'Artists'

155 comments

It’s true. AI images ain’t art. It’s a best guess amalgamation by a computer, made with the stolen remnants of actual art created by actual artists, while not compensating them at all.
It runs on a platform none of us can even afford to run. Cost prohibitive and limits who has access to it.
It’s made by capitalists striving for profit and nothing else. So it’s built with the wrong intentions in mind. Intentions that are immediately at odds with what art is. Yet another limitation of who can participate in it.
Its current state can’t exist without the theft of tons of other actual art to try and imitate, while having no actual context or idea what anything is.
It’s not producing art; it’s producing a way for capitalists to fire and not hire artists so that they can pocket the extra money for their yachts and summer homes.
It’s absolutely everything art isn’t nor ever will be. Art is for everyone. AI is for rich, talentless corporate ghouls.
- Not to mention the ecological damage.
  
  That’s my secondary issue with it.
  My issue is less with AI and more with how capitalism has mucked up an opportunity.
  
  it uses less power than a refrigerator. are you going to stop using your refrigerator?
  
  Perhaps I need my fridge more than I need AI generated art.
  
  what if a small artist uses AI to make the money to keep the power for their fridge on?
  
  Being able to food on the table is a priority for all of us and I use a computer for that as well.
  The argument was about ecological damage which is also true, especially for running all this hardware to run these models to create said art.
  
  if we're arguing about ecological damage, then the answer is simple - we need to purge roughly 2/3 of humanity from the planet. don't you want to save the planet? get to work.
  
  Maybe a conversation for a different time. Have a good one.
  
  Curtis Yarvin is that you again?..
- If I ask Taylor Swift to make a song about a chicken eating marshmallows and she does, all the lyrics, music, production, and voice, are me and not Taylor. I made it. Me. That's how AI art works. Even if Taylor was also just copying other artists. All me. I'm so talented my words can only be appreciated in prompts to Taylor. You wouldn't understand. Buy my marshmallow song.
- The same people saying shit like "if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing" are calling training AI on publically available data "stealing"
  
  Because obviously pirating games & shows for personal use does the same amount of harm as a corporate entity stealing the work of hundreds of thousands of writers and artists in order to turn a profit
  
  How is it stealing though? Do the artists not have the art anymore?
  This is the same braindead logic as people saying downloading someone else's NFT is stealing.
  
  It's the same logic as saying someone tracing another persons art and passing it off as their own to make money is theft because that's essentially what they're doing. Except they're scraping the internet in order to feed millions of artists' works without their consent to a machine that approximates what "art" is supposed to look like.
  This is the same braindead logic as people saying downloading someone else's NFT is stealing.
  If someone stole an artist's work and passed it off as an NFT as has happened many times that's also an example of theft. I know that's not the strawman you're presenting but that is the actual NFT equivalent of what we're discussing. But yes, conflate it with downloading an image so you can call me braindead instead of formulating an argument.
  It's fine if you personally enjoy slop, there's plenty of it out there now. But if you're gonna try to morally grandstand about it you may as well just say you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their own work and be done with it.
  
  Always funny to me how the people who are vehemently anti-AI never actually understand how AI works.
  Almost like the hatred always comes from a place of ignorance.
  It's the same logic as saying someone tracing another persons art and passing it off as their own to make money is theft because that's essentially what they're doing
  Not at all. Unless you purposely overfit the model to 1 image or a handful of images, you're not doing the equivalent of tracing. Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art...... which people do all the time and you guys don't get mad at them for that.
  If someone stole an artist's work and passed it off as an NFT as has happened many times that's also an example of theft
  Except that using art for training data isn't remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You're the one relying on strawman arguments here.
  It's fine if you personally enjoy slop, there's plenty of it out there now. But if you're gonna try to morally grandstand about it you may as well just say you don't think artists deserve to be paid for their own work and be done with it.
  The irony, lol. Talking about moral grandstanding, when you're just being smug about how ignorant you are of how a computer program works.
  Also I don't like most AI content that gets churned out, the difference is I don't use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
  
  Except that using art for training data isn't remotely the same.e as trying to claim ownership of it. So this is a nonsense comparison as well. You're the one relying on strawman arguments here.
  So they're profiting off of the works of others with no credit given, no financial compensation offered and no consent from the actual artists. What would you call that if not theft?
  Its more accurate to compare it to say, someone watching a bunch of studio Ghibli films then using that as reference to draw their own ghibli styled art...... which people do all the time and you guys don't get mad at them for that.
  Which is because they're using a reference to create their own art. I'm not sure how you think machine learning works but I can tell you there is no actual "learning" involved. What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it's trained on. If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you're attributing human traits to AI in a way that shows you fundamentally misunderstand the capabilities of image generation models as well as all current AI.
  I don't use that opinion to go on a moral crusade.
  Meanwhile two comments ago...
  The same people saying shit like "if buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing" are calling training AI on publically available data "stealing"
  If I was wrong on any topic I'd love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and "no, you're actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!" At the point that's what you have to result to in order to "win" a debate I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics. 👍 Have a lovely day
  
