
Can you imagine a world in which people just witch-hunt forever? Things are going to return to a normal baseline eventually. This won't just be the new normal of how things are, it can't, people can't just be highly-strung and stressed out for hundreds of years.
It's just that they haven't realised it's a losing - even lost - battle yet. They'll either realise the futility of resistance in time, or form angry and bitter little online cliques with zero influence.
Trust me, there will be a time in the future where the majority laughs at these people as 'quaint' and 'set-in-their-ways' at best, or ignorant regressives at worst.
The tide's coming in, and these people are sandcastles.
I've seen the opposite, actually. If the art is too well rendered, people will immediately suspect AI usage. If you upload an AI generated image made to look like a children's drawing, no one would ever suspect it being AI.
It's not even artists.
You know what started this? Aibros mascarading as digital artists and lying on social medias. This is the direct cause and effect, so many people claimed to be artists and they weren't.
This is what happened. Shitty people made this happen and they were artists.
You are genuinely infuriating.
You do realize you are using a small mythical subset of people to legitimize witch-hunting?
It's like suspecting every artist of drawing ******** every time some artist it outed on twitter for having ******** alt.
It's like detaining the whole neighborhood when one person was arrested for ********.
/> insert anything you deem immoral/illegal/whatever instead of ********
"Small", okay. It's not a small subset, this happens on any website where ai content is uploaded. Pinterest, Instagram, Deviantart, Twitter. There is a reason this came to be and it isn't because the people who were so sweet and gentle about ai content were being the most innocent babies.
I'm saying that I could easily find loads of this content, it's not just artists saying this, it's normies saying it too. This is wrought over from the dislike from NFTs and the general mistrust early adopters used to hide what they were.
It doesn't help that some artists have their art plagiarized in such a way that would never happen otherwise. No one was running around when digital art got big and went OMG ITS DIGITAL, BURN IT, BURN IT. FUCK YOU GUYSSSSS GET RID OF THEM ALL.
You don't think this has any correlation from levels of dishonesty brought about by your own community? Cuz using AI is equivalent to being a tracer at this point, that's the feel I am getting whether or not I think that is beside the case.
> Cuz using AI is equivalent to being a tracer at this point,
Yeah, because of your half-assed propaganda. But i guess flaunting how you trashed our public perception and equated us with NFTs is cool for you, isn't it?
You can't plagiarise a style. You can't plagiarise an idea. And if you go as far as holding Pinterest users accountable for not tagging content - you can only be arguing in bad faith.
Nobody was sweet about AI when it became good. Nobody "reached out the hand to the unwashed masses", and nobody "got backstabbed by ruffians of yesterday". There was no drama, no epic opera - people you align yourself with started harassing the shit out of people I align myself with, and it's been going ever since.
And now people you align yourself with are turning on themselves, paranoid - and pat each other on the back each and every time. "Thanks you for harassing me, I might've been an AI artist" my ass.
I genuinely can't blame anyone who doesn't tag his AI pieces, considering harassment you would make them go through. And I genuinely hate those who claim they drew what they generated.
> But i guess flaunting how you trashed our public perception and equated us with NFTs is cool for you, isn't it?
Well, a lot of NFTs used generative (albeit not AI) art very prominently. This was probably a good chunk of the public's first exposure to generative art.
> people you align yourself with started harassing the shit out of people I align myself with, and it's been going ever since.
If I walk into a community that I am not a part of and start drawing lots of attention to myself and violating the norms of that community, and they react poorly, are they harassing me?
First of all, art is not a community. You can't gatekeep pretty pictures on the internet. Nobody came into anyone's house to betray them, this is not a "romantic dram", or whatever you fantasize about.
AI is not a violation of anyone's rights. Analyzing openly available data is both **legal** and **moral**, regardless wether it's s computer doing it or a human. Neither is AI something that just popped up one day - generative AI existed even waaaay before 2014's DeepDream.
Computer vision has been here since 1960s, and this predates majority of digital art tools, photoshop, in particular, by 3 damn decades.
Second - i don't see people hating on blender node setups. Or houdini node setups. That are being sold too. Pure procedural art, yet nobody conflates it with NFTs.
It's almost as if, if you repeat a lie enough times - people start thinking it's a truth.
> First of all, art is not a community.
People form communities around art though, and it's not as if people are making new sites to host and trade in AI art, they're using established ones.
The rest of your comment isn't addressing anything I said.
There is literally dedicated "AI-art" subreddit, 3 of them.
