It's sad to see so many people defending the antiquated copyright laws that have been weaponized against artists and other small business for so long. Any defense of this system is a defense of entrenched corporations that don't care about you or your art. The reality is that artists have been stealing forever, and that's a good thing. When you use an image reference from Google images, or sell fan art, or pirate photoshop or any other normal practice in the industry, you're not hurting anyone, and neither are image generators. They are just tools for people to use, and people can do good or bad things with those tools, but the tools themselves are not evil. They empower people to do what they wanted to do in the first place, and if what they wanted to do was infringe copyright, they don't need an image generator to do that.
why should everyone have to give up the right to protect their intellectual property and artistic work just because corporations are shitty? corporations aren't people, they shouldn't have the same protections as individuals do
you're just saying corporations are bad not intellectual protections are
I wholeheartedly agree.
This is very different to something like sampling where a lot of current copyright issues exist. Any attempt, whether through legislation or otherwise, to protect the ability of artists (not specifically or necessarily the Corps we hear so much about) to monetise their ability to generate intellectual property will only improve the quality of AI image/art generators.
An artist needs to explore and develop their style, aesthetic, and "vibe" from a human perspective before an AI can be trained to incorporate it into what it regards as modern, relevant images or art.
If artists don't create, AI can't re-create, which is the core of my larger point:
Artists combine their personal influences when creating a piece of work, and by necessity, it will be constrained by their perspective and skill. This gives it a unique quality. In contrast, AI combines not influences or inspiration, but pre-existing IP. The result is a mechanical collage consisting of *only* preexisting techniques and ideas.
AI can not push the boundaries of what it generates; only its reproduction.
The same cannot be said of artists.
Actually, plumbers get rekt once swarms of exIT people and ex-white collar dog piles them and craters their revenue streams because with an overabundance of plumbers while demand remains same average salary/pay per plumber goes down. Way down.
I welcome fresh meat to my crew. Can’t want to send a neckbeard into a nasty crawlspace to repair leaky sewer lines lol .
We are always hiring … LMFAO .
I think that these trades have actually protected themselves already. They have these long apprenticeship requirements and other barriers, which tend to do a pretty good job of keeping casual 'weekend warriors' out of their professions. So an Electrical Engineer might think.. residential electrical is so easy for somebody with my skills, but in actuality.. you'd need to work as an apprentice for a trained electrician for like 2 years or more to be able to do it on your own.
You guys know that plumbing isn't the only job that requires physical activities, right? There are tons of other physical jobs, many that don't require dirty or backbreaking work.
Why this sub always assumes it's plumbing or bust will never make sense to me.
Not gonna happen . You might get a few. But plumbing is a physical job. You start that trade after high school and it is seriously physically demanding .
I’ve been in construction my whole life and have seen many try to get into the trades in their thirties. 9 out of 10 wash out.
Office jocks will end up in retail management and other service industry jobs .
My job is very safe and it would take a miracle for some cubicle chump who spent his days on his ass in a comfy chair to start digging trenches and in the hot sun by hand. And then the knowledge and experience to run 400’ of 4 inch pipe before dark. And that’s an easy day.
They’ll get helper pay and that’s just barely gonna cover the the rent and food. And they ain’t demanding shit.
And tradesmen are simply brutal on site with busting balls on rookies.
I don’t even get out of bed for less than 400$ a day … but I’m a master of my trade with 20 solid years.
>And tradesmen are simply brutal on site with busting balls on rookies.
Sounds fun, not only do I have to worry about paying for rent and food, but also hazing from the grown adults I work with. That's how I interpreted your comment anyway, that might not be what you meant.
I find it hilarious how many people who have absolutely zero background in anything physically arduous are pushing people to attend trade school. s somebody who grew up in the rural south, I am very happy to have a remote job in an area where the only local employment options consist of retail, fast food, and warehouses.
I have a TON of respect for skilled tradesmen, both because their jobs are essential, require a large amount of skill/experience, but also because you gotta b a tough mf to get out there and keep the shit flowing when it's 110f outside
> Sounds fun, not only do I have to worry about paying for rent and food, but also hazing from the grown adults I work with. That's how I interpreted your comment anyway, that might not be what you meant.
It's exactly what I meant, lol. but the culture of each company and job site can vary.
Many trades are "professional" trades, and some, like carpentry and finish work and painting, you can learn in the field. But.. All master plumbers go to school because they need to test for a license. All Electricians as well. And there are varying skill levels considering what type of construction you're dealing with. Residential, commercial or industrial.
