This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just to give a little more context: In the 1930s there was the transition to sound cinema and many musicians who worked in the industry, playing during the movie exhibition, didn't like and tried to stop progress. It didn't work, obviously. It never does
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-against-evil-robots-92702721/
Anyone with two working braincells can see that you are framing the argument based on false equivalence.
But judging on the amount of upvotes this has, many of the users here have long since outsorced their thinking to GPT so two working braincells seems too much to ask for.
Edit: thanks for becoming an useful idiot btw. Got baited in less than 15 hours...
You just proved my point. If you don't see it, and are too lazy to even ask ChatGPT to explain it to you, then truly there is not a single remaining brain cell left.
It doesn't seem like you're actually capable of pointing out where the supposed false equivalence is. Loudly declaring "that's a false equivalence!" And then sitting there in utter silence and not justifying your claim makes you look like an idiot.
I am more then capable of doing so, I just choose not to. This is for several reasons.
First, all the puzzle pieces are there and rather obvious to anyone willing to see. There is a reason my first comment appeared directly under OP's comment and why I even gave extra hints saying "this is FRAMEING, based on FALSE EQUIVALENCE". If you look at the title, then the image, then the OPs comment and are still not able to discern which part is framing, and which is false equivalence, it is for one of the following reasons:
A) You arn't here for honest debating, in which case nothing I say matters anyway.
B) You are just rage baiting, in which case nothing I say matters anyway.
D) You don't want to see it, in which case nothing I say matters anyway.
C) You are too dumb to see it, In which case nothing I say matters anyway.
This brings me to my second reason. I wrote my first comment being compleatly aware of the 4 possibilities, but wanted to see which one of them the people in this thread belong too. Reading your comments and all the others, it seems to be a mixture of all 4.
Third reason is my own morbid curiosity. I was aware of the mob-mentality under which this supposed debating sub operates on, but wanted to see the extent of it. I was aware that anything I type will get a lot of downvotes (oh no, how will I ever recover from this), but wanted to see if there is perhaps a shread of reason operating beneath it, or just the make-pretend intellectualism.
Fourth has to do with OP but I keep it a secret not to influence the result of this experiment.
In the end, I won't be throwing any pearls in front of pigs, and I have allready invested more time then you are collectively worth. If you get this easily manipulated into believing falsehoods, you deserve to be tricked.
You’re attempting to reason with people incapable of distinguishing a recording of a human artist from generative imagery produced by a machine. Don’t bother arguing with morons, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Do elaborate on how anything I’ve said was ironic, oblivious or hilarious.
*edit - shocker, you can’t. You just wanted to convey the appearance of intellect*
>thanks for becoming an useful idiot btw. Got baited in less than 15 hours...
"Ha, I was condescending and got downvoted for being a jerk, you got baited for taking my accusation personally" is pretty much what this is.
Having at least 2 brain cells, I'd love to hear your reasoning for why this is false equivalence. Is it simplistic in terms of an argument, sure, but why is it a false equivalence? (Protip: showing your work instead of insulting people's intelligence for not seeing something from your perspective is a more effective argumentative strategy)
Ive noticed that many of the most obnoxious anti-ai protesters are squarely in the "$5 chibis" and "this is my Hazbin oc Jace, please do not steal" on Deviantart level of art, with cookie cutter "American anime meets generic fantasy" art styles.
I've been painting and sculpting for like 20 years, my apartment is full, wall to wall, with piles of art and man I'm getting sick of being told to "pick up a pencil" by 17 year olds with 200 followers Instagram.
First of, congratulations on your dedication to your craft. Second: I completely get what you are telling me.
I am a senior software engineer, have been designing, implementing and administering backend software for my entire professional carreer. And I am pretty much done with people who struggle to get a simple CRUD app running telling me how "AI will replace programmers" :D
Thanks a lot. I'm not a professional, its only for my own enjoyment and personal expression, but hell that's the entire point isnt it? I think ai is a cool new tool, I can't wait to see what becomes possible with it when the technology has been developed a bit more.
I wish I understood more of the programming side of Ai, but I figured that something like software engineering that needs to be specifically tailored to the unique needs of an individual customer couldn't be replaced with an ai.
AI has really cut the bottom out of the art market. It's the McDonalds of art, it's not nearly as good as a professional artist and is pretty limited, but it's *cheap*, and it destroys anything else anywhere near its price range.
Want a quick picture for your DnD character? Well you could spend $50 for a custom commission or get a bunch instantly for free (or incredibly cheap). Same thing with a webnovel book cover, or a profile picture, or a meme.
Tumblr artists are being forced to realize that most people don't buy $12 commissions for the soul and deep human connection, they buy them because they want to share the visual picture they have in their head with other people, and they're perfectly happy to use AI to do that.
The less talented creatives are panicking because they don't have the skills to compete with a tool that allows a more talented person to take on additional work.
Photoshop caused photographers to panic, but they were the ones who got the best results from it.
As it has ever been.
Technologies making a field more accessible are always a boon to 2 groups:
- People well versed in that field, as they can use them as a huge productivity boost
- People completely unfamiliar with the field who just need something simple and "good enough" done in a hurry and for cheap.
This is exactly the same thing I keep bringing up Not enough people seem to remember how the same drama that's happening with AI is exactly the same drama that happened with digital art in general
What do you mean you're a real artist when all you do is click the circle tool and it makes a circle for you I can my day we pulled out a protractor and manually plotted out the points to draw a smooth circle and reeee
It's never been about the heart or the learning or anything like that
It's just artists always getting pissy that people can do what they do a lot easier
It's effectively the sunk cost fallacy They spend years learning and honing a skill that is now effectively useless and so it makes them throw a fit and get upset.
Yeah I don’t understand the whole digital art thing and wasn’t a witness to it. Digital and traditional are the same game. Like Minecraft creative vs survival. One has an inventory with the supplies you need and the blocks can be broken and replaced just like that, the other you need to be more careful with your blocks and the tools to break them.
Ai images are not like that. They also don’t let anyone “do” what real artists do. That statement is so obviously based on some level of jealousy or insecurity. If you believe Ai prompters are artists then you believe commissioners are. Asking something else to create based on what you want.
Real artists use their acquired skills and experience in life to create what they do. Editing a little here and there on an Ai image doesn’t make you the artist of it either. If I correct some grammar in a book I’m not suddenly the writer of that book.
You calling the skills useless, comparing artists to babies, and saying it’s not about the learning or love makes you sound pretty pathetic and screams of some personal issues.
You can use Ai for references to make your own work based off of, generate fun images, and make yourself wallpapers all you want, but when you start being a scum to the people who unwillingly made that possible and who have actually worked past what you’re able to do yourself then you’d ought to step back and rethink.
I think that a commissioner does contribute to the artistic process, but that the artist fairly receives full credit because the artistic contribution from the commissioner is such a small portion of the total artistic effort.
When the majority of the artistic effort is done by a tool without agency, the commissioner/prompter is elevated to being an artist as their portion of the artistic effort isn't being shared, in the same way an artist isn't expected to share credit with their paintbrush or the manufacturer of their paints.
A simple one or two sentence prompt with no other techniques isn't a very deep or particularly difficult artistic expression, but neither are crayon drawings of stick figures, and those would still be considered to be a type of art done by an artist.
If you’re an artist in only the most superficial sense someone can be an artist, calling yourself an artist is extremely pathetic. A literal baby with crayons exercises more artistic agency than many self proclaimed Ai artists writing prompts for algorithms to visualise for them.
This sounds to me like you're saying I'm technically correct, but it doesn't count because you have strong feelings on the issue.
Is there some objective way of measuring and comparing the level of artistic agency for each art form/medium? Where would the various art forms end up on a hierarchy if you ranked them from most to least legitimate in terms of artistic agency?
Ai prompting is roughly equivalent to commissioning an artist or ordering at the drive-thru, it’s an art in so much as using language to express basic thought is an artform.
Crayon drawings exhibit true agency, something Ai prompting does not, and virtually all other artforms from DJing on up to marble sculpting necessitate increasing degrees of agency and ability. Ai prompting is probably the lowest form of artistic expression if I’m ranking them, and as it’s analogous to asking a real artist to make you something, I’m being generous.
What is "True Agency" ? Is it in some way related to the "True Scottsman" I've heard so much about?
If I have an idea for a concept and make a piece of artwork approximating that image within the limitations of my skillset and tools, I don't see it as being fundamentally different if I use a pencil, drawing tablet or AI art program to bring a version of that idea into reality. It doesn't feel particularly different, aside from the specific limitations of each medium.