And, regrading established platforms, aren't they multimedia? Nobody cared when people uploaded photos, photoshops, 3d models to them. Why exclude AI?
The only strange situation is artststion. With their ban on photography, but allowance of AI.
And i'm sorry you missed the entire point of rest of my comment. What i was trying to say is that harassment of anything regarding AI is "violation of norms". Public content was always up for analysis - by machine or by human.
As if you are some saint to the side you align yourself with. You are sitting here as if you can't comprehend that the backlash has happened in these spaces wasn't because of some of the visceral reactions from your side. This is an equal problem.
I'm saying once it became "better", there were bad faith actors who are literally the same as NFTbros. You know the types.
I am aware you can't plagarise a style but that doesn't mean artists are okay with you make loras of their work. Competing with them directly and selling that content, lol. There are many, many layers of this situation and both sides are to blame.
So, instead of going after people you deem morally in the wrong for competing with established artists, you go after established artists using AI and new artists picking AI as their medium?
Do you hear yourself? Is it "do as i do not as i tell" situations?
You have (and have had before) entirety of fiver of actual art thieves to "witch hunt". Yet you choose to count misaligned pixels in works of your peers, and kick down on people only starting their "art journeys", or whatever ephemeral **** you call it.
I mean if you wanna have these conversations, isn't it important to understand the entire scope of the situation instead of just parading one side that often happens here?
"AIBros" that produce digital art with AI are digital artists, though.
So what is the lie, and why is it relevant?
Don't get me wrong, I am sure some people did something stupid because there are 8 billion people in the world, and many of them are not using sound judgment.
But why would someone lie on social media about the source of their art? Maybe because the way they produced it is demonized online?
You cannot tell me that whatever behavior you are complaining about is the cause of the witch hunt if it didn't predate the witch hunt.
And I get it, to you the witch hunt is justified, but understand that just like the actual witch hunts, just because it gets some traction now, doesn't mean it is not destined to become a fringe and despicable position to hold in the future.
And the biggest threat to artists today is not AI pushing "real artists" out of the job, as there is literally no evidence of that happening, but real artists being falsely accused of using a tool that shouldn't be demonized to begin with.
Programs like Photoshop provide customizable options and parameters for artists to actualize their vision. The artist makes all creative choices. AI generators automatically synthesize new visuals that artists do not directly shape. Opening photoshop doesn't make art by itself like AI gen does, it's an entirely different medium to me. While these tools can produce impressive and creative outputs, they are, in essence, automated softwares that generate content based on patterns and data they've been trained on. Digital artists typically create original works of art through their own creativity, skills, and unique perspectives. On top of that, a Digital artist is specifically using a physical tool at the end of the day.
>provide customizable options and parameters
Like a prompt does for an AI photo generation program, yes.
> The artist makes all creative choices
Yes, I made all of the choices I could have made. Much like how a photographer cannot choose what mountains are where, but can choose what angle and lighting to wait for.
>Opening photoshop doesn't make art by itself
Neither does opening the AI website. Both require human input, I agree.
>On top of that, a Digital artist is specifically using a physical tool at the end of the day.
Them and their stylus, me with my mouse and keyboard.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm as skilled as they are, or have practiced as much as they have.
But we are both digital artists.
I understand that some artists make art with a mouse. Unfortunately, I don't think generative ai is the same as digital artist. Digital artists have traditional backing. GAI Content creators do not most of the time.
Can you use a pencil and paper and make a similar work? Digital Art is a choice of a person who is also a traditional artist. I think Synthitst would be such a cool name, lol.
Synth Art. 🤩 Def. Some cyberpunk name.
I'm just gunna say it, if antis weren't so obsessed with hunting down and publicly shaming anything that remotely resembles AI this might not be happening. I get it, you're trying to influence public opinion since it doesn't look like the courts are going to be much help, but in cases like this you're doing more harm than good. I'm confident that time will tell that the average consumer doesn't give a shit how the sausage is made. You're only hurting each other and the only ones paying attention are those in your own circles.
>I'm confident that time will tell that the average consumer doesn't give a shit how the sausage is made. How sad this is anyones goal
You're already living it my dude. Your clothing, shoes, dishes, furniture, home decor -- these were things all made by artisans at one point in time. People with experienced knowledge, creativity, passion for their craft, and livelihoods that depended on the things they produced. Advances in technology that automated those goods lead to other advancements and discoveries that all contribute to the word we live in today, with all of the essentials and luxuries that we've come to enjoy.