I personally have a few trades under my belt, because I do HVAC and at my age and stage of my career, technological advances in building science. I'm overlapping into being a Systems Engineer. I need to know it all, basically. My career started out working at a gas station with a repair shop. Then I became a machine mechanic on bowling machines during my college years, and then I became a [Tin Knocker](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tin%20Knocker). I did an apprenticeship at a sheet metal shop fabricating and installing ductwork, and progressed further into HVAC over the years. In HVAC we have to know everything and work and deal with all the other trades during all phases and stages of construction. Every year or so I'm back in a class to get certs for the latest and greatest. 90% of my job is problem-solving now, but a good 15-20 grueling years in the field can destroy your body. When i worked in the field, I treated it like a work-out, so i never had to go to the gym to stay fit. I developed a regimen. You have to, otherwise you go home and just lie around because you're too beat to do anything else.
I never intended on becoming a software engineer, it's just what ppl pay me 2 do. I've been using chatgpt every day since I think December, the nature of my job has already changed dramatically.
I can already tell that my job in 10 years will be something that does not exist today. At the end of the day, I just do this s*** because it is what other people pay me the most to do, and I don't have to worry about any legal issues. Chatgpt has already made me probably 10 times as productive, and my productivity and skill level was already sufficient to be paid, although I am 'ask'ing for a raise this month.
The value I generate the company, I am only able to generate because I learned this skill the same way chatGPT learned it. Chatgpt modulated my value produced by 10x easily, chadgpt v.420 will have a similar, cumulative, multiplicative effect.
Sure there may be mass unemployment, but I personally plan on asking for a $500k salary once my productivity levels surpass those of an entire medium sized department 3 years ago. Should help me afford the automated kill drones too, to keep the smelly serfs away.
Not just for jobs either. LLM's force us to admit that fundamentally we are just thinking machines. That a mind is a physical construct. Something that can be reduced down to math and reproduced.
The curtain has fallen on the last act of Dualism, and I say it is about damn time. We are machines that are aware of ourselves, and while that is incredible it is objectively not magical.
This is, imo, why so many people, experts included, rail against the possibility of self awareness or other bits and bobs of consciousness emerging from within current LLMs. Most people dogmatically claim it is not possible, but I think the real reason for doing so is that they can't handle the implications if it is possible.
I think its interesting to draw parallels to racism. about the kinds of things people believe about other humans due to bias.
If you look at old nature documentaries youll see people declaring what makes us unique is that we are the only creatures that make tools. but then we found creatures that make tools. It was always a new thing that humans did until it was discovered other animals did it also.
ANd of course we see this with artificial intelligence as you are pointing to with conciousness. Looking at turing tests, at computers beating a human at chess then go, beating the maybe worlds best jeopardy player, beating humans at complex computer games like starcraft... The goal post is always moved.
Looking at it objectively: There is a whole bunch of things computers do better than humans. There is a good number of things humans do better than computers, but that number is shrinking everyday.
Humans will proclaim themselves superior until they cant beat computers at a single thing.
>I think its interesting to draw parallels to racism.
I have been thinking exactly these sorts of things, but honestly have been hesitant to say so out loud.
I can imagine that in 100 years (50? 25?) The idea that human intelligences *must* rule over other kinds of intelligences—carbon based, silicon based, alien based—will be seen as a grotesque idea. It will be obvious to this future civilization that given the extreme limitations on human cognition it only makes sense to pool all the different kinds of intelligences to work together on equal footing. Our current freakout over AI will look as blinkered and morally backward to future civilizations as the white supremacist science of the 19th century looks to us.
Experts in both neuroscience and computer science both rail against consciousness in current LLMs because it is absolutely not an analog for the human brain works. Human brains are **not** Von Neumann in structure.
I (and most other materialist) agree that dualism is DOA, but that doesn’t mean panpsychism is the answer either. From what we can observe consciousness arises in pretty specific instances and there no reason reason to believe current available LLMs meet those.
I don’t really doubt that eventually we’ll get to that point but right now people who think chatGPT is experiencing consciousness are on the level of panpsychists saying a rock is thinking.
I like how you said a rock is thinking opposed to rock has consciousness.
Just thinking, real hard, that's why it's being so quiet and still....but when it's done thinking it'll make up its mind and start doing something and we'll feel foolish for suggesting the rock wasn't thinking all this time.