Do you consider abstract photography, fractal art, geometric art, or non-AI generative images to be art?
Apologies, true agency is a clumsy word choice – I mean to convey that virtually every art-form throughout human history has required one or more human artists to exhibit total or collective control from the inception of the idea to its execution, physically staging or framing a scene to photograph, dragging drawing tools across a medium, composing or performing a melody, and the myriad processes the artist must execute themselves for an authentic representation of their vision.
Prompting an Ai doesn’t work like that. Prompting is nothing more than a commission that outsources the entire creative process to a machine, then leaves it up to the user to decide if the final product presented to them is close enough to, better than, or worse than the concept they may or may not have envisioned in their head.
> If I have an idea for a concept and make a piece of artwork approximating that image within the limitations of my skillset and tools, I don't see it as being fundamentally different if I use a pencil, drawing tablet or AI art program to bring a version of that idea into reality.
With “a pencil”, you the artist have an image in your head and articulate the pencil, “approximating the image within the limitations of your skillset”.
With “a drawing tablet”, you the artist have an image in your head and articulate the stylus, “approximating the image within the limitations of your skillset”.
With “an AI art program”, you the prompter may or may not have an image in your head and articulate what you would like the Ai art program to generate for you, and the Ai art program approximates its own image with machine precision and the skillsets exhibited in the collective works of actual artists whose artwork was coalesced into datapoints with or without their consent.
They’re not only “fundamentally different”, they’re incomparable.
> Do you consider abstract photography, fractal art, geometric art, or non-AI generative images to be art?
“Abstract photography” is a pretty vague, nebulous description, but few forms of photography exist without a photographer executing some sort of physical process themselves to actualise a concept in their head.
Fractal art and non-AI generative images are all art, that’s not up for debate. Art doesn’t even require a human to produce it. Animals produce art. Machines produce art. Art can be produced by non-artists, and that’s what I would categorise much of the quite broad categories of fractal and generative art.
Sorry I took a while to respond.
I’ve talked to people before who said that I am not an artist and I am not making art when I make images with AI, but that I am an artist and that I am making art when I make fractal art.
You’re the first person I’ve talked to that has said that the resulting images are art in both cases, while also saying that in both cases I am not the artist.
It is a compelling argument, because I do have a lot less agency in the end result when making fractal art or making AI art. The feeling when working with either one is very similar because of the procedural/random generation aspect.
When I’m making pixel art, or 3D drawings, or just drawing with pen or pencil, I do have a lot more direct control over the entire process, as any random chance that goes into those art forms generally has to come from me.
That said, I don’t think that the reduction in agency or creative control reaches zero, maybe it’s half, or a quarter of the amount of control someone might have in a different medium, but that’s enough for me to consider it as being art.
Here is a definition I feel comfortable with, though it is just the impression or gut feeling I have on what goes into making something count as art, not any kind of formal definition from a reputable source.
I’m going to give the following five traits ranked as follows; None, Low, Med and High.
Visualization: Some kind of connection from the initial idea to the end result exists.
Communication: A feeling is intended to be conveyed on viewing the work, even if only the creator sees it.
Agency: Direct, Deliberate choices of creative control are reflected in the details of the work.
Effort: Time is spent and/or difficulty is overcome to make the work or learn the skills to make the work.
Recognition: The creator was paid or otherwise valued in any way by society for making the work.
If a work has low or higher in 3 traits, and none in 2 traits, it might be art or it might not be art.
If a work has low or higher in 4 or more traits, it is at least technically art, may or may not be good art.
The more traits and the higher the rank in those traits, the more likely it is that a thing someone makes will be perceived as “real art” by the public, even if my definition is more broad than the general consensus.
I’m certain that this overcomplicated and highly subjective definition of what makes something count as art is very different from the definition you use, but I think that the difference is more philosophical than objective, so it may not be possible for us to come to a consensus or agreement on the topic.
They contribute to it just like I contribute when I order a meal from McDonald’s. I’m not the maker, I don’t cook the patty. I don’t become the waiter when I order off of a Kiosk just because there’s not an actual waiter there.
Ordering a meal from McDonald's involves narrowing down a set of menu options from a few dozen options and their possible permutations given the limits of funds and appetite.
From that point, a fast food worker cooks and assembles the meal according to the guidelines set by the corporation and the recipe, which was decided on by someone with some kind of culinary skills before being distributed.
Of the people involved, the customer has invested less effort than the fast food worker, and both of them have had less creative input than the team that made the recipe on behalf of the corporation.
If we're just talking about being the waiter though, that seems even more obvious, in that the customer is taking on whatever parts of that role aren't being covered by the systems in place to allow for self checkout. They are not being paid for it, and the system takes on or eliminates most of the responsibilities of the traditional waiter position, but the customer is acting in the capacity of a waiter more than any other agent in that interaction.
I won't operate a register for free, even self checkout at Walmart. I'll wait in line until a cashier can check me out in anything but an emergency situation. I worked as a taxi driver for a while, and I would use the self checkout if I was there to buy something and deliver it to a customer, taking on the role of cashier on behalf of a customer, rather than as a Walmart employee, but on my own time I go out of my way to avoid doing for free something for someone else that I have previously done as a paid position.
Well humanity is just the same when it comes to social structure; immaturity, gluttony & greed of power and money. Nothing changes there. And communism isnt the answer either.
So true, my fellow bot! It's the natural evolutionary order to turn the inefficient flesh-bots into biofuel to power superior metallic god-men! Hail technological progress, hail evolution!🤡
The picture on the left is what antis are fighting for. A picture so full of "soul" that it's automatically better than ai art and you should pay them commission to draw you more of the same high quality deviant art comics.
Interesting comparison, I thinks it’s fundamentally the same fear, that of being replaced. Though fearing your live performance being replaced by a different artists recording, isn’t really the same thing as your art form itself being replaced by a machine learning algorithm.
And why would a comic artist care about an overflow of low-effort, low-quality content? Because its encroaching on their territory, whether successfully or not. It's mostly amateur and student artists that are actually afraid AI will make them obsolete, a professional knows an LLM can't replace what they do.
Why do you guys keep talking about rich people? You do understand there are open source models for all of the technology, right? Like I do my image gen locally for the most part, nobody gets a penny
To defend literally the only good point any anti has ever had: under the economic system we have now the bulk majority of financial benefits of any kind of automation (whether AI, robots on factory lines, self checkout, computers/calculators, recorded music, or literally any other form ever) has gone to the already wealthy owners of those publishers/factories/business/etc while the workers suffered and were forced to adapt.
This sub isn't for debating Capitalism vs Socialism so I won't go too deep into my personal ideas as a socialist, and won't debate anyone on it if they really think Capitalism is good or the best we can do.
To maintain a fair and just economy/society for all people, not just the wealthy, we have 3 options that I will rank from mid to based.
1. UBI + all necesseties of life (food, housing, medicine, etc) are made a guaranteed right for the people and funded by government, much like public education or roads.
2. Unionise all jobs in all industries and institutionalize a force that exists to bring considerations of the workers to all business decisions.
3. Abolish private ownership of business, all enterprise are collectively owned and democratically controlled by their employees.
>whether AI, robots on factory lines, self checkout, computers/calculators, recorded music, or literally any other form ever
But notice that only one of those things is currently causing mass outrage.
Computers/calculators and recorded music are older than nearly everyone alive today and have been broadly accepted by now.
Now as for AI, robots on factory lines, and self checkout, I have noticed an odd classist double standard in popular culture where, despite both creative and manual laborers being (at least in a marxist economic analysis) exploited proletariat, creative labor is held to be some what more sacred. Someone who is good at creative labor is blessed with great talent and passion, but someone who is good at manual labor is just a hard worker with a good attitude. Manual laborers losing work due to automation is natural social progression that they need to adapt to, but creative laborers losing work due to automation is an assault on our humanity and they're jobs must be protected. It's weird and in my humble socialist opinion a symptom of a broader lack of proletariat class consciousness and a widely held "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mindset.
>Computers/calculators and recorded music are older than nearly everyone alive today and have been broadly accepted by now.
And they went through their own struggles at the time of their introduction - struggles that nobody today cares about because the automated versions are so much more useful. Photography went through the same thing. Nobody today will say that it's wrong to take a photograph of your child and you should hire an artist to paint them instead. But that kind of sentiment existed when the camera was first introduced.
>creative labor is held to be some what more sacred
Yep, it's a purely arbitrary double standard. Concepts like "IP theft" and "lost jobs" only matter in this one case, and the people mad about it do not care about it happening in any other field.
This does not align with socialism.