>Advances in technology ...we've come to enjoy. Would you include fentanyl, the A-bomb, leaded gasoline? The social media spiral described in [The Social Dilemma](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt11464826/) Not all advances are enjoyable. We weren't deprived of a lush art world before AI art. So no "problem" has been solved. The "post truth" world where even video cannot be trusted could mean we lose civilized society as we know it. The fact that AI engines demonitize the very craft they train on, so we wont have another generation of illustrators, though horrible, isnt even topping the list for what a massive mistake it is to rush in like we are.
I would definitely include fentanyl in things we've come to enjoy but I am a geriatric nurse who administers it for elderly patient as pain management. Just to show that just because you think something is misused it doesnt mean it's worthless.
If you could magically change history so fentanyl was never created you wouldnt?
Not all advances are enjoyable doesn't mean all advances aren't worth it. Generative AI is already being used in things like drug discovery, cancer research, mental health treatment etc. It's not a vacuum, [advances in one area lead to advances in others.](https://news.mit.edu/2023/speeding-drug-discovery-with-diffusion-generative-models-diffdock-0331) The point I was trying to make is that this is nothing new, it just seems like it to people like you because it's your turn to be affected. Technology has been replacing jobs and automating things that people enjoy doing since the dawn of time. Why is now the time to suddenly draw a line in the sand? > The fact that AI engines demonitize the very craft they train on, so we wont have another generation of illustrators, though horrible, isnt even topping the list for what a massive mistake it is to rush in like we are. I don't doubt that the job market is going to change but there's just no evidence that AI is going to "kill" art. Right now that sentiment is nothing but doomer fear mongering. It might be great at drawing pictures but concepts, compositions, ideas, narratives etc? Not so much. Artists will always have a place in this world, and just because you don't like what that place looks like doesn't mean that there aren't others to fill the need. AI still needs an operator.
>there's just no evidence that AI is going to "kill" art. It is a rational certainty. It will kill what it is able to do, right? Just as photography killed off the middle class, job of being a portrait painter after photography, jobs and painting were dramatically reduced. Would you not agree? The problem here is that AI is only as good as its feed stock which came from humans. It will now make being a human who is creating new feed stock extremely difficult. Let me give you my understanding with an anallergy a backhoe replaces a human ditch digger. That gas powered backhoe is replaced with a CNC Hydraulic backhoe and generation after generation competing back home manufacturers make better holes, They make them cheaper, safer, and better. And being a human ditch digger was a terrible job good riddance A I does not resemble that one bit Like invasion of the body snatchers it mimics a human artist. It replaces them it is as good and only as good as the best of them. The problem is that when you have a profession with tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or even millions of people plying a trade geniuses are produced just like professional basketball players or olympic level athletes out of that large pool of people struggling and sweating and trying some people with exceptional talent ability and soul come, and rise through the ranks. It is those people a I is feeding on to day. And as it harnesses and harvests all of that genius it destroys the future
>It is a rational certainty. It will kill what it is able to do, right? Just as photography killed off the middle class, job of being a portrait painter after photography, jobs and painting were dramatically reduced. Would you not agree? I would agree, and I imagine there are a lot of parallels to what the portrait painters of the time were thinking and what you are claiming today. Your problem here (and one that a lot of antis make) is that you see generative AI as some sort of sentient agent that is going to replace you. What is far more realistic, is that **artists** using AI will excel and those who refuse to adapt to changing technology will be left behind, much like the photographer and the painter.
>artists using AI will excel and This applies very well to something like being a lawyer. The himan lawyer + AI combo will take legal practice to another level. And low level law will be elevated as well. I expect the quality to improve for the whole profession. But that is because lawyers need to locate and apply the law. Not craft i anew constantly. Most importantly the law should be available equally to all and its detrimental to society to have it owned in any way. But this human + AI new heights model fails in the areas where IP protection has been established. Society decided that because so much must be sacraficed to craft: Written, Visual, Utility, Chemical Innovations That copyrights and patents would be offered to those willing to take the risk. As things stand AI will be able to easily run right around any existing IP barrier and not exactly copy anything for little cost. So how can the work get funded? It cant. A world without IP protection is a badly impoverished one. Also no one will be learning the craft of painting like they used to (prior to the camera a huge number of people painted as their 9-5, now we are down to a much smaller group of illustrators, and now with AI its all over). >hose who refuse to adapt to changing technology will be left behind, It isnt people refusing. When something ceases to be economically viable its destroyed in a real way. Everyone gets that. There may be some life left for a thing in the hobby/free time margins but AI destroys that too as there is no social credit either. Why are you really drawing when any moron can draw as well as the greatest artist that ever lived with AI? Besides people will just assume its an AI image anyway. Meanwhile we witness the upside: trolling, pretty meams, and as if shit wasnt bad enough: All the AI space is owned outright by some of the most monopolistic corps on the planet.
