Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
what are your thoughts on this
artist vs ai
- Thread starter araya_tatsuya
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 721
At various times:
The phonograph and radio were going to kill live music
Cassette tapes and MP3s were going to kill music distribution
The photographic camera was going to kill painting
Movies were going to kill theater
TV was going to kill movies
VHS and DVRs were going to kill broadcast TV
...
So AI is not going to 'kill' the graphic arts.
The AI is just a tool; admittedly, being able to put in a text prompt to get a finished product is new, but the two underlying concepts are not:
1. Technology makes it easier for someone with little to no formal training to create art, or at least something that resembles it
2. A huge portion of new art is stolen/copied/amalgamated from existing art (and has been for centuries)
Some people will figure out how to incorporate this new technology into their own styles.
Some people will continue working in their existing styles without concerning themselves with this new technology.
And some people will apparently freak out and quit, screaming loudly about 'the injustice of it all' on their way out.
If you're 'doing art' for a living, and this is taking jobs away from you, sorry about your luck. There are a number of older folks in the rust belt of the USA who'd like to share their experience of the factories moving away. Before that there were any number of people doing office work, or piece work, or spinning yarn, who went through the exact same situation as the machines took over. The revolution comes for us all in the end.
For the record, I studied music composition in college, and after graduation no one wanted to listen to what I was writing, so I decided I had better find a 'real job.' I have a firsthand idea what giving up the full-time creative process is like. It sucks. I empathize with this person, and a lot of others, about the changes that are coming, but this progression isn't going to stop in order to preserve the current status quo. Make your peace with it, or don't, but either way it's going to happen. Trying to stand in the way of change ends badly.
The phonograph and radio were going to kill live music
Cassette tapes and MP3s were going to kill music distribution
The photographic camera was going to kill painting
Movies were going to kill theater
TV was going to kill movies
VHS and DVRs were going to kill broadcast TV
...
So AI is not going to 'kill' the graphic arts.
The AI is just a tool; admittedly, being able to put in a text prompt to get a finished product is new, but the two underlying concepts are not:
1. Technology makes it easier for someone with little to no formal training to create art, or at least something that resembles it
2. A huge portion of new art is stolen/copied/amalgamated from existing art (and has been for centuries)
Some people will figure out how to incorporate this new technology into their own styles.
Some people will continue working in their existing styles without concerning themselves with this new technology.
And some people will apparently freak out and quit, screaming loudly about 'the injustice of it all' on their way out.
If you're 'doing art' for a living, and this is taking jobs away from you, sorry about your luck. There are a number of older folks in the rust belt of the USA who'd like to share their experience of the factories moving away. Before that there were any number of people doing office work, or piece work, or spinning yarn, who went through the exact same situation as the machines took over. The revolution comes for us all in the end.
For the record, I studied music composition in college, and after graduation no one wanted to listen to what I was writing, so I decided I had better find a 'real job.' I have a firsthand idea what giving up the full-time creative process is like. It sucks. I empathize with this person, and a lot of others, about the changes that are coming, but this progression isn't going to stop in order to preserve the current status quo. Make your peace with it, or don't, but either way it's going to happen. Trying to stand in the way of change ends badly.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2020
- Messages
- 405
If AI image generation models were trained on data which they had permission to use, I'd be ok with it. (This is the problem most artists have against AI)
But it's not, and on top of that, AI-fanatics' attitude towards artists is... unpleasant. (I don't think photography vs painting is a good comparison to what's happening now, but even then, I don't imagine photographers harassed painters back in the day.)
But it's not, and on top of that, AI-fanatics' attitude towards artists is... unpleasant. (I don't think photography vs painting is a good comparison to what's happening now, but even then, I don't imagine photographers harassed painters back in the day.)
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 721
From a legal standpoint, there's absolutely a case to be made here, though I'm not sure how successful it is on a large scale - my understanding is that you can't copyright style. In individual cases where recognizable elements make it through the image generator and the case can be made for direct plagiarism, I hope the original artist sues and makes bank, but more broadly speaking I'm not sure this argument is going to put a damper on the entire spectrum of AI art, or its ability/right to ingest large amounts of existing art regardless of copyright status.
From an historical standpoint, every art history or technique course starts with existing works as points of reference, so I would suggest that in this very narrow respect the difference between a formally trained artist and an AI is one of scale of their exposure to prior works, rather than any fundamental difference of approach.
This is very true, and I don't want to encourage that response. But I have also thought some about the press this topic has gotten, and it's almost always from the perspective of the artists. I don't think I've seen (for example) a poll of a thousand people across a cross section of average society (so including doctors and lawyers and fast food workers and mechanics and students and factory workers and etc., etc., and probably only a couple of artists) asking if AI art is good or bad. I don't think most of those folks are going to have strong feelings one way or another. Some of them will have seen varying amounts of press and can probably parrot the line generally taken there, but I'm not convinced many have stopped to think how it affects them directly, mostly because it doesn't in 99% of their daily lives.