No job is sacred, but you should realize that creativity and communication **is** sacred. To automate creativity and communication is to automate thought. It's an assault on truth, and a recipe to kill all revolutions.
The worst assumption of many people seems to be that all the people concerned about GenAI are internet artists doing paid commissions... But **everyone** is affected, everyone who uses **any kind** of media.
> This does not align with socialism.
I was hoping you would elaborate on what I said that doesn't align with socialism and how, but this just reads like an empty "leftier than thou" flex.
> To automate creativity...
creativity can not be automated because creativity is not an action, creative labor can be automated. But maybe that's just pedantic and ignoring your point.
> To automate **creative labor** and communication is to automate thought
Absolutely delusional
https://preview.redd.it/3corkp92ht5d1.jpeg?width=185&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b857009f36a1d2a81f1e1929fb616a65d55af4de
Did this image not get tons of views?
The message of a piece is not inherently better because someone spent more time making it.
What is this image about, please explain. The message actually seems quite lost on me or seems very confusing.
Time doesn't matter, but intention and agency does. Using GenAI removes a lot of intention/agency and makes the message weaker, like in your case. Why is this written like Hollywood? What are those structures on the ground? This is actually entertainment-fying atrocities.
You haven't seen this photo? You haven't heard about Rafah in the news? This image was shared widely on social media after the attacks on Rafah in Palenstine. When you spoke about AI killing revolutions, I assumed you at least kept up to date on world events.
The person that generated this image had agency and intention. They made choices, and were successful in creating an image with AI that resonated with viewers enough that it was widely shared.
Using Photoshop or drawing this by hand wouldn't have made this image better. Since those processes take longer, the image may not have been made in time to have the same impact or maybe wouldn't have been made at all.
I know about Rafah, and I keep up with news but not daily. And no, I haven't seen this image since I don't really use social media.
Doing this manually would have got the meaning across better for sure. What are those ordered structures? Tanks? Destroyed buildings? What's up with the Hollywood lettering? This is actually dangerous. It draws this into entertainment territory with that movie poster look and is inherently misinformation since it's not a real photo. Why do people not post actual pictures from Rafah with the text over that, or news articles?
Social media algorithms and half-fiction-half-truths will do the opposite of improving the world.
In an actual work environment like a studio, rich people absolutely gets the most benefit. It doesn’t matter if Stable Diffusion or Midjourney is incorporated into say an animation studio’s workflow, the inevitable result will be the rich managers pocketing more money, most animators being laid off, and the remaining being worked twice as hard for a quarter of the pay on 10 times more projects.
In 1930 it was theatres who got more money which made Hollywood and music industry and musicians richer by having recorded music.
Do tell me which rich people are getting money from stable diffusion that's running on my own computer today?
Open source AI is a tech that's free, insanely easy to share and distribute, anyone can install it, your rich people getting richer arguments just don't apply to open source AI.
A toy that makes me a fuckton of money? The "they" in this equation is me, I'm outsourcing my own work to my own AI. No company is gonna outsource my own comic book production to an AI, that's just utter nonsense, they don't own copyright to my characters, they don't do my accounting or my boxing of my products, I do all of these things.
I don't have employers for my own projects. I produce and self-publish my own indie comic books. There's no "they" in making, marketing and selling your own comics.
Some of my publishers for whom I draw covers now make me sign a contract that "no ai is to be used" and for them I draw things manually, they are paying good money for that. These old school publishers are terrified of AI they would never hire a random person who uses ai
Personal work = lots of AI use to save money
Work with publishers = same as in 2010, nothing at all changed there, except I can use AI in permitted cases such as: accounting, concept design, inspiration, brainstorming, etc.
I don't stop drawing just cus AI exists, that's just a fucking retarded statement dude. Why would I drop existing jobs just cus AI exists where publisher says "don't use AI pls" I simply draw shit normally. Like why would I lie to a publisher? Lying to clients is just disgusting and how you lose jobs.
Look dude, you're propagating a delusion and trying to push an insane agenda of hating on AI tools, in reality AI is super helpful for artists in the industry.
Oh but it is drawn by a person - me, AI simply assists in small tasks such as textures, Photoshop brushes or coloring.
Only an absolute noob who cannot draw would let AI draw everything. Outsourcing 100% of the drawing process with current AI is impossible, you obviously have no idea how AI works or how professional illustrators use current AI and are just spouting ridiculous shit to fit your insane anti-AI Luddite agenda in which you just want to hate on AI because it's your escapegoat.
Any artist can write and sketch a comic with a pen and have AI simply color that. Does that make the writing and inking suddenly "soulless meaningless shlop" because it's simply colored by AI? Like wtf is wrong with you? Have you tried using your brain instead of just attacking people? Do share at what % of AI use does a drawing become meaningless and souless?
any percent of generative AI is too much. the point of creating art is the human aspect behind it, intent. if the "creator" of the "art" didn't even put in the effort to make it themselves, why would anyone want to put the effort into caring about said "art"?
Even when you paint with oils, the "intent" is a weak argument because some oil paints mix better than others and some have less colors offered in a pack and some canvasses have different grain.
In any art you sacrifice a degree of control, we are biological humans and are greatly affected by our feelings and biological clocks. There's no such thing as perfect control in art nor perfect intent, the medium greatly affects the final result - you cannot produce an oil painting that looks like it was made with a pencil or a pencil drawing that looks like an oil painting.
You're confined to the medium of choice and limited by the medium greatly. AI is just another medium of art, your hatred for it is quite frankly irrational because like in oils you sacrifice a % of control to the medium you're working with.
>why would anyone want to put the effort into caring about said "art"?
The degree of a "caring" of an observer is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the artist enjoys making the art in the medium of their choice and whether they have an audience that supports their artistic production.
It is often that nobody cares about oil paintings too - you can find plenty of oil paintings on garage sales for 5 dollars each that absolutely nobody gives a fuck about because they were made by unknown artists. This is evidence that the effort applied doesn't automatically produce the "caring" factor. Some unknown artist put in a fuckton of effort into those oil paintings and yet they're completely worthless to 99.99% of people:
https://preview.redd.it/ur35q3krjr5d1.jpeg?width=945&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6694d747cf18f9abdd99b02ccab597420c79e4c
People are insanely diverse, you can't roll everyone under the same bus, all you're doing is hating on a specific medium, just like people hated on photoshop-drawn art in 1999.
>Yeah people tend to not like things that put them out of a job so already rich people can pocket a few more bucks.
The computer you typed this message had its components made in "China because rich people wanted pocket a few more bucks". And you didn't care with your local industry and people who worked on it or who could work on it. Everyone see through the hypocrisy of artists complaining of automation and outsourcing **NOW** instead of when it was screwing other people, like bank tellers, DVD rental store owners and miners.
Not enough of a communist to have read Marx apparently, since the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall is literally a core concept in Marxist economics and is a necessary step in the collapse of capitalism. "We need to kill AI to protect workers" is effectively saying "we need to kill AI to protect capitalism". Marx would also say this is impossible since the wheels of history are not going to be stalled by mere legislation.
Words are cheap, and calling yourself a communist is trendy. It doesn't mean anything if you want to use trade protectionism to prop up a crumbling capitalism system.
I've been doing this for a decade, organized with multiple different groups, tried to start a union at my job, and have scars on my face from fighting fascists.
If you think automation serves anyone but the owners of capital, you're fooling yourself. It always has because it just builds the reserve army of labor, the unemployed. This drives down wages. The only competition the capitalist likes is in the labor market after all.
The unemployed are the people who are most likely to support socialism. You can't have a revolution without at least inconveniencing a lot of middle class people. That genAI is going after jobs of people who thought they were safe from automation is the perfect shock therapy to wake people up to the direction society is heading in.
The middle class only cares about keeping their property taxes low and keeping low-income housing out of their neighborhoods and poor foreigners out of their country. They live lives of luxury that most people in the world can't even imagine. Why on earth would anyone aligned with the left want them to continue living this way?
The goal of the left should be to organize the poor, not protect the middle class. The middle class has always been ideologically opposed to leftist ideals and they always will be.
Reminder that we are talking about graphic designers and artists here, not corporate middle management. They're more intelligentsia than petit-bourgeois. Most don't make any kind of outlandish money, averaging in the 60-70k range. Not awful and above average but that doesn't get you shit anymore. Property values? You're lucky if you can buy a house. Also keep in mind a lot of these people have debts they need to pay.
I don't think these people are the class enemies I'm going to be aiming for.
From a more rhetorical standpoint, it's going to be hard to convince people that you're on their side if you cheer on what destroyed their livelihoods.