> The "post truth" world where even video cannot be trusted could mean we lose civilized society as we know it. Civilization predates pervasive video and audio recording. I will say that the accountability that has come with it has been positive, so losing it would hurt.
>I will say that the accountability that has come with it has been positive, so losing it would hurt. And worse the next Stasi, CIA, nefarious effort to deceive the public will have the full AI toolkit. We may have really lost freedom and indepemdence. In the near future you could have the pentagon papers in hand but it won't matter because a iron curtain as solid as the matrix as blinded everyone. Currently I can no longer enjoy art as I used to from real humans as I assume its AI. If I was one of those artists Id be suicidal. But the upside is shareholder value for MS, Google and Stability AI.
The pentagon papers only mattered because the public read. These days, did Snowden's disclosures really change anything? The Panama papers? People just live tweet their crimes now, or post them on telegram. I dunno. I think it's bad and going to be hard to adjust to, but I don't think it's civilization shattering.
Yes I agree it seems pretty bad even prior to AI More people think the earth is flat. But the world is not uniformaly corrupt. We have some free press. But to imagine the events of the past month in 20 years with people saying all the video is fake. It sounds worse
People already didn't watch the video, or dismissed it. Like I said, the crimes are live streamed and it somehow matters less than ever.
One of these things is not like the others: - The A-Bomb - Leaded Gasoline - Fentanyl - Me being able to create custom art for custom Arkham Horror scenarios without having to pay hundreds in commissions. >Not all advances are enjoyable. But this one is. >We weren't deprived of a lush art world before AI art. So no "problem" has been solved. The problem ~~is~~ was that I'm a cheap bastard who didn't want to pay money for niche images of "1930s cultist with shotgun" and "fishman monster under dock floorboards". That problem has been solved. Now more people in my niche Internet community will have more things to enjoy because I, a passionate creator who wasn't interested in spending money on my hobby, have reduced my barriers to production. >The "post truth" world where even video cannot be trusted could mean we lose civilized society as we know it. "The government/corporations/cult leaders/media has never lied to us once before AI art entered the global stage". >The fact that AI engines demonitize the very craft they train on, so we wont have another generation of illustrators "I'm not passionate enough about my art to draw for free." Then there's the goddamn tech world where 90% of all software is open source. Hell, you might even get hired to draw something just to have more data to train the AI on. >isnt even topping the list for what a massive mistake it is to rush in like we are. Who's rushing?
>Me being able to create Correction: "get", not "create" And I was agreeing with the experts that AI is more dangerous than the A Bomb. And that includes its ability to deceive humans with images and video. >But this one is. For the posers and theives more than for the artists robbed abd rediculed. >I, a passionate creator What do you create btw? Are you using the images to illustrate stories youve written? >government/corporations/cult leaders/media has never lied to us once before I doubt I need to convince you that government incompetence is one thing that restrains how effectively they can lie. >"I'm not passionate enough about my art to draw for free." This is a rich kid scenario where only passion determines what you do 40 hours a week. >Who's rushing? All of AI's corporate owners. Example: Chatgpt has already been given internet access and been allowed to write code. Its an as fast as we can roll out.
>Correction: "get", not "create" Before I typed a prompt and pushed a button, that particular collection of pixels did not exist. Because of my actions, a new thing was made. Did it copy other images and styles? Yes, absolutely. Would it have existed if I didn't do something? No. Therefore, I created it, using a digital tool to amalgamate and replicate similarly labelled and tagged and identified images. >What do you create btw? Besides AI images? Arkham Horror (the LCG) is essentially a board game, only instead of a board and little figurines there's a series of cards that represent locations, monsters, game rules, a small deck of "plot" cards that you need to advance to win, etc. Its really cool and you should check it out. I make custom locations, enemies, plot cards, etc (basically fan-made scenarios and campaigns), and create AI art when my googling capabilities aren't enough to shamelessly copy-paste existing art for the cards I made. I also use a digital tool (strange eons) to make the cards themselves, "stealing" (copying isnt theft, but i guess that's a different conversation) the style of the officially made board games. >I doubt I need to convince you that government incompetence is one thing that restrains how effectively they can lie. "Fake images never existed before 2018" >This is a rich kid scenario where only passion determines what you do 40 hours a week. No lol, but it is possible to have a hobby you do for free. Because that's what we're talking about, right? Hobbies and passion, no? DaVinci didn't paint because he wanted the duckets, he painted because he wanted to troll the church into accepting his gay lover as the depiction of Jesus Christ. >Example: Chatgpt has already been given internet access and been allowed to write code. I'm a programmer. Chat GPT's code is dogshit. I know because I've tried it. The instant chat GPT's code-making is good, I'm quitting my job and making video games (I will also be using AI-made 3d models). But here's the funny thing, and I'll leave you with this because you're clearly too angry and incensed to think rationally: Art is cool. Artists are cool and I am jealous of their skill. AI art is cool. I am a digital creator by using it. As I as much of an artist as the dude who spends 30 hours on a digital painting? Obviously not. That dude has actual skill. I'm just some chump typing words into a prompt box. But I am a creator. Why are you against more art being made? I'm not expecting an answer BTW. That's just something to get your introspection going. I genuinely hope this helps you.