  So they're profiting off of the works of others
  Not directly no.
  What would you call that if not theft?
  Idk, life. Like I'm a big fan of scifi books. If I wrote one myself, do I need to get permission, financially compensate and credit every author who's book I read they had inspired me? If I use online resources to learn to draw do I need to ask their permission every time I doodle? Is parody theft? Is modding theft?
  I'm not sure how you think machine learning works
  Well since I have a masters in AI and robotics, and I'm a principle developer at a company that uses computer vision for medical applications, I would say I have at least a basic grasp of the concept.
  but I can tell you there is no actual "learning" involved.
  That's a very philosophical debate, lol
  What it produces is a direct result of the data (stolen work) it's trained on.
  Factually not true. The algorithm that actually produces the art has no knowledge whatsoever of the original training data. All it knows how to do is denoise an image. It's only the second algorithm that has any connection to the training data, and even then it doesn't store any data on it directly. And the only connection between the 2 is the second algorithm telling the first how closely the denoised image matches the prompts. (More advanced programs will do more advanced things obviously, but that's the general concept of stable diffusion.)
  If you genuinely think a machine is capable of producing original art you're attributing human traits to AI
  Again, a very philosophical argument. And I think you're making that argument as an appeal to emotion rather than actually trying rebuke what I'm saying.
  Meanwhile two comments ago..
  Me pointing out the flaws in other people's arguments is not the same as me myself going on a moral crusade.
  If I was wrong on any topic I'd love to be enlightened as to why but your arguments so far have boiled down to insults, strawmans and "no, you're actually doing the thing that you called me out for doing!"
  Well it's hard to give you a good argument, when you don't make any actual arguments to begin with when you're just making strawman arguments and arguing semantics.
  I would be heavily considering if the opposing party has a point instead of doubling down on the third grade argument tactics.
  Would it be rude to point out the continuing hypocrisy?
  
  Ignoring the fact you havent made any factual arguments, would it be rude to point out your comment history in turn?
  Even basic LLMs can take in context of your entire conversation history. Not that a braindead luddite would actually know anything about AI.
  But ya know, keep being an insufferable cunt because people use a computer program you don't like, like the fucking loser you are.
  Yup, sure sounds like you have a master in AI and robotics when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics behind what you apparently study. Obviously you're definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
  Hope lying on the internet works out for you tho ✌️
  
  It's so fucking predictable at this point.
  You whine about how I argue, so I give you a solid argument, explaining to you the basics of AI imagine generation, how that relates to your argument and why it it means what you said is factually not true.
  Then you just completely fucking ignore it, and look through my replies to find me saying bad words to someone and act like that proves me wrong somehow.
  Because your only other option is to concede you don't know how AI works and that my point is actually correct. But since that would get in the way of the "AI bad" circlejerk you physically can't even comprehend the idea.
  when you have to harass people & call them insufferable cunts for disagreeing with the ethics
  And then you even have to lie to make it sound worse. I'm not harassing someone for disagreeing with me about the ethics of AI. Hell I would LOVE to have an actual conversation about AI ethics instead of having people call me a literal Nazi for using generative AI, I insulted a guy because he insulted me.
  Obviously you're definitely not morally grandstanding in the slightest.
  Litterally I'm not. You guys are the one taking the moral high horse argument here, me refuting it and pointing out your blatant hypocrisy is not grandstanding. All you are doing here is the "I know you are, but what am I?" Arguing that you have been accusing me of.
  Now, if you would kindly either come up with some sort of coherent counter argument to the points I made before, admit you don't know wtf you're talking about, or at very least shut the fuck up, that would be great.
- i know people who have used AI art to produce something not possible for a human artist in a short time frame. it was part of a larger product which was more than just art, and wouldn't have had nearly the same impact without the art. it actually does empower small artists if they think outside the box about how to use it.
  
  I think as long as you can keep it at arm’s length and don’t let it permeate your entire process, it can be valuable in triggering things during that ideation and creative process. That’s ultimately how I think tools like this should exist. They should be at your side filling a small percentage of need, with the human artist building something larger from it.
  That said, the timeframe for producing things continues to shrink because of unrealistic capitalist demands. So anything that brings a 12-hour process to 1 hour is heralded in as progress by execs, even if it demoralizes the creative team and reduces their personal footprint.
  
  it can also be used just give human made art visual cohesiveness, making multiple images have a unified style.
  