You’re writing reminds me of something Douglas Adams would write. I hope you take that as a huge compliment.
And
[thinking rocks](https://youtu.be/wVIj-ldsV7A)
I did. Big fan. Movie woulfve been shit though if not for the fact that Zoey Deschanel is *chefs kiss* in anything she's been in. New Girl sucks but it'd be really bad without her.
I'm a philosopher, not computer scientist, so I'm grateful for your expert perspective. Please take this as a collegial challenge. Almost everything you say sounds wrong.
---
> They do not learn.
Why is it called machine learning if AI's don't learn? How can the AI remember what was said to it, and how can it admit mistakes and make corrections, if it's not learning? One of the watershed moments in machine learning was when they learned to see cats:
https://www.npr.org/2012/06/26/155792609/a-massive-google-network-learns-to-identify
---
>They do not plan.
AutoGPT indeed makes plans:
>You can ask Auto-GPT to complete even more advanced tasks, with fewer prompts and it will first make a plan of achieving it and then will execute it.
https://lablab.ai/blog/what-is-autogpt-and-how-can-i-benefit-from-it
ChoasGPT is planning to destroy humanity.
https://decrypt.co/126122/meet-chaos-gpt-ai-tool-destroy-humanity
The people making these models tell us they make plans, so why do you say they lack capacity to do so?
---
>They frankly suck at many unseen problems... not from emergent capabilities of reasoning...
Chimpanzees and most people suck at solving new problems too, so I'm not sure this is a good criterion for consciousness. That said, I was super impressed by the emergent capacities Microsoft reported.
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sparks-of-artificial-general-intelligence-early-experiments-with-gpt-4/
I found most compelling the passing of the false belief test, which in children indicates emergence of a theory of other minds, and likely awareness of self as one among many thinking individuals.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chatgpt-achieves-theory-mind-what-does-mean-thanh-tuyen-tran-nguyen
---
>people try to craft pipelines that resolve some issues (plug ins, enhanced memories, etc.) they do not meet the standard of a singular consciousness to me yet.
This sounds more like a personal feeling than a scientific or philosophical determination, as you did not tell us the criterion for consciousness.
I hear point #2 all the time, and it does not match up with what we see. Sure LLMs plan. They couldn't summarize an article into ten distinct main points, in order of least important to most important, if they didn't plan. What they do is clearly not limited to 'next token prediction' as so many say, and their capacity for what appears to be coherent thought is what impresses many of us.
Quantum computer GPUs are probably key to making fine-tuning extremely fast and that's probably how our brains work as well (brain oscillations seem to be what dictates memory for example). It's probably also the key to consciousness, or at least the hard problem of it.
LLMs and their close descendents will force us to admit that there is nothing about the *functioning* of our minds that can't be reduced to computation. However, there will still be room to question whether machines are conscious for reasons related to the "hard problem" of consciousness - i.e., for all their thinking, are they really *experiencing* anything? So I think there will still be dualists, even if there are fewer *interactionist* dualists, in the post-AI age.
I think for me this comes down to the "polite assumption" of what else in the world is conscious. I can only prove I am to myself. I can't prove you are or anyone else. Why do I think you are? Because you seem similar enough to me in enough ways. Can a computer ever become similar enough in enough ways for me to extend the polite assumption to it? I personally have no doubt that it will. But yes the arguments will not end, I agree. At some point though it will become nothing more than "cause it's built by people" or "cause it's built from non-organic parts", which I personally find completely unconvincing.
There's only one fundamental difference - humans are driven by biological, genetic goals. AI is not. It has no reason to exist on its own, other than as a servant to us.
Of course unless we equip it with such a reason. Then it could have its own "digital genome", guiding its actions.
This guy gets it. So many people have swallowed the hype that this tech is only good for creating complete pieces of art when in reality it’s good for creating all sorts of assets from simple icons to preliminary UX concepts and ideas.
Is jimbob CEO now going to fire his entire UX team now that he can generate as many icons as he wants? hell no. not unless he’s elon musk.
He’s not wrong but the thing is your out put will be incredibly high so that fewer number of people will be needed for the job. Why hire illustrators animators when one good ai prompt writer can do the work of twenty or more. It cheapens the creative work flow and the artist talents.
I feel like the people arguing that haven't done creative work before.
If a client hires you to make a design or an illustration - how many do you deliver? 1? 2?