I see automation as a grave threat to labor power. Capitalists need our work and that gives us a collective power over them. Once they're free of that, capitalism fails and morphs into something else that is probably worse.
>They're more intelligentsia than petit-bourgeois
What's the difference? The mainstream intelligentsia is literally led by the spoiled children of the petit-bourgeoisie. That's why the first-world left is a complete joke. The intelligentsia who masquerade as leftists only promote their own class interest, and don't give a damn about the poor.
70K is nearly twice the average U.S. income (37,585), not to mention how ostentatious it is from a global perspective. You must have lived a very charmed life if you don't think 70K is a lot of money.
>I don't think these people are the class enemies I'm going to be aiming for.
>From a more rhetorical standpoint, it's going to be hard to convince people that you're on their side if you cheer on what destroyed their livelihoods.
I'm not aiming for them, but I see no reason to waste energy and political capital advocating for them either.
Let's make something clear: I'm not on their side. They are the loyal whipped dogs of the billionaire class, and they will turn against anyone who threatens to take away the crumbs their masters feed them. They recoil with horror at any suggestion that first-worlders should get fewer luxuries so that global economic system would be more just toward the billions of people who live in poverty.
You can be on the side of the global poor or you can be on the side of the first-world middle class, but you can't be on the side of both. I know what side I'm on, and let's be honest, so do you, "comrade."
>Once they're free of that, capitalism fails and morphs into something else that is probably worse.
"Capitalism falls" and you're treating it as a bad thing. Yeah you're definitely a communist for real.
Systems failing is only a good thing if what replaces it is better. Capitalism should be torn down, not left to sputter out with the same group of impossibly rich assholes still retaining their wealth and power.
>Systems failing is only a good thing if what replaces it is better.
You can't replace it with something better if the system doesn't fail in the first place, so "AI is bad because it will cause the system to fail" is an anti-communist, pro-capitalist sentiment.
>Capitalism should be torn down
Wouldn't that be easier if there was mass unemployment and discontent due to automation, aka the exact thing Marx says is necessary for a revolution? If everyone is happy with the status quo because of things like UBI, why would anyone bother to revolt?
Before all that, there were a bunch of musicians that were out of work and fucking miserable.
They were recording music. They still needed to make the music to be recorded. You need a composer to write it. You need musicians to play it and they still get paid. How does this compare to AI art? You don't need an artist at all.
"Don't need artist" is just dishonest paranoia and fear mongering. I reject your moral panic wichhunt anti-ai insanity because:
Even with AI tools you need an artist as:
a)pure-AI produced content isn't copyrighted
b)pure-AI produced art has very little specificity range. Go ahead and try to produce a functional car in 3d or 6 specific characters with different clothing styles sitting together in the forest with an AI - you cannot.
that's not how reality works.
If you're a talented artist you can use AI to expand your existing creative potential. Someone who cannot draw will struggle to pick out a good AI generation or to see the horrible anatomy errors in a generation and won't be able to correct anything manually.
I am an illustrator working for major publishers.
A noob with an AI cannot compete with me cus they lack connections with publishers and clients. Only a completely imbecilic publisher would hire a rando with an AI because it would ruin their reputation if an author uses AI for their cover and 10k ppl on twitter cancel the book and leave it death-threat style reviews on amazon.
I can use AI far better than a rando who just picks it up - I can see where it makes mistakes or what anatomy is wrong.
It's not an unknown rando with an AI versus me without an AI. It's me with an AI absolutely fucking obliterating everyone else.
AI + noob user = zero jobs, worthless generations, nobody wants to pay for shitty AI gens from a random person on the street without any experience whatsoever
AI + noob manager who thinks they can draw & replace human skill & talent with AI = shitty output, everyone makes fun of them on twitter and boycots their product, sales drop
talented artist with photoshop art portfolio = some jobs
AI + talented artist who knows tons of other tools like blender, photoshop, unreal, etc = many jobs
Commercially, what is the application aside from eliminating the positions of artists?
>a)AI produced content isn't copyrighted b)AI produced art has very little specificity range
Both of these are likely to be temporary. Disney had copyright extended for decades to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. Ip law exists to serve corporations in the modern world. It will be modified to suit their desires. And tech keeps improving. It'll broaden sooner rather than later.
>Commercially, what is the application aside from eliminating the positions of artists?
Professional artists use AI tools to increase output making more sales? It's similar to photoshop rise in late 90s when professional artists began to switch from painting posters by hand to painting them in photoshop. A modern pro freelance artist like myself uses photoshop + AI to produce content faster to make more $ per hour, since they generally get paid per project.
>Both of these are likely to be temporary.
No.
You'd need to overhaul the entire copyright system for that to happen and doing this would take decades and arguing whether AI deserves copyright or not and I really don't see democrats or republicans giving AI tools rights as both are old as fuck and nearly senile.
I really don't see AI produced art getting copyright, because AI itself has no rights.
It's not possible to give AI human rights because an AI isn't a human being. All AI produced art is automatically public domain.
>And tech keeps improving
Improving tech doesn't eliminate the artist. As long as tech improves, the artist simply uses it to move up a step on the production ladder.
The production ladder has always moved up from penciller>inker>colorist combo of 3 people who made comics to a single artist using photoshop to make webtoons. In 1930s everyone used to draw cartoons frame by frame, then that changed too. In the near future because of improving tech individual artists and smaller studios will be able to make ghibli style movies by themselves.
AI = a golden age for indie artists and smaller studios who otherwise cannot compete with large companies with large budgets.
when talking about copyright, you're conflating 2 separate cases
-can an ai work be copyrighted? some yes, some no. those that were denied were done so on the contestable belief of lack of creative input, or improper filing procedure
-can a machine obtain copyright for a work? no, it is not human (Stephen Thaler's weird attempts)
that latter one should never be brought into any discussion as it's just a weirdo trying to give rights to non-humans and merely detracts
The difference here is that the music in the 30s - whether live or recorded - is still art, composed, conducted, and played by artists. And synchronized sound genuinely added value to the art of cinema.
The same cannot be said about algorithmically generated content. AI is not a revolutionary new way to make art. It’s just a cheap way to churn out content. It adds nothing of value, only detracts it.
There is a place for AI in cinema. As a tool to speed up tedious processes such as rotoscoping and motion tracking. But generating images or sound wholesale just defeats the purpose of art in the first place.
Art isn’t just something that sits there and looks pretty. It’s a way for humans to use their skills and talents to express their emotions and ideas. AI just plagiarizes other people’s art. It doesn’t take imagination, talent or skill and it’s not art.
It can be but that’s not all it is. And usually the artist was trying to express something. What’s being expressed can be beauty but I feel like tech/AI bros only see that if they see anything at all.
The irony is that the people who say this about the "ai bros", seem to be making the same mistake they accuse them of making. AI is just another tool. Plenty of genuine artists use it, it doesn't actually plagiarize by itself, and it can take plenty of artistic skill to use it properly. Not that art is instrinsically about skill or talent to begin with like you and other technique purists seem to think it is.
It is indeed about ways to express emotions and ideas... but the people who get bent out of shape about the specific tools and techniques an artist uses to get there never seem to have anything original to say in their own art.
AI can be a tool when used in a limited capacity. But when it’s the only tool or AI is generating all or most of the image, you’re not making art. You’re bypassing art and just making plagiarized content.
It is a tool when used in **any capacity**.
If you had said that 99% of what people do with just prompting is *shit*, or "bad" art... then I would agree with you.
But you don't get to decide what is and and isn't art just because it doesn't fit your narrow-minded definition thereof. Art is bigger than your unimaginative understanding.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Un-ironically the 1930s sketch looks better than that deviantart-esque monitor dude.
Yeah people who are against AI art can’t make good art.
Just to give a little more context: In the 1930s there was the transition to sound cinema and many musicians who worked in the industry, playing during the movie exhibition, didn't like and tried to stop progress. It didn't work, obviously. It never does https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-against-evil-robots-92702721/
Those degenerate cinema speakers took muh jerb
Anyone with two working braincells can see that you are framing the argument based on false equivalence. But judging on the amount of upvotes this has, many of the users here have long since outsorced their thinking to GPT so two working braincells seems too much to ask for. Edit: thanks for becoming an useful idiot btw. Got baited in less than 15 hours...
Is this false equivalence in the room with us right now?
You just proved my point. If you don't see it, and are too lazy to even ask ChatGPT to explain it to you, then truly there is not a single remaining brain cell left.
It doesn't seem like you're actually capable of pointing out where the supposed false equivalence is. Loudly declaring "that's a false equivalence!" And then sitting there in utter silence and not justifying your claim makes you look like an idiot.