  I like the idea of feeding your art into it to see various styles side by side. Reminds me of the Photoshop editing days.
- That's not how AI works.
  How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
  Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
  The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
  You don't own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
  You don't own the definition of art.
  AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
  
  That’s not how AI works.
  How does it work ?
  How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
  Paywalls limit access, cost of hardware to run locally limits access.
  Can some people access it, yes, is access limited, also yes.
  Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
  Strawman? maybe?, it's unclear how it's related and as a singular statement is mostly nonsensical.
  The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
  It absolutely is not, there are several ongoing lawsuits and repeated strikes about this exact thing.
  You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
  This i agree with.
  You don’t own the definition of art.
  I agree with this also.
  AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
  AI is for profit, not for everyone.
  The major difference here is the scale but you'll have to look in to that yourself.
  
  hallelujah.
  kill the capitalists, not the technology.
  
  That’s not how AI works
  How does it work then? I see lot's pf people claiming to know how it works... only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.
  How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
  Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.
  Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
  How so?
  The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
  The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don't know how humans art nor how machines train.
  You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
  True. However, this argument should not be about semantics;
  I got news for ya.
  You don’t own the definition of art.
  This is not about definitions, I won't spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?
  AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online
  Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.
  
  Simply, Diffusion models somewhat (and this is extremely hand wavy) work as the "reverse" of an image recognizer.
  It is taught the concepts of images through image learning (build neural circuits) to detect image features. Then, you do the reverse, iterate on noise to generate features.
  
  The fact that you think humans don't use neural networks trained by experience to generate art (or anything else we do) tells me you don't know how humans art nor how machines train.
  
  I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art. The Meta lawsuit comes to mind. The one where they were caught illegally training their LLM on authors’ works without their permission, using a pirated source, while still trying to argue that it was perfectly fair.
  If I use computer software to type up a letter instead of writing it, I’m not benefiting off the backs of everyday joes
  If I use a computer to calculate math, I’m not stealing a working Joe’s job
  If I use a computer to type a prompt for an image generator and it spits out an image, I’m benefiting off the backs and the works of the unknowing artists the AI vacuumed up
  If I use AI to write a book, I’m benefitting off of the authors’ works that Meta never paid any money to, while shadily downloading all of their books from torrent websites
  Your comparison here falls flat because AI image generation is a unique scenario. Computers aren’t the issue; corporate AI is.
  The AI community had an opportunity to be conflict-free and fair. A public utility that wasn’t created via theft and exploitation. Companies had an opportunity to ask the art community to willingly contribute to it and have something everyone can equally benefit from. Capitalists took that opportunity away and fucked up the entire thing.
  Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
  Edit: a wild article appears.
  
  Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
  Literally everything you just said to justify the position that "AI art ain't art" depended either on money or on legal decisions.
  Art is all about money? Laws dictate what is and is not art?
  
  Art isn’t all about money. That’s the point. AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated (or at least credited??). AI-generated imagery is 100% about profit only. It’s about pushing artists out of the picture—a thing companies have been trying to do for years.
  Artists should at least have a say in where their work goes, even if it’s not about them being financially compensated. It’s about having a fair conversation, instead of billionaires dominating the conversation once again.
  
  Art isn’t all about money.
  And yet everything in your comment was about who is "benefiting" from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after "art isn't all about the money" is:
  AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated
  So it's not about the money, but gimmie money.
  
  Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?
  
  I am not corporate America, and yet the only language you've been using with me has been "money money pay money."
  This was originally about whether AI art was actually art. You started this with:
  AI images ain’t art.
  And
  I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art.
  But the only actual argument you've come up with so far is that some artists are not being paid for it.
  Okay, so let's imagine a magical world where that happened. Every time an AI generates an image, the fraction of a penny that the image costs is shaved into millions of thin slices and distributed to everyone who holds copyright over anything that was used to create the model. Bigger pieces of that penny are going to companies like Disney or Getty, a few atoms of copper are going to randos on Deviant Art, it's all nice and fair.
  Does AI-generated art now count as art in that world, as far as you're concerned? Did it pay enough to buy the title?
  I don't think art has to have a price tag on it in order for it to be art, personally. If I went to the Pirate Bay and downloaded a copy of a beautiful movie, let's say Koyaanisqatsi, and didn't pay one cent for it, would it not be art?
  
  Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it? It’s a film made by humans. That’s art regardless of profit.
  Meta and other companies made it about money when they stole work specifically to make a profit. How those artists get compensated is a problem for tech to figure out since it dug this hole. Maybe they can look at how streaming artists earn revenue as an example. Even if I was giving my work away for free, I’d like to be made aware if AI tools are using it—for profit or not—so I can opt-in/out.
  I define art as something made by a being with consciousness. I choose to not define AI-generated imagery as art because in its current state, it’s made under questionable pretense and solely for profit.
  
  Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it?
  Your whole argument so far has been that AI art isn't art because the copyright holders of the stuff the models were trained on weren't being paid.
  I define art as something made by a being with consciousness.
  Ah, finally a different argument. Though it now simply transfers the question to how one measures "consciousness."
  Found art isn't art, then? Or algorithmic art? Photography?
  
  I know someone that does algorithmic art with Python and WebGL. There’s a skill behind it.
  Just like there’s art and skill behind the work that runs modern LLMs.
  Found art is art. So is algorithmic, multimedia, etc.
  Running an LLM and feeding it yours and your friends’ own art to train on? Go for it.
  Art generated solely for profit, by billionaires, through piracy methods they’d sue the fuck out of you for using? Trash.
  
  Desiring that the people who make art not starve to death is too much to ask now? We live under Capitalism! It's money or death.
  
  then go after the capitalists, not the innovation
  
  Don't bother trying to use logic or the actual definition of art with these AntiAI cultists. "AI art isn't art." is more of a religious chant with them than a well thought out position. Their types also declaired photograpy as "not art" back in the day. The NeoLuddites of today don't remember that and don't even know that they are aping the same misdefinition of art for the same reasons. But they are. Educating them is sort of an uphill battle as it is with any kind of Luddite.
  
  Yup
  
  Photography is art. You have to have an eye for a shot. You capture a moment with a device you’ve spent time learning and adjusting to get it just right. Art takes time. Typing shit into a prompt field is not comparable. But okay.
  The funny thing is I’ve been in tech for 20 years. I’m a digital and traditional artist that has been drawing in some form since I was a kid. My dad worked for NASA and was a big influence. I’ve built software that uses AI. So I’m not some dummy that is against all technological advancements. I’m against tech that is used to exploit artists, and tech bros that claim to be artists because they wrote a prompt in 5 minutes.
  
  The word you are thinking of is not 'art' it's 'skill'. A stick man that takes 3 seconds is art. The person who sketched it is an 'artist'. A painting a master works on for a decade is art and the guy who made it is an 'artist'. One takes more skill than the other, but they both get to be called art. Nobody of note is claiming the skills are comparable, but you are trying to gate-keep the terms 'art' and 'artist' pretty hard-core. The same as the people who claimed photograpy wasn't art because all the person did was "have an eye for the prompt... I mean shot. And curate a generated image, i mean capture an image on film and pass it off as their 'art'."
  
  “Skill” is indeed better suited here. The problem is also who holds the keys. The current state of capitalism wants the shortest route to produced assets because it means they can cut even more costs and reduce headcount. Get rid of writers and now artists? That’s more money in their pockets. It’s amazing tech that has been created with the wrong goals in mind, by people that had these conversations behind closed doors, with all key figures excluded—and I haven’t even touched on the environmental impacts.
  Art for me has always held unique power because I think of the steps the creator went through and the pivots they made. Why they decided with this color palette; what inspired them; what it means to them. All things that are devoid in AI-generated art. I’m also heavily biased as an artist and former graphic artist—both roles that are very quickly vanishing. I got lucky by pivoting to programming.
  Marx predicted that automation would bring about an era where people would work alongside machines to maintain and keep them running smoothly. The human’s job would be made easier. Turns out the real capitalist desire is full on replacement of the worker in a lot of cases and IMO that has tainted the idea of modern day AI.
  
  4 Is definitely wrong
  7 Yes
  And I'm sure all the AI everyone gets to use, are "collateral" products, that were realized, while they keep the goal of creating the AI that will ultimately replace all the employees and make the rich independent of the very annoying human workforce in all areas.
  Edit: lemmy kept converting the 4 and 7 to numbered bullet points, converting them to 1. And 2.
  That's why the formatting on the numbers is strange, using only blank spaces to separate.
  
  I wasn't wrong but i should have qualified it. There are instances where companies have pirated art, but the majority is stuff you can freely access online. I agree that they shouldn't have the pirated art that was behind pay walls. What they do with it isn't the problem there, it is that they have it. I should have said that the pirating of art isn't fundamental to the process and really probably was due to overzealous people tasked with finding data to train on and who, like most of us, grew up in the Naptster/limewire era.

155 comments