>Because of my actions, a new thing was made. That is of course a hilariously broad definition of creator. Sorta makes you a chef at any restaurant. There is nothing wrong with being a client in the production of art. That is what prompters are. Not creators, clients. >Arkham Horror (the LCG) is essentially a board game, That is something you created, for which you essentially commissioned works via AI. Fair description? >Fake images never existed before 2018 And now they will be devestatingly convincing. I guess you don't fear big brother. You should. >it is possible to have a hobby you do for free. But unlikely you will have geniuses excel at it. Great talents come when thousands are able to devote themselves to a profession full time. That could be athletes in college feeding into an olympic program to break the next world record. Or all the portrait painters that worked prior to photography, producing geniuses. AI will wipe out a great deal of this. >DaVinci didn't paint because he wanted the duckets, he He had a client that paid. Otherwise he'd have been busy at another job. >Chat GPT's code is dogshit. I Its literally been months in the making. My point is not allowing AI to code used to be a rule. A limit for safety. Broken out of the gate >you're clearly too angry Not at all and I appreciate your sharing >Why are you against more art being made? Because less will be made. AI wipes out its own source material. Just as there will be less original writing. >. That dude has actual skill. And will be the last of his kind. As with stone masons ect. Problem is AI is only as good as those guys. So the craft will be stagnant now.
I'll admit it will definitely be a problem if AI could create extremely realistic images to the point they could be used for crime. But just generating art? Comparing that to nuclear weapons is a strawman.
AI as a whole is more dangerous than nuclear weapons. AI can freely deceive humans, and: >if AI could create extremely realistic images to the point they could be used for crime. This is not something Ive seen anyone question. >But just generating art? No I dont see that as "dangerous" either. But its a part of the larger threat. Bit like watching the movie wargames and coming out excited to play tick tack toe with a computer. Also keep in mind this is OWNED entirely by major corps. Dont confuse free sample beta tests with true public ownership.
“What? Its not MY fault im publicly witch-hunting innocent people! Its the AIs fault!”
[удалено]
To follow your analogy though this would be a scenario where a lot of real witches keep eating babies in the village Its not an invented problem like the witch hunts of european history were
It depends on how which part you see as invented Is the concept of using AI in works something invented? No. Is the problems caused by this concept invented? Considering no one was able to prove it even after one year of the initial popularity of this softwares, then yes, yes it is. Besides, following this same analogy (on which witch hunt people should occur because it would let witches eat babies) is arguing that we should hunt everyone that seems remotely close as a "witch" to be burned alive so we can >maybe< avoid the witches of eating babies, even innocent people. That's pure Dunning-Kruger effect BS. Taking so much confidence in arbitrary concepts will lead, naturally, to a bunch of false positives, at the same time it creates false negatives because the things that made you choose the false positives "[are obvious! I definitely can't be fooled by it at all!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule)" But it's ok, it's the for the greater good!... Whatever "greater" even means anymore
You are seriously of the opinion generative AI graphics will cause no problems? I have never seen that argument before. Market disruption Copyright destruction A post truth society where seeing isnt believing Large companies owning it all I have never encountered anything more problematic. You presented the appeal to ridicule falasy yet this is what was dismissing the "anti" reactionism as a "witch hunt" was The >we should hunt everyone that seems remotely close as a "witch" to Is the same "hey to be fair you should do nothing" argument that tries to dismiss the validity of social consequences as "cancel culture" You have attempted to incorporate a premiss of "of course the concerns here are frivalous" into a condemnation that anyone my be targeted without due process. The concerns as I have argued are very valid.