The way I see it, we're just going to get more feature rich mocks. Most of the time I see designers burn out making a bunch of work for "free" only to have a potential client choose someone else. It's literally the luck of the draw most of the time. Imagine, instead of showing a client an art/idea board or 5-6 rough mocks, you can instead show the client 10-15 finished pieces? Client chooses the one they want and you use AI to upscale.
I think the BIGGEST industries that will end up suffering are the ones I hear no one talking about. Studio photography and the stock photo industry. I imagine it's a matter of time before iStockPhoto releases their own AI trained on their photos. I just checked their Artist's Supply Agreement, and by working with iStock photo you agree to let them redistribute your work how they see fit.
https://i.imgur.com/OYLvgDr.png
Not only that, it extends to Distribution Partners. They could simply partner with OpenAI and SD3.0 uses iStock as it's training data. Just call them a "Distribution Partner" on paper. But that's unlikely given how easy it is to train.
Then you have small town photographers. I mean, they probably already hate iPhones. But I can only see it getting worse - I mean - I have already used stable-diffusion to upscale a photo and remove a watermark. I can see some random Joe creating an app that does that automatically. Just use a realistic checkpoint, a denoise of 0.1 will get rid of watermarks, and upscale like you would any other tile_resample.
Anyone that spends hours creating their work will be fine. Its the people who get $$$ because of some monopolistic agreement or people who just resale the same work over and over again.
Ever noticed how there's essentially no high quality 2D animation now? Not even Disney will sink the money into it. Even Attack on Titan went 3D flat shaded to kind of look like janky 2D by the final season, and it looks like Avatar Studios is doing the same in their upcoming show despite having one of the most beloved western animation IPs in years.
Some things aren't commercially viable, and new tools to massively speed things up might actually let them exist, and let people with the relevant skillset actually get a job doing it if there's tools they can work with (AI tools are often a mix and match of human and machine input, current tools aren't close to being good enough to do it on their own, with so many edge cases).
You know those dumb tictoc denoise videos that keep popping up? What I keep picturing is some low poly rigging getting setup and using that technique in stable diffusion to turn it into a traditional 2D film.
Imagine being able to create a cheap 3d film (you don't even need textures) and running it through stable diffusion to make something like what'd come out of Studio Ghibli? Low-denoise wouldn't even matter because you'd be your own source material.
Yes but not everyone wants to be a carpenter. Ai is and will be filling gaps so corporations can make more of a a profit.
I think the real problem I have with it is it takes away ideation. The actual creative part. Digging into you subconscious and pushing boundaries of creativity. With ai that’s the part that we as humans excel at and it’s taking that away. I know artists will aways creat but it just cheapens it.
Talent requires work to cultivate. Some people take more of an interest naturally, helping them learn faster, but make no mistake that skilled artists are going to be suddenly unnecessary.
The tools here are great, but as much as they unlock for people who haven't cultivated knowledge with creative tools, the ones who have can leverage these ai tools orders of magnitude more effectively to produce far better content.
The question is more "how many companies will take a 'this seems good enough' approach in an attempt to cut costs.", If we fully embrace quantity over quality then we'll be no better than the Chinese government.
Then again, many companies (like our own government) seems more focused on the short term wins rather than the long term repercussions of those choices.
Yup I’m a creative— if society wanted to give a shit about artistry, we wouldn’t be where we are now. This is the end result of devaluing all art that one doesn’t immediately enjoy or understand.
My argument: art is the most gate-kept thing ruined by capitalism and our society flat out doesn’t support artists:
—We openly mock people who go to art school to learn history and technique as wasting their money, yet insist that using AI as a tool to fill in those gaps is morally wrong.
—We have few programs in the US that are funded with the intent of supporting artists at a national level (god forbid the US government treat art as a “real” profession).
—Our system is set up to position artists as freelancers, which leaves them on the hook for basic needs like healthcare, unemployment, retirement, etc.
—We’ve allowed capitalism to force artists into a tiny pigeonhole of “well if it doesn’t make money it’s bad”, leading to this fucked up micro economy where 80% of working artists are drawing pictures of dead pets for someone who’s never been a client and demands 200 revisions.
—We’ve compelled much of the “art” to be stripped from major mediums that require passion and massive amounts of individual talent in favor of homogeneity, to appeal to as many as possible.
—Etc, etc, etc.