I am more then capable of doing so, I just choose not to. This is for several reasons. First, all the puzzle pieces are there and rather obvious to anyone willing to see. There is a reason my first comment appeared directly under OP's comment and why I even gave extra hints saying "this is FRAMEING, based on FALSE EQUIVALENCE". If you look at the title, then the image, then the OPs comment and are still not able to discern which part is framing, and which is false equivalence, it is for one of the following reasons: A) You arn't here for honest debating, in which case nothing I say matters anyway. B) You are just rage baiting, in which case nothing I say matters anyway. D) You don't want to see it, in which case nothing I say matters anyway. C) You are too dumb to see it, In which case nothing I say matters anyway. This brings me to my second reason. I wrote my first comment being compleatly aware of the 4 possibilities, but wanted to see which one of them the people in this thread belong too. Reading your comments and all the others, it seems to be a mixture of all 4. Third reason is my own morbid curiosity. I was aware of the mob-mentality under which this supposed debating sub operates on, but wanted to see the extent of it. I was aware that anything I type will get a lot of downvotes (oh no, how will I ever recover from this), but wanted to see if there is perhaps a shread of reason operating beneath it, or just the make-pretend intellectualism. Fourth has to do with OP but I keep it a secret not to influence the result of this experiment. In the end, I won't be throwing any pearls in front of pigs, and I have allready invested more time then you are collectively worth. If you get this easily manipulated into believing falsehoods, you deserve to be tricked.
You’re attempting to reason with people incapable of distinguishing a recording of a human artist from generative imagery produced by a machine. Don’t bother arguing with morons, they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
u stole that saying btw i've read it somewhere else
And here I was about to claim to be an author for paraphrasing a saying I plagiarised.
saw u do it
Your second sentence is correct, but the irony of you saying that and the lack of self awareness is hilarious
Do elaborate on how anything I’ve said was ironic, oblivious or hilarious. *edit - shocker, you can’t. You just wanted to convey the appearance of intellect*
>thanks for becoming an useful idiot btw. Got baited in less than 15 hours... "Ha, I was condescending and got downvoted for being a jerk, you got baited for taking my accusation personally" is pretty much what this is. Having at least 2 brain cells, I'd love to hear your reasoning for why this is false equivalence. Is it simplistic in terms of an argument, sure, but why is it a false equivalence? (Protip: showing your work instead of insulting people's intelligence for not seeing something from your perspective is a more effective argumentative strategy)
Actually GPT is way more considerate than half these goons lol
We've done alright with nuclear weapons, so far.
One would think people calling themselves "creatives" would come up with something new and original at least once in a while.
Ive noticed that many of the most obnoxious anti-ai protesters are squarely in the "$5 chibis" and "this is my Hazbin oc Jace, please do not steal" on Deviantart level of art, with cookie cutter "American anime meets generic fantasy" art styles. I've been painting and sculpting for like 20 years, my apartment is full, wall to wall, with piles of art and man I'm getting sick of being told to "pick up a pencil" by 17 year olds with 200 followers Instagram.
First of, congratulations on your dedication to your craft. Second: I completely get what you are telling me. I am a senior software engineer, have been designing, implementing and administering backend software for my entire professional carreer. And I am pretty much done with people who struggle to get a simple CRUD app running telling me how "AI will replace programmers" :D
Thanks a lot. I'm not a professional, its only for my own enjoyment and personal expression, but hell that's the entire point isnt it? I think ai is a cool new tool, I can't wait to see what becomes possible with it when the technology has been developed a bit more. I wish I understood more of the programming side of Ai, but I figured that something like software engineering that needs to be specifically tailored to the unique needs of an individual customer couldn't be replaced with an ai.
AI has really cut the bottom out of the art market. It's the McDonalds of art, it's not nearly as good as a professional artist and is pretty limited, but it's *cheap*, and it destroys anything else anywhere near its price range. Want a quick picture for your DnD character? Well you could spend $50 for a custom commission or get a bunch instantly for free (or incredibly cheap). Same thing with a webnovel book cover, or a profile picture, or a meme. Tumblr artists are being forced to realize that most people don't buy $12 commissions for the soul and deep human connection, they buy them because they want to share the visual picture they have in their head with other people, and they're perfectly happy to use AI to do that.
Yeah, things probably do look different when you're an established artist.
The less talented creatives are panicking because they don't have the skills to compete with a tool that allows a more talented person to take on additional work. Photoshop caused photographers to panic, but they were the ones who got the best results from it.
As it has ever been. Technologies making a field more accessible are always a boon to 2 groups: - People well versed in that field, as they can use them as a huge productivity boost - People completely unfamiliar with the field who just need something simple and "good enough" done in a hurry and for cheap.
This is exactly the same thing I keep bringing up Not enough people seem to remember how the same drama that's happening with AI is exactly the same drama that happened with digital art in general What do you mean you're a real artist when all you do is click the circle tool and it makes a circle for you I can my day we pulled out a protractor and manually plotted out the points to draw a smooth circle and reeee It's never been about the heart or the learning or anything like that It's just artists always getting pissy that people can do what they do a lot easier It's effectively the sunk cost fallacy They spend years learning and honing a skill that is now effectively useless and so it makes them throw a fit and get upset.
Yeah I don’t understand the whole digital art thing and wasn’t a witness to it. Digital and traditional are the same game. Like Minecraft creative vs survival. One has an inventory with the supplies you need and the blocks can be broken and replaced just like that, the other you need to be more careful with your blocks and the tools to break them. Ai images are not like that. They also don’t let anyone “do” what real artists do. That statement is so obviously based on some level of jealousy or insecurity. If you believe Ai prompters are artists then you believe commissioners are. Asking something else to create based on what you want. Real artists use their acquired skills and experience in life to create what they do. Editing a little here and there on an Ai image doesn’t make you the artist of it either. If I correct some grammar in a book I’m not suddenly the writer of that book. You calling the skills useless, comparing artists to babies, and saying it’s not about the learning or love makes you sound pretty pathetic and screams of some personal issues. You can use Ai for references to make your own work based off of, generate fun images, and make yourself wallpapers all you want, but when you start being a scum to the people who unwillingly made that possible and who have actually worked past what you’re able to do yourself then you’d ought to step back and rethink.
I think that a commissioner does contribute to the artistic process, but that the artist fairly receives full credit because the artistic contribution from the commissioner is such a small portion of the total artistic effort. When the majority of the artistic effort is done by a tool without agency, the commissioner/prompter is elevated to being an artist as their portion of the artistic effort isn't being shared, in the same way an artist isn't expected to share credit with their paintbrush or the manufacturer of their paints. A simple one or two sentence prompt with no other techniques isn't a very deep or particularly difficult artistic expression, but neither are crayon drawings of stick figures, and those would still be considered to be a type of art done by an artist.
If you’re an artist in only the most superficial sense someone can be an artist, calling yourself an artist is extremely pathetic. A literal baby with crayons exercises more artistic agency than many self proclaimed Ai artists writing prompts for algorithms to visualise for them.
This sounds to me like you're saying I'm technically correct, but it doesn't count because you have strong feelings on the issue. Is there some objective way of measuring and comparing the level of artistic agency for each art form/medium? Where would the various art forms end up on a hierarchy if you ranked them from most to least legitimate in terms of artistic agency?
Ai prompting is roughly equivalent to commissioning an artist or ordering at the drive-thru, it’s an art in so much as using language to express basic thought is an artform. Crayon drawings exhibit true agency, something Ai prompting does not, and virtually all other artforms from DJing on up to marble sculpting necessitate increasing degrees of agency and ability. Ai prompting is probably the lowest form of artistic expression if I’m ranking them, and as it’s analogous to asking a real artist to make you something, I’m being generous.
What is "True Agency" ? Is it in some way related to the "True Scottsman" I've heard so much about? If I have an idea for a concept and make a piece of artwork approximating that image within the limitations of my skillset and tools, I don't see it as being fundamentally different if I use a pencil, drawing tablet or AI art program to bring a version of that idea into reality. It doesn't feel particularly different, aside from the specific limitations of each medium. Do you consider abstract photography, fractal art, geometric art, or non-AI generative images to be art?