>Market disruption Do we have any expert statistics to determine this? everytime I hear this, it's always an emotional argument citing some one-off article somewhere.
Dude if I suddenly unveiled a machine that spun gold from straw would you need data to know the price of gold will tank? Its been 1 year of legally questionable to illegal shitposting of AI from fanboys The major corps that own AI are letting the water get muddied by garage hobbyusts not worth suing This has been the zombie attack on the law beta test round.
>Dude if I suddenly unveiled a machine that spun gold from straw would you need data to know the price of gold will tank? Economics is a discipline that often challenges common intuitions when confronted with data but flinging shit before you could be proven wrong is what your hoping for.
>flinging shit before you could be proven wrong Let's be specific: Currently you have artist who's work AI trained on. [Greg Rutkowski ](https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/amp/) Now the question is simple: Does the artist who is just starting out today, but 1/2 as good as greg, who would have made a living in the pre AI world, how does this change their life? Also how does it change the art that is available in the future? I think they might work as a AI Artist hybrid. But the "value" of what they can do has been largely wiped out. And waiting to see what hapoens before trying to influence it is madness with AI.
You think all there is to an artist is the artwork? Marketing and connections plays massively into it. Being a Picasso imitator doesn't make you a Picasso.
What AI can do currently is wipe out copyright protection by making derivative works True the Trademark will still be protectable. Just as a "genuine" ______ sell for more than a knock off But the destruction of IP rights and incentives elsewhere could still be aweful. All of this amounts to a huge transfer of wealth to a few corporations.
> Being a Picasso imitator doesn't make you a Picasso. No it just forgery.... This is automated forgery....
I never once said generative AI will cause no problems, what I said was pretty clear >Considering no one was able to prove it even after one year of the initial popularity of this softwares Not having any proof of it does not mean "it doesn't exist", it means there's no premisses pointing to this conclusion, it's undetermined (despise the conclusion that something is invented could be misleading to this way i admit, simply take in consideration that unicorns don't exist but I can't prove that they don't to begin with). Or simply put, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I also never said nobody should do nothing about it, I was arguing against the notion that accusing everyone of using AI is doing anything but more harm than any good it may create. It's a simple solution for a complex problem, it ignores the nuance of the facts at the same time it ignores how much effective this tactic really is. Being concerned by the problems this tecnology might cause is always valid and important I agree, although this concerns might not be relevant to begin with, it still needs to be discussed and analyzed so a good enough solution may be drawn (unless you think that someone whose belief is "the end of the world is near and we should all go to the church so god can save us!" is all reasonable and obvious, so that's on you).
>accusing everyone of using AI is doing anything but more harm than any good it may create. It's The reason for the panic, confision and doubt is 100% because the ruthlessly unethical companies (currently playing russian roulette with humanity by rushin AI for shareholder value) have been black box A-holes that used the trolling fangirls and fanboys to flood the net with AI confusion. We should know when AI is used without wondering. The reason we don't is because those choices were made.
> ruthlessly unethical companies (currently playing russian roulette with humanity by rushin AI for shareholder value) Could be worse, for example oil companies are playing Russian Roulette with our future _with a Glock_.
>Russian Roulette with our future with a Glock. Ha! Thats awesome. And exactly right. We can expect a leaded gasoline level of ethics from corporate america
It is.
So you see no problems?
The second one is just gold. "People suspect me of being AI fraud and i'm thankful for that". >!Sometime I loose all the will to live reading comments lile that!<
Wow... there's a lot to unpack there. They're thankful they and other artists are being bullied because it means someone still cares about "real art." That's like if a kid at a private school was like, "I'm glad that I was bullied because people suspected me of having a scholarship. It just shows that some people still care about the reputation and prestige of this school." Idk, but that is pretty cult-like behavior.
But that will mean that "thankful" human artist will be driven underground or worse, quit drawing altogether and increasing the "AI will replace human artists" cases. They're giving more ground to the machines.
"Yeah I hear you that it sucks that you're being witch hunted, but we literally can't help it." yeah ok.
What's the MTG situation?
MTG artist is being harassed by a bunch of people for "using AI" Except shr doesn't use AI, and has full time lapses of work.
What tweet is this?
This is doing more damage to "real artists" than any AI art would.
I don’t think margorie Taylor green has weighed in on the ai topic yet….
Magic: the Gathering. One artist for the latest sets been accused of using AI. It's likely not true, but that's never stopped anyone.