Like all technology, AI image generators are a tool, and can be used to the betterment or detriment of both the artistic community and society as a whole. We're still early in the process of figuring out where the broad gray stripe between those options runs.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,859
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 196
It has been happening for some years. Recently it was discovered by most, and spread at a ridiculously pace since last year. For a AI there's no concept of style, they calculate portions using samples and reproduce them, that's the only thing a computer knows what to do, to calculate. The source pictures can be identified because they're stored, and some artists have learnt that their works have been being used without consent. That's the copyright issue and there are ongoing trials. And about how it affects to jobs, creators and enterprises are using AI art because it's cheaper than paying artists or commissions (if you know how, you steal it, if not, you pay someone else to do it) and for the masses it's considered "good" art due ignorance. So, leaving aside creativity concepts, AI without ethics ends jobs and infringes laws, and of course without paying taxes. And those who develop but don't regulate its use are excempt of liability because the legislation of those laws is being slowed by some companies beyond the procedure steps and efforts of the states/federations.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,563
made with cardboard
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2020
- Messages
- 721
"This turkey has four legs, three of which look like chicken wings. The fourth is the shape of the country."
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2018
- Messages
- 922
Technology waits for no man. AI and robots will eventually replace every job.
Group Leader
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2019
- Messages
- 6,563
O, shit i wish these robots and AI can have some forklift certificate so everyone can wet themselves.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
ofcourse ai is coming for almost every existing job sooner or later but the question which arises is what we 'humans' would be needed for. i havent heard any ai utopia dreamer simps talk about this
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
man you've got your priorities setAI drawn hentai
Infested rule thirty-four
With half-assed content.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2018
- Messages
- 922
Most likely, the richest of the humans will have access to immortality and the poor will have fizzled out. The upper class will bask in entertainment all day, every day, while robots will be used for pleasure, since reproduction becomes unnecessary.
Or, the AI will kill us...
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
this is not abt art but
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2023
- Messages
- 1,470
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2020
- Messages
- 1,026
At various times:
The phonograph and radio were going to kill live music
Cassette tapes and MP3s were going to kill music distribution
The photographic camera was going to kill painting
Movies were going to kill theater
TV was going to kill movies
VHS and DVRs were going to kill broadcast TV
...
So AI is not going to 'kill' the graphic arts.
Just my two cents here. These things aren't actually similar to the situation at hand. I've seen people make these comparisons time and time through but I've yet to find any correlation other than "A thing existed that scared people."
Phonographs didn't create music or deliver the experience of a live concert. Tapes and MP3 are similar, they didn't affect the overall circulation because power, reach and branding can't be overshadowed that easily.
Cameras didn't kill painting because they're two entirely different skill sets and one makes something while the other captures it. If you wanted an alien spaceship abducting a woman with fangs about to go into her neck, you didn't go to a photographer. Even after photoshop came out and you could get that from someone using Adobe PS, it was still considered a different enough skillset that painting itself never died off. If you wanted a painting, an actual, real painting on a canvas that wasn't printed out on a blown up piece of paper...you still needed a painter. So Photoshop and digital tools took over the digital markets while Painting took the physical.
TV Didn't kill movies because there's a stark difference between a movie screen experience and one at home. Not to mention movies have been hot dating spots for the better part of their existence.
VHS and DVR can't kill broadcasts because not only are they limited, their Live TV functions... don't function without live TV. They're dependent on a source.
None of these things fall in line with what artists face today. From an outsiders perspective the only interaction you get are Talking to the artist, paying for the art and getting it at a late moment. That's it. All of which are supplanted by the AI, to be created in any person's style as you wish. It's a 1 to 1 marketplace threat and that's what freaks out artists (aside from their stuff being used without permission).
Ironically the Luddites are the closest example we have of this. People like to throw the term Luddite around to try and say it's someone just afraid of technology, but the truth luddites lost everything to automation and those who still got work were so poor they were basically slaves. The result was that they couldn't take it and started fighting back. They tried to open talks with the owners of the automation on the effect it was having on their lives, multiple times I may add, but no one wanted to listen so they just resorted to violence. THAT is a closer situation to what's happening today.
A group of people with a learned skill being pushed out of places because it's just cheaper for a non-human to do it, and when they start talking about how it affects them, people turn their nose up and ignore them.
Scraping across other people's works for money is an injustice though. Those people worked for years to get to that skill level and someone didn't even care enough to at least say "Hey can we use your stuff" before just taking it and feeding it to their algorithm to make a buck. That's just straight up unethical.
This is also something I tend to see a lot, this weird defeatist attitude. People act like laws and limitations can't be made, like respect can't be given enough people demand it. Tons of companies, websites and industry professionals have publicly stated don't want AI art because they don't like what it stands for. Guillermo Del Toro, Michael Bay, Hayao Miyazaki to name a few.
Things don't always have to be this bleak dark future where nothing works and everything is poverty, you just gotta be willing to fight for and through it.
And honestly, even if you're only doing it on the side, I think you could probably find an audience for your music. If Logic (the rapper) can make an audience (I listen about 1 of his songs atm) then I have no reason to you couldn't. It might take some time but I don't doubt it.