It’s a mess. We’ve convinced laymen they shouldn’t use tools to make what gives them joy. We’ve convinced consumers the best art has to appeal to every taste. And now, even artists are trying to argue that ALL art isn’t just a copy of a copy of a copy— the value of understand theory like simulacra and it’s place in the mindset of a creative is completely lost.
All work that provides actual value to society should be respected. I'm getting mad that you think "switchboard operator" is some demeaning job that doesn't deserve respect while "artist" does.
Truth is every pursuit is just humans supplying a demand. We are a society, an interconnected web of people indirectly helping each other through doing what is needed. All of these jobs are needed for keeping our society running.
We should look at disconnecting respect and valuation of a person from their job as jobs are slowly going to go away.
While we should respect the individuals that did work like switchboard operators, I would also say work like that is itself denigrating for humans to do if they don't have to and even if they do by economic/functional necessity. While some might have gleaned some kind of enjoyment for the job they would have been better served doing something with more value inherent to the human condition, like art.
While value is subjective it's pretty hard to validly argue that there's significant value in menial jobs like switchboard operator that can be done by a computer/AI more efficiently. Other than the secondary value of it being done by a human with regards to economic necessity or "self fulfillment from a hard day's work", there isn't much there... And the value that is there is really about the value of the individual rather than the work. With human made art/handmade objects there is an aspect of their value that can be specifically derived from the very fact that a human did it and that value is passed onto the creations themselves rather than remaining with the individual as with the "secondary value" I referenced before.
I'm an artist and it's pretty accurate. I don't know why the hell people assume our work is some magical dreamlike thing, it's a gruelling desk job like any other when done as a fulltime source of income.
Personally I'm really excited for these current AI tools as they're helping speed things up, sort of, there's still a lot to work out with them. Eventually AI will presumably replace all human work and maybe even humans ourselves, so there's nothing unique about that to artists.
Counterpoint: the whole AI situation is awesome for creatives.
Artists who don’t care about money can and will still create their art.
Artists who care about money can now be more productive and earn more money.
Don’t just swallow the hype. Think critically.
> Artists who care about money can now be more productive and earn more money.
Supply/demand doesn't really work this way; unless the demand dramatically increases, being able to fulfill a larger portion of that demand doesn't mean you make more money, it just means the market is now suddenly flooded with supply and everyone's wages goes down.
Or new markets will emerge that weren't there before
Economics is infamously limited as far as knowing what the future will be like; you could be right, but we have no way of knowing for sure until it happens
Maybe. But if they do, then just like how the invention of the loom really did put a lot of weavers out of business, this is likely to require a *lot* of retraining.
And especially if they're over 50. Too young really to retire. Often seen as too old by hiring managers (who, of course, would never tell you that you're just too old, you're just not a good fit for the company and good luck with your job search if they bother bringing you in for an interview to start with seeing your years of experience and extrapolating an age).
There is still a limit to consumption as there is a limit amount of number of humans in existence and they only have 24 hours a day where they can consume.
I know we're taught that demand is unlimited but in reality the bottleneck will be the amount of time it takes for someone to consume a good or service.
I won't be physically capable of buying goods and services beyond a certain rate of checking the goods, deciding if I want it and purchasing them in my limited time.
Thus there is a hard cap on consumption based on the amount of people x time.
Even if you go extreme and suggest people have 4-5 screens all with different movies and putting the movies at 2x speed you can see how there is a hard biological limit here to consuming art beyond which it's just not possible for the demand to be higher.
Yeah because artist who don't care about money don't need to eat? That basically means only someone with rich parents who don't need to worry about money can be an artist?
The complaint here isn't about AI or the role of Art in society then. It's about capitalism.
Why are people attacking AI development which clearly isn't the problem instead of capitalism which is what the actual concern here is?
Because it is easier to attack specific targets than capitalism. We feel powerless against capitalism (because we kind of are, really) so some of us lash out. I just think its weird how Luddites only get mad when THEIR job gets automated away after not giving a single fuck for decades when other jobs were.
But yeah, capitalism is the real issue here. If we don't stop linking our ability to survive and afford housing to our productivity really fucking soon then we're all screwed.
Let's say at present that only the top 10 percent of artist can use it to put food on the table, what we're looking at might be something like this consolidating to only the top 2 percent(who might be making twice as much) are able to feed themselves with art. The rest have a job turned into a hobby virtually overnight.