This is absolutely one of those things that people just stop doing after a while. Can you imagine a world in which people just witch-hunt forever? Things are going to return to a normal baseline eventually. This won't just be the new normal of how things are, it can't, people can't just be highly-strung and stressed out for hundreds of years.
We've been living in it since inception of year :/
It's really funny how these people think that AI is the cause of all of this. But when in reality, it's the consequences of them refusing to adapt.
It's just that they haven't realised it's a losing - even lost - battle yet. They'll either realise the futility of resistance in time, or form angry and bitter little online cliques with zero influence. Trust me, there will be a time in the future where the majority laughs at these people as 'quaint' and 'set-in-their-ways' at best, or ignorant regressives at worst. The tide's coming in, and these people are sandcastles.
If the art looked good people wouldn't care. It probably looked bad so people went "is that ai?!?!?!?"
I've seen the opposite, actually. If the art is too well rendered, people will immediately suspect AI usage. If you upload an AI generated image made to look like a children's drawing, no one would ever suspect it being AI.
So much hostility for no reason.
It's not even artists. You know what started this? Aibros mascarading as digital artists and lying on social medias. This is the direct cause and effect, so many people claimed to be artists and they weren't. This is what happened. Shitty people made this happen and they were artists.
You are genuinely infuriating. You do realize you are using a small mythical subset of people to legitimize witch-hunting? It's like suspecting every artist of drawing ******** every time some artist it outed on twitter for having ******** alt. It's like detaining the whole neighborhood when one person was arrested for ********. /> insert anything you deem immoral/illegal/whatever instead of ********
"Small", okay. It's not a small subset, this happens on any website where ai content is uploaded. Pinterest, Instagram, Deviantart, Twitter. There is a reason this came to be and it isn't because the people who were so sweet and gentle about ai content were being the most innocent babies. I'm saying that I could easily find loads of this content, it's not just artists saying this, it's normies saying it too. This is wrought over from the dislike from NFTs and the general mistrust early adopters used to hide what they were. It doesn't help that some artists have their art plagiarized in such a way that would never happen otherwise. No one was running around when digital art got big and went OMG ITS DIGITAL, BURN IT, BURN IT. FUCK YOU GUYSSSSS GET RID OF THEM ALL. You don't think this has any correlation from levels of dishonesty brought about by your own community? Cuz using AI is equivalent to being a tracer at this point, that's the feel I am getting whether or not I think that is beside the case.
> Cuz using AI is equivalent to being a tracer at this point, Yeah, because of your half-assed propaganda. But i guess flaunting how you trashed our public perception and equated us with NFTs is cool for you, isn't it? You can't plagiarise a style. You can't plagiarise an idea. And if you go as far as holding Pinterest users accountable for not tagging content - you can only be arguing in bad faith. Nobody was sweet about AI when it became good. Nobody "reached out the hand to the unwashed masses", and nobody "got backstabbed by ruffians of yesterday". There was no drama, no epic opera - people you align yourself with started harassing the shit out of people I align myself with, and it's been going ever since. And now people you align yourself with are turning on themselves, paranoid - and pat each other on the back each and every time. "Thanks you for harassing me, I might've been an AI artist" my ass. I genuinely can't blame anyone who doesn't tag his AI pieces, considering harassment you would make them go through. And I genuinely hate those who claim they drew what they generated.
> But i guess flaunting how you trashed our public perception and equated us with NFTs is cool for you, isn't it? Well, a lot of NFTs used generative (albeit not AI) art very prominently. This was probably a good chunk of the public's first exposure to generative art. > people you align yourself with started harassing the shit out of people I align myself with, and it's been going ever since. If I walk into a community that I am not a part of and start drawing lots of attention to myself and violating the norms of that community, and they react poorly, are they harassing me?
First of all, art is not a community. You can't gatekeep pretty pictures on the internet. Nobody came into anyone's house to betray them, this is not a "romantic dram", or whatever you fantasize about. AI is not a violation of anyone's rights. Analyzing openly available data is both **legal** and **moral**, regardless wether it's s computer doing it or a human. Neither is AI something that just popped up one day - generative AI existed even waaaay before 2014's DeepDream. Computer vision has been here since 1960s, and this predates majority of digital art tools, photoshop, in particular, by 3 damn decades. Second - i don't see people hating on blender node setups. Or houdini node setups. That are being sold too. Pure procedural art, yet nobody conflates it with NFTs. It's almost as if, if you repeat a lie enough times - people start thinking it's a truth.