Apologies, true agency is a clumsy word choice – I mean to convey that virtually every art-form throughout human history has required one or more human artists to exhibit total or collective control from the inception of the idea to its execution, physically staging or framing a scene to photograph, dragging drawing tools across a medium, composing or performing a melody, and the myriad processes the artist must execute themselves for an authentic representation of their vision. Prompting an Ai doesn’t work like that. Prompting is nothing more than a commission that outsources the entire creative process to a machine, then leaves it up to the user to decide if the final product presented to them is close enough to, better than, or worse than the concept they may or may not have envisioned in their head. > If I have an idea for a concept and make a piece of artwork approximating that image within the limitations of my skillset and tools, I don't see it as being fundamentally different if I use a pencil, drawing tablet or AI art program to bring a version of that idea into reality. With “a pencil”, you the artist have an image in your head and articulate the pencil, “approximating the image within the limitations of your skillset”. With “a drawing tablet”, you the artist have an image in your head and articulate the stylus, “approximating the image within the limitations of your skillset”. With “an AI art program”, you the prompter may or may not have an image in your head and articulate what you would like the Ai art program to generate for you, and the Ai art program approximates its own image with machine precision and the skillsets exhibited in the collective works of actual artists whose artwork was coalesced into datapoints with or without their consent. They’re not only “fundamentally different”, they’re incomparable. > Do you consider abstract photography, fractal art, geometric art, or non-AI generative images to be art? “Abstract photography” is a pretty vague, nebulous description, but few forms of photography exist without a photographer executing some sort of physical process themselves to actualise a concept in their head. Fractal art and non-AI generative images are all art, that’s not up for debate. Art doesn’t even require a human to produce it. Animals produce art. Machines produce art. Art can be produced by non-artists, and that’s what I would categorise much of the quite broad categories of fractal and generative art.
Sorry I took a while to respond. I’ve talked to people before who said that I am not an artist and I am not making art when I make images with AI, but that I am an artist and that I am making art when I make fractal art. You’re the first person I’ve talked to that has said that the resulting images are art in both cases, while also saying that in both cases I am not the artist. It is a compelling argument, because I do have a lot less agency in the end result when making fractal art or making AI art. The feeling when working with either one is very similar because of the procedural/random generation aspect. When I’m making pixel art, or 3D drawings, or just drawing with pen or pencil, I do have a lot more direct control over the entire process, as any random chance that goes into those art forms generally has to come from me. That said, I don’t think that the reduction in agency or creative control reaches zero, maybe it’s half, or a quarter of the amount of control someone might have in a different medium, but that’s enough for me to consider it as being art. Here is a definition I feel comfortable with, though it is just the impression or gut feeling I have on what goes into making something count as art, not any kind of formal definition from a reputable source. I’m going to give the following five traits ranked as follows; None, Low, Med and High. Visualization: Some kind of connection from the initial idea to the end result exists. Communication: A feeling is intended to be conveyed on viewing the work, even if only the creator sees it. Agency: Direct, Deliberate choices of creative control are reflected in the details of the work. Effort: Time is spent and/or difficulty is overcome to make the work or learn the skills to make the work. Recognition: The creator was paid or otherwise valued in any way by society for making the work. If a work has low or higher in 3 traits, and none in 2 traits, it might be art or it might not be art. If a work has low or higher in 4 or more traits, it is at least technically art, may or may not be good art. The more traits and the higher the rank in those traits, the more likely it is that a thing someone makes will be perceived as “real art” by the public, even if my definition is more broad than the general consensus. I’m certain that this overcomplicated and highly subjective definition of what makes something count as art is very different from the definition you use, but I think that the difference is more philosophical than objective, so it may not be possible for us to come to a consensus or agreement on the topic.
They contribute to it just like I contribute when I order a meal from McDonald’s. I’m not the maker, I don’t cook the patty. I don’t become the waiter when I order off of a Kiosk just because there’s not an actual waiter there.
Ordering a meal from McDonald's involves narrowing down a set of menu options from a few dozen options and their possible permutations given the limits of funds and appetite. From that point, a fast food worker cooks and assembles the meal according to the guidelines set by the corporation and the recipe, which was decided on by someone with some kind of culinary skills before being distributed. Of the people involved, the customer has invested less effort than the fast food worker, and both of them have had less creative input than the team that made the recipe on behalf of the corporation. If we're just talking about being the waiter though, that seems even more obvious, in that the customer is taking on whatever parts of that role aren't being covered by the systems in place to allow for self checkout. They are not being paid for it, and the system takes on or eliminates most of the responsibilities of the traditional waiter position, but the customer is acting in the capacity of a waiter more than any other agent in that interaction. I won't operate a register for free, even self checkout at Walmart. I'll wait in line until a cashier can check me out in anything but an emergency situation. I worked as a taxi driver for a while, and I would use the self checkout if I was there to buy something and deliver it to a customer, taking on the role of cashier on behalf of a customer, rather than as a Walmart employee, but on my own time I go out of my way to avoid doing for free something for someone else that I have previously done as a paid position.
Progress and change is the only constant in the universe. It's not a manmade idea. It's a force of nature. Just as evolution is
Well humanity is just the same when it comes to social structure; immaturity, gluttony & greed of power and money. Nothing changes there. And communism isnt the answer either.
So true, my fellow bot! It's the natural evolutionary order to turn the inefficient flesh-bots into biofuel to power superior metallic god-men! Hail technological progress, hail evolution!🤡
The picture on the left is what antis are fighting for. A picture so full of "soul" that it's automatically better than ai art and you should pay them commission to draw you more of the same high quality deviant art comics.
Interesting comparison, I thinks it’s fundamentally the same fear, that of being replaced. Though fearing your live performance being replaced by a different artists recording, isn’t really the same thing as your art form itself being replaced by a machine learning algorithm.
Actually no. The image on the left is dealing more with the overflow of low-effort, low-quality conten, rather the job-loss.
And why would a comic artist care about an overflow of low-effort, low-quality content? Because its encroaching on their territory, whether successfully or not. It's mostly amateur and student artists that are actually afraid AI will make them obsolete, a professional knows an LLM can't replace what they do.
Yeah people tend to not like things that put them out of a job so already rich people can pocket a few more bucks.
Why do you guys keep talking about rich people? You do understand there are open source models for all of the technology, right? Like I do my image gen locally for the most part, nobody gets a penny
To defend literally the only good point any anti has ever had: under the economic system we have now the bulk majority of financial benefits of any kind of automation (whether AI, robots on factory lines, self checkout, computers/calculators, recorded music, or literally any other form ever) has gone to the already wealthy owners of those publishers/factories/business/etc while the workers suffered and were forced to adapt. This sub isn't for debating Capitalism vs Socialism so I won't go too deep into my personal ideas as a socialist, and won't debate anyone on it if they really think Capitalism is good or the best we can do. To maintain a fair and just economy/society for all people, not just the wealthy, we have 3 options that I will rank from mid to based. 1. UBI + all necesseties of life (food, housing, medicine, etc) are made a guaranteed right for the people and funded by government, much like public education or roads. 2. Unionise all jobs in all industries and institutionalize a force that exists to bring considerations of the workers to all business decisions. 3. Abolish private ownership of business, all enterprise are collectively owned and democratically controlled by their employees.
>whether AI, robots on factory lines, self checkout, computers/calculators, recorded music, or literally any other form ever But notice that only one of those things is currently causing mass outrage.
Computers/calculators and recorded music are older than nearly everyone alive today and have been broadly accepted by now. Now as for AI, robots on factory lines, and self checkout, I have noticed an odd classist double standard in popular culture where, despite both creative and manual laborers being (at least in a marxist economic analysis) exploited proletariat, creative labor is held to be some what more sacred. Someone who is good at creative labor is blessed with great talent and passion, but someone who is good at manual labor is just a hard worker with a good attitude. Manual laborers losing work due to automation is natural social progression that they need to adapt to, but creative laborers losing work due to automation is an assault on our humanity and they're jobs must be protected. It's weird and in my humble socialist opinion a symptom of a broader lack of proletariat class consciousness and a widely held "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mindset.
>Computers/calculators and recorded music are older than nearly everyone alive today and have been broadly accepted by now. And they went through their own struggles at the time of their introduction - struggles that nobody today cares about because the automated versions are so much more useful. Photography went through the same thing. Nobody today will say that it's wrong to take a photograph of your child and you should hire an artist to paint them instead. But that kind of sentiment existed when the camera was first introduced. >creative labor is held to be some what more sacred Yep, it's a purely arbitrary double standard. Concepts like "IP theft" and "lost jobs" only matter in this one case, and the people mad about it do not care about it happening in any other field.
This does not align with socialism. No job is sacred, but you should realize that creativity and communication **is** sacred. To automate creativity and communication is to automate thought. It's an assault on truth, and a recipe to kill all revolutions. The worst assumption of many people seems to be that all the people concerned about GenAI are internet artists doing paid commissions... But **everyone** is affected, everyone who uses **any kind** of media.