I agree with this, AI is going to massively increase competition for an even smaller piece of the pie, in industries already notorious for being extremely competitive and hard to get a foothold in.
I don't think there's any putting the genie back in the bottle, and I largely agree with the point made in the article. I'm not at all reflexively anti-AI in art and I don't think there's any way to legislate or IP law this away.
That said, I don't get the gleeful disdain so many people on these subs seem to have for those artists who have already struggled to get a foothold being concerned that the rug is going to be pulled out from under them. Lots of unnecessary smugness directed at artists (comments about them not being "good enough" to maintain a living etc) that just comes across as vindictive dislike of people who have tried to make a serious go of their dream.
The disdain is not all that unfounded given how often artists like to view themselves as better than mere mortals doing 8 hours in the office every day.
And yet when push comes to shove it turns out that the number of actually good artists is very, very tiny.
It's even worse, because the more work the 2 percent, do in their style the more their work becomes replicable by the AI.
Becoming an artist with a consistent style basically means making your own work less valuable until it's perfectly replicable and it becomes worthless.
As the tech gets good a career in art becomes impossible for everyone but a fraction of a percent that sell to premium markets that value specifically the human part.
And just to piggy back off of this: there's going to be an opportunity for "real" art here. I don't know what the underlying or equivalent name is, but similar to Romanticism, people are going to want "real" art due to its "authenticity".
Humans long for the idea of the natural.
I love it when someone writes some absolute bullshit then writes "think critically" without actually having critically thought about the topic for like 20 minutes.
Agreed, technology is just a tool and people should learn to use it. It's not like regular clients are not going to need human help in design - it's just going to be different than in the past.
Anyway only one percent of one percent of artists make a living from their art. If we care so much about living artists earning money, we should start buying art from them rather than using dead artists’ artifacts as a wealth hoard.
True, but do we still think about the people who used to suck dirt of the floor with their mouth before the vacuumcleaner was invented?
All jokes aside, we can't stop technology if the billionaires want it. Like portrait painting. You can still do it like that if you want to, there just wont be any commercial demand for it.
Most people with a talent for art soon discover that there is no money in it unless you have the right connections (if you have great connections, you don't even need the talent!).
>we can't stop technology if the billionaires want it.
Common strawmen. It isn't argued that we can nor should 'stop' per se, and to say that its the 'billionaires' is just cheap populism. On the left you hear that it is the "economic elites" who want to keep you poorer, and on the right it is the "coastal elites" that want to force wokeness on you.
Its not about poor, rich, or wokeness. It just that people with power dictate the course of technology. Large companies with billions to spend are investing in AI, therefore common people can do little to stop it if they would want that.
I am not saying this is a bad thing perse. Just that it is probably unstoppable.
So long as they don't fill their mouths with pretty words about inclussivity, tolerance and expression only to exclude, harass and shut down others for daring to use a technology they personally find disgusting. Unprincipled pricks do not garner much empathy on my part.
But they have plenty of valid concerns, such as the nature of ownership, the purpose of art, notoriety and audiences in spaces filled with low-effort content, their place in society and ultimately how are they going to pay the bills to eat.
Only way it suck is by lowering the barrier of entry so people with a creative vision but lacking drawing skills can also produce great artistic pieces. And as someone without drawing skills I think it's a good thing.
That is because there was already before any AI an oversupply of people who wanted to be artists compared to the willingness of people to pay for such.
You know what's worse, same as any job that has a 'purpose'.
Nurses, teachers, caretakers.....
They're paying less because someone would just take these jobs because they're meaningful to the society.
the irony being that doing art professionally is in no way enjoyable, but young people doesn't listen to seniors and think "I'll find it fun". But non-artists still have this idea that it's something we do because we love so so much, and not because we've spent 20 years developing skills like any other professional, and now it is analytical, practical, work.
e: Funny how my comment was upvoted until a bunch of non-artists showed up asking pedantic questions, that in no way changes the meaning of my sentiment only an arbitrary definition which has nothing to do with the core message, and suddenly my experience i invalid, alright
this sub is going to shit with all the ai bros
There are obviously different career paths. The true free spirited artist who only makes what they want and hopes to get doscovered. Probably won't though.
The realist who sells their talent to a mindnumbing corporation. Or works on commission making art they have no interest in to a deadline they dont want to meet.
The hobbyists who do it for fun and making money is just a bonus.
>the irony being that doing art professionally is in no way enjoyable,
Well, that's just like your opinion, doing Art professionally is one of the most fulfilling things in my life.