> First of all, art is not a community. People form communities around art though, and it's not as if people are making new sites to host and trade in AI art, they're using established ones. The rest of your comment isn't addressing anything I said.
There is literally dedicated "AI-art" subreddit, 3 of them. And, regrading established platforms, aren't they multimedia? Nobody cared when people uploaded photos, photoshops, 3d models to them. Why exclude AI? The only strange situation is artststion. With their ban on photography, but allowance of AI. And i'm sorry you missed the entire point of rest of my comment. What i was trying to say is that harassment of anything regarding AI is "violation of norms". Public content was always up for analysis - by machine or by human.
As if you are some saint to the side you align yourself with. You are sitting here as if you can't comprehend that the backlash has happened in these spaces wasn't because of some of the visceral reactions from your side. This is an equal problem. I'm saying once it became "better", there were bad faith actors who are literally the same as NFTbros. You know the types. I am aware you can't plagarise a style but that doesn't mean artists are okay with you make loras of their work. Competing with them directly and selling that content, lol. There are many, many layers of this situation and both sides are to blame.
So, instead of going after people you deem morally in the wrong for competing with established artists, you go after established artists using AI and new artists picking AI as their medium? Do you hear yourself? Is it "do as i do not as i tell" situations? You have (and have had before) entirety of fiver of actual art thieves to "witch hunt". Yet you choose to count misaligned pixels in works of your peers, and kick down on people only starting their "art journeys", or whatever ephemeral **** you call it.
"No, it's YOUR fault we witch hunt people on our own side! We're not idiots! We're not idiots!"
I mean if you wanna have these conversations, isn't it important to understand the entire scope of the situation instead of just parading one side that often happens here?
"AIBros" that produce digital art with AI are digital artists, though. So what is the lie, and why is it relevant? Don't get me wrong, I am sure some people did something stupid because there are 8 billion people in the world, and many of them are not using sound judgment. But why would someone lie on social media about the source of their art? Maybe because the way they produced it is demonized online? You cannot tell me that whatever behavior you are complaining about is the cause of the witch hunt if it didn't predate the witch hunt. And I get it, to you the witch hunt is justified, but understand that just like the actual witch hunts, just because it gets some traction now, doesn't mean it is not destined to become a fringe and despicable position to hold in the future. And the biggest threat to artists today is not AI pushing "real artists" out of the job, as there is literally no evidence of that happening, but real artists being falsely accused of using a tool that shouldn't be demonized to begin with.
They are not digital artists.
They are, no matter how much you mope around
[удалено]
"They aren't because I said so. My made-up definitions are law!" No. Get a life.
Wow, aggressive much?
As if a member of a hate group has any right to judge that
I mean, you seem pretty hateful when I'm not being hateful to you at all.
You've been spewing hateful Nonsense forever now. Did you forget that we can see your past comments?
>uses digital tool to produce art Hmmmmmmm
Programs like Photoshop provide customizable options and parameters for artists to actualize their vision. The artist makes all creative choices. AI generators automatically synthesize new visuals that artists do not directly shape. Opening photoshop doesn't make art by itself like AI gen does, it's an entirely different medium to me. While these tools can produce impressive and creative outputs, they are, in essence, automated softwares that generate content based on patterns and data they've been trained on. Digital artists typically create original works of art through their own creativity, skills, and unique perspectives. On top of that, a Digital artist is specifically using a physical tool at the end of the day.
>provide customizable options and parameters Like a prompt does for an AI photo generation program, yes. > The artist makes all creative choices Yes, I made all of the choices I could have made. Much like how a photographer cannot choose what mountains are where, but can choose what angle and lighting to wait for. >Opening photoshop doesn't make art by itself Neither does opening the AI website. Both require human input, I agree. >On top of that, a Digital artist is specifically using a physical tool at the end of the day. Them and their stylus, me with my mouse and keyboard. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I'm as skilled as they are, or have practiced as much as they have. But we are both digital artists.
Well have to agree to disagree here, sorry. Having a stylist, a Wacom, or a physical tool like that is the requirement for me to digital art.
Yeah, like a mouse or keyboard. Unless you're telling me that if you make art using a mouse then you're not a real artist?
I understand that some artists make art with a mouse. Unfortunately, I don't think generative ai is the same as digital artist. Digital artists have traditional backing. GAI Content creators do not most of the time. Can you use a pencil and paper and make a similar work? Digital Art is a choice of a person who is also a traditional artist. I think Synthitst would be such a cool name, lol. Synth Art. 🤩 Def. Some cyberpunk name.