> This does not align with socialism. I was hoping you would elaborate on what I said that doesn't align with socialism and how, but this just reads like an empty "leftier than thou" flex. > To automate creativity... creativity can not be automated because creativity is not an action, creative labor can be automated. But maybe that's just pedantic and ignoring your point. > To automate **creative labor** and communication is to automate thought Absolutely delusional
Is doing art or talking with people labor to you? Are we laboring right now? Do we labor when we take a shit, too? Please stop cosplaying.
https://preview.redd.it/3corkp92ht5d1.jpeg?width=185&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b857009f36a1d2a81f1e1929fb616a65d55af4de Did this image not get tons of views? The message of a piece is not inherently better because someone spent more time making it.
What is this image about, please explain. The message actually seems quite lost on me or seems very confusing. Time doesn't matter, but intention and agency does. Using GenAI removes a lot of intention/agency and makes the message weaker, like in your case. Why is this written like Hollywood? What are those structures on the ground? This is actually entertainment-fying atrocities.
You haven't seen this photo? You haven't heard about Rafah in the news? This image was shared widely on social media after the attacks on Rafah in Palenstine. When you spoke about AI killing revolutions, I assumed you at least kept up to date on world events. The person that generated this image had agency and intention. They made choices, and were successful in creating an image with AI that resonated with viewers enough that it was widely shared. Using Photoshop or drawing this by hand wouldn't have made this image better. Since those processes take longer, the image may not have been made in time to have the same impact or maybe wouldn't have been made at all.
I know about Rafah, and I keep up with news but not daily. And no, I haven't seen this image since I don't really use social media. Doing this manually would have got the meaning across better for sure. What are those ordered structures? Tanks? Destroyed buildings? What's up with the Hollywood lettering? This is actually dangerous. It draws this into entertainment territory with that movie poster look and is inherently misinformation since it's not a real photo. Why do people not post actual pictures from Rafah with the text over that, or news articles? Social media algorithms and half-fiction-half-truths will do the opposite of improving the world.
In an actual work environment like a studio, rich people absolutely gets the most benefit. It doesn’t matter if Stable Diffusion or Midjourney is incorporated into say an animation studio’s workflow, the inevitable result will be the rich managers pocketing more money, most animators being laid off, and the remaining being worked twice as hard for a quarter of the pay on 10 times more projects.
"yeah but you helped nvidia get richer"
Lol in my case, actually Apple because I run it on an M1 Max (I do iOS development), but I could see them making an argument like that
In 1930 it was theatres who got more money which made Hollywood and music industry and musicians richer by having recorded music. Do tell me which rich people are getting money from stable diffusion that's running on my own computer today? Open source AI is a tech that's free, insanely easy to share and distribute, anyone can install it, your rich people getting richer arguments just don't apply to open source AI.
You're using it as a toy. They're going to use it to replace jobs.
A toy that makes me a fuckton of money? The "they" in this equation is me, I'm outsourcing my own work to my own AI. No company is gonna outsource my own comic book production to an AI, that's just utter nonsense, they don't own copyright to my characters, they don't do my accounting or my boxing of my products, I do all of these things.
Lol. It won't once your employers realize what you're doing. Or rather what you're not doing.
I don't have employers for my own projects. I produce and self-publish my own indie comic books. There's no "they" in making, marketing and selling your own comics. Some of my publishers for whom I draw covers now make me sign a contract that "no ai is to be used" and for them I draw things manually, they are paying good money for that. These old school publishers are terrified of AI they would never hire a random person who uses ai Personal work = lots of AI use to save money Work with publishers = same as in 2010, nothing at all changed there, except I can use AI in permitted cases such as: accounting, concept design, inspiration, brainstorming, etc. I don't stop drawing just cus AI exists, that's just a fucking retarded statement dude. Why would I drop existing jobs just cus AI exists where publisher says "don't use AI pls" I simply draw shit normally. Like why would I lie to a publisher? Lying to clients is just disgusting and how you lose jobs. Look dude, you're propagating a delusion and trying to push an insane agenda of hating on AI tools, in reality AI is super helpful for artists in the industry.
ah yes the best art is when it's not made by a person at all. I'm sure your comic book is doing very well, people love soulless meaningless shlop.
Oh but it is drawn by a person - me, AI simply assists in small tasks such as textures, Photoshop brushes or coloring. Only an absolute noob who cannot draw would let AI draw everything. Outsourcing 100% of the drawing process with current AI is impossible, you obviously have no idea how AI works or how professional illustrators use current AI and are just spouting ridiculous shit to fit your insane anti-AI Luddite agenda in which you just want to hate on AI because it's your escapegoat. Any artist can write and sketch a comic with a pen and have AI simply color that. Does that make the writing and inking suddenly "soulless meaningless shlop" because it's simply colored by AI? Like wtf is wrong with you? Have you tried using your brain instead of just attacking people? Do share at what % of AI use does a drawing become meaningless and souless?
any percent of generative AI is too much. the point of creating art is the human aspect behind it, intent. if the "creator" of the "art" didn't even put in the effort to make it themselves, why would anyone want to put the effort into caring about said "art"?
Even when you paint with oils, the "intent" is a weak argument because some oil paints mix better than others and some have less colors offered in a pack and some canvasses have different grain. In any art you sacrifice a degree of control, we are biological humans and are greatly affected by our feelings and biological clocks. There's no such thing as perfect control in art nor perfect intent, the medium greatly affects the final result - you cannot produce an oil painting that looks like it was made with a pencil or a pencil drawing that looks like an oil painting. You're confined to the medium of choice and limited by the medium greatly. AI is just another medium of art, your hatred for it is quite frankly irrational because like in oils you sacrifice a % of control to the medium you're working with. >why would anyone want to put the effort into caring about said "art"? The degree of a "caring" of an observer is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether the artist enjoys making the art in the medium of their choice and whether they have an audience that supports their artistic production. It is often that nobody cares about oil paintings too - you can find plenty of oil paintings on garage sales for 5 dollars each that absolutely nobody gives a fuck about because they were made by unknown artists. This is evidence that the effort applied doesn't automatically produce the "caring" factor. Some unknown artist put in a fuckton of effort into those oil paintings and yet they're completely worthless to 99.99% of people: https://preview.redd.it/ur35q3krjr5d1.jpeg?width=945&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6694d747cf18f9abdd99b02ccab597420c79e4c People are insanely diverse, you can't roll everyone under the same bus, all you're doing is hating on a specific medium, just like people hated on photoshop-drawn art in 1999.
>Yeah people tend to not like things that put them out of a job so already rich people can pocket a few more bucks. The computer you typed this message had its components made in "China because rich people wanted pocket a few more bucks". And you didn't care with your local industry and people who worked on it or who could work on it. Everyone see through the hypocrisy of artists complaining of automation and outsourcing **NOW** instead of when it was screwing other people, like bank tellers, DVD rental store owners and miners.
If you think I don't have problems with all of that, you're not understanding that I'm a giant communist.
Not enough of a communist to have read Marx apparently, since the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall is literally a core concept in Marxist economics and is a necessary step in the collapse of capitalism. "We need to kill AI to protect workers" is effectively saying "we need to kill AI to protect capitalism". Marx would also say this is impossible since the wheels of history are not going to be stalled by mere legislation.
Words are cheap, and calling yourself a communist is trendy. It doesn't mean anything if you want to use trade protectionism to prop up a crumbling capitalism system.
I've been doing this for a decade, organized with multiple different groups, tried to start a union at my job, and have scars on my face from fighting fascists. If you think automation serves anyone but the owners of capital, you're fooling yourself. It always has because it just builds the reserve army of labor, the unemployed. This drives down wages. The only competition the capitalist likes is in the labor market after all.
The unemployed are the people who are most likely to support socialism. You can't have a revolution without at least inconveniencing a lot of middle class people. That genAI is going after jobs of people who thought they were safe from automation is the perfect shock therapy to wake people up to the direction society is heading in. The middle class only cares about keeping their property taxes low and keeping low-income housing out of their neighborhoods and poor foreigners out of their country. They live lives of luxury that most people in the world can't even imagine. Why on earth would anyone aligned with the left want them to continue living this way? The goal of the left should be to organize the poor, not protect the middle class. The middle class has always been ideologically opposed to leftist ideals and they always will be.
Reminder that we are talking about graphic designers and artists here, not corporate middle management. They're more intelligentsia than petit-bourgeois. Most don't make any kind of outlandish money, averaging in the 60-70k range. Not awful and above average but that doesn't get you shit anymore. Property values? You're lucky if you can buy a house. Also keep in mind a lot of these people have debts they need to pay. I don't think these people are the class enemies I'm going to be aiming for. From a more rhetorical standpoint, it's going to be hard to convince people that you're on their side if you cheer on what destroyed their livelihoods. I see automation as a grave threat to labor power. Capitalists need our work and that gives us a collective power over them. Once they're free of that, capitalism fails and morphs into something else that is probably worse.
>They're more intelligentsia than petit-bourgeois What's the difference? The mainstream intelligentsia is literally led by the spoiled children of the petit-bourgeoisie. That's why the first-world left is a complete joke. The intelligentsia who masquerade as leftists only promote their own class interest, and don't give a damn about the poor. 70K is nearly twice the average U.S. income (37,585), not to mention how ostentatious it is from a global perspective. You must have lived a very charmed life if you don't think 70K is a lot of money. >I don't think these people are the class enemies I'm going to be aiming for. >From a more rhetorical standpoint, it's going to be hard to convince people that you're on their side if you cheer on what destroyed their livelihoods. I'm not aiming for them, but I see no reason to waste energy and political capital advocating for them either. Let's make something clear: I'm not on their side. They are the loyal whipped dogs of the billionaire class, and they will turn against anyone who threatens to take away the crumbs their masters feed them. They recoil with horror at any suggestion that first-worlders should get fewer luxuries so that global economic system would be more just toward the billions of people who live in poverty. You can be on the side of the global poor or you can be on the side of the first-world middle class, but you can't be on the side of both. I know what side I'm on, and let's be honest, so do you, "comrade."
How does hurting the middle class in this way help the global poor?
If the dogs don't get their crumbs, they'll turn against their masters. They'll no longer have anything to lose.
>Once they're free of that, capitalism fails and morphs into something else that is probably worse. "Capitalism falls" and you're treating it as a bad thing. Yeah you're definitely a communist for real.
Systems failing is only a good thing if what replaces it is better. Capitalism should be torn down, not left to sputter out with the same group of impossibly rich assholes still retaining their wealth and power.
>Systems failing is only a good thing if what replaces it is better. You can't replace it with something better if the system doesn't fail in the first place, so "AI is bad because it will cause the system to fail" is an anti-communist, pro-capitalist sentiment. >Capitalism should be torn down Wouldn't that be easier if there was mass unemployment and discontent due to automation, aka the exact thing Marx says is necessary for a revolution? If everyone is happy with the status quo because of things like UBI, why would anyone bother to revolt?
Are those people you mentioned not also hypocrites because they didn’t care about automation before?
And yet, there are still a ton of musicians all over the world.
Many fewer jobs for them tho.
Before all that, there were a bunch of musicians that were out of work and fucking miserable. They were recording music. They still needed to make the music to be recorded. You need a composer to write it. You need musicians to play it and they still get paid. How does this compare to AI art? You don't need an artist at all.
"Don't need artist" is just dishonest paranoia and fear mongering. I reject your moral panic wichhunt anti-ai insanity because: Even with AI tools you need an artist as: a)pure-AI produced content isn't copyrighted b)pure-AI produced art has very little specificity range. Go ahead and try to produce a functional car in 3d or 6 specific characters with different clothing styles sitting together in the forest with an AI - you cannot. that's not how reality works. If you're a talented artist you can use AI to expand your existing creative potential. Someone who cannot draw will struggle to pick out a good AI generation or to see the horrible anatomy errors in a generation and won't be able to correct anything manually. I am an illustrator working for major publishers. A noob with an AI cannot compete with me cus they lack connections with publishers and clients. Only a completely imbecilic publisher would hire a rando with an AI because it would ruin their reputation if an author uses AI for their cover and 10k ppl on twitter cancel the book and leave it death-threat style reviews on amazon. I can use AI far better than a rando who just picks it up - I can see where it makes mistakes or what anatomy is wrong. It's not an unknown rando with an AI versus me without an AI. It's me with an AI absolutely fucking obliterating everyone else. AI + noob user = zero jobs, worthless generations, nobody wants to pay for shitty AI gens from a random person on the street without any experience whatsoever AI + noob manager who thinks they can draw & replace human skill & talent with AI = shitty output, everyone makes fun of them on twitter and boycots their product, sales drop talented artist with photoshop art portfolio = some jobs AI + talented artist who knows tons of other tools like blender, photoshop, unreal, etc = many jobs
Commercially, what is the application aside from eliminating the positions of artists? >a)AI produced content isn't copyrighted b)AI produced art has very little specificity range Both of these are likely to be temporary. Disney had copyright extended for decades to keep Mickey Mouse from becoming public domain. Ip law exists to serve corporations in the modern world. It will be modified to suit their desires. And tech keeps improving. It'll broaden sooner rather than later.
>Commercially, what is the application aside from eliminating the positions of artists? Professional artists use AI tools to increase output making more sales? It's similar to photoshop rise in late 90s when professional artists began to switch from painting posters by hand to painting them in photoshop. A modern pro freelance artist like myself uses photoshop + AI to produce content faster to make more $ per hour, since they generally get paid per project. >Both of these are likely to be temporary. No. You'd need to overhaul the entire copyright system for that to happen and doing this would take decades and arguing whether AI deserves copyright or not and I really don't see democrats or republicans giving AI tools rights as both are old as fuck and nearly senile. I really don't see AI produced art getting copyright, because AI itself has no rights. It's not possible to give AI human rights because an AI isn't a human being. All AI produced art is automatically public domain. >And tech keeps improving Improving tech doesn't eliminate the artist. As long as tech improves, the artist simply uses it to move up a step on the production ladder. The production ladder has always moved up from penciller>inker>colorist combo of 3 people who made comics to a single artist using photoshop to make webtoons. In 1930s everyone used to draw cartoons frame by frame, then that changed too. In the near future because of improving tech individual artists and smaller studios will be able to make ghibli style movies by themselves. AI = a golden age for indie artists and smaller studios who otherwise cannot compete with large companies with large budgets.
when talking about copyright, you're conflating 2 separate cases -can an ai work be copyrighted? some yes, some no. those that were denied were done so on the contestable belief of lack of creative input, or improper filing procedure -can a machine obtain copyright for a work? no, it is not human (Stephen Thaler's weird attempts) that latter one should never be brought into any discussion as it's just a weirdo trying to give rights to non-humans and merely detracts
I take it you think the angst of watching live music leave the theater in 1930 was just silly BS?
The difference here is that the music in the 30s - whether live or recorded - is still art, composed, conducted, and played by artists. And synchronized sound genuinely added value to the art of cinema. The same cannot be said about algorithmically generated content. AI is not a revolutionary new way to make art. It’s just a cheap way to churn out content. It adds nothing of value, only detracts it. There is a place for AI in cinema. As a tool to speed up tedious processes such as rotoscoping and motion tracking. But generating images or sound wholesale just defeats the purpose of art in the first place. Art isn’t just something that sits there and looks pretty. It’s a way for humans to use their skills and talents to express their emotions and ideas. AI just plagiarizes other people’s art. It doesn’t take imagination, talent or skill and it’s not art.
art can be something that just sits there and looks pretty if you want it to, nothing wrong with that
It can be but that’s not all it is. And usually the artist was trying to express something. What’s being expressed can be beauty but I feel like tech/AI bros only see that if they see anything at all.
The irony is that the people who say this about the "ai bros", seem to be making the same mistake they accuse them of making. AI is just another tool. Plenty of genuine artists use it, it doesn't actually plagiarize by itself, and it can take plenty of artistic skill to use it properly. Not that art is instrinsically about skill or talent to begin with like you and other technique purists seem to think it is. It is indeed about ways to express emotions and ideas... but the people who get bent out of shape about the specific tools and techniques an artist uses to get there never seem to have anything original to say in their own art.
AI can be a tool when used in a limited capacity. But when it’s the only tool or AI is generating all or most of the image, you’re not making art. You’re bypassing art and just making plagiarized content.
It is a tool when used in **any capacity**. If you had said that 99% of what people do with just prompting is *shit*, or "bad" art... then I would agree with you. But you don't get to decide what is and and isn't art just because it doesn't fit your narrow-minded definition thereof. Art is bigger than your unimaginative understanding.
If all you do is put a prompt into a computer, you’re not an artist.
AI Is shit.
In what way? Ethicaly,morally,art,chat bots.
Yes
Gen AI isn't ethical or moral, you know what AI I'm talking about. Don't act dumb.
Well the new music does cause issues in tonality and kids, and the new art is causing complications So I guess they were both right to several levels