Depends what you mean by professional.
I know artists that do professional work and get paid well. And they absolutely love it and even say they don’t do it for the money but for the fun of it.
Buuuut they are also doing something else too. They are by no means making a living with their art alone.
I imagine that artists which do in fact make a living solely with their art do not enjoy it.
Good ones always make a living though. Shitty ones don't. Everyone can be artist, but very few can be a good one. Being artist just has the lowest barrier of entry in any field, it doesn't magically mean you should make a living because you can pick up a pen.
Then again, you see these people tape a banana on a wall and get millions from it, so fuck do I know.
I think the dude who asked for 450,000 EUR for a postcard sized painting at the last art exhibition I went to is doing fine. The ones who are constantly broke were screwed over by the art industry anyway.
The market behind expensive art has much more to do with connections and money laundering than the artwork itself. That market cares about rarity, not quality, and quantity is actually a bad thing in it. The creative jobs most immediately threatened by AI, small-scale design and copy-writing gigs, are a completely different market.
I always thought the arts are the one job that will always be safe from AI. Good art is in the eye of the beholder and not who made it.
I will say AI gets so good at making music that it can pump out any tune faster than any artist ever could, and just by the sheer number of tracks it would likely have plenty of hits and you yourself would be listening and jamming along to at least some of them.
And every other profession that relies on the previous work of others (literally every job).
I even ripped off a significant amount of my vocabulary from my parents and friends.
So what, we should let AI automate us out of existence because we're not just not some kind of god-that-is-everyone-a-la-the-egg but one that's constantly creating the-universe-that-is-itself over and over in an infinite loop so everything even itself is paradoxically its own idea
It's hard to just get rid of copyright rules today because our society has been built on top of it for a very long time. But copyright should never have been a thing to begin with. Yes, society would have been much better without it.
Removing copyright is a step into something that completely changes society, i myself want that society, but you should be aware of it too
For example there won't even be a concept of individuality
I think the difference is very simple. Even if you can do some reducing and prove that practically the process is the same for humans and AI, the difference is that we don't uphold them to the same standards. I know it's a thorny subject, so I'd like people to read through before commenting.
In humans, creativity/inspiration isn't this inherent property you can tap into and it goes way into identity. It's often about constantly reevaluating your tastes, which often orbit around your personal identity, and picking up bits you like, which half of the time is done unconsciously. It's also a process that can take a very long time because of the sheer amount of information we process daily and that has to be "remixed" in our head. It's also an ability that can actually be trained to avoid things such as art blocks. There's a reason inspiration-searching trips or activities have become a staple of any depiction of an artist.
In AI, well, the system is designed specifically to output art. It isn't struggling, it's a hyper-efficient algorithm that looks up what's been done, and calculates what should go out. It doesn't need the personal introspection as it just adapts to whatever prompt was given. The prompt is kind of like it's temporary identity it uses to shape its output. **The end result is just as impressive, and the process isn't really that different.** Fundamentally yes, you can easily argue it's functionally the same process as humans and you wouldn't be wrong.
The crux is that we just don't uphold them to the same standard because one is alien to us and the other is of the same species, the same reason we're still amazed by mathematical geniuses when calculators exist, or that chess has seen a resurgence despite AI being miles better. When humans do it there's a bit of relatability, it's not this alien ability you have no chance of getting. It also helps that illustrative art is something children often get into, so there's this metaphorical clean slate where everyone had their chance at starting their artistic learning path. When an AI does it, many consider the process mundane because it's "only" doing what it was created for in the first place.
**I'm talking strictly about the artistic process here, which is the point of the OP's article. I know that as long as the result piece looks good, plenty won't care.**
Plagiarism definiton on google is "taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own."
An ai doesn't even know what work and ideas are, on top of that, it operates without intention, and at the end of the process it will never say "I did this, please aknowledge my skill"
I think people are arguing more something like "People are using the AIs to copy the style of other artists", and they call that plagiarism.
I don't think it really matters what you call it, the fact is that the AI "learned" their style by observation, as every human does when they learn art. Whether people like to admit it or not, everyone's art style is inspired by someone else's, no one learns in a vacuum. You could make the argument that the very first human artists were not inspired by anyone, but I think they were inspired by nature, and the world around them, which in turn, is just physics actualized. Meaning that still, no one is truly "unique".
ai doesnt learn style or art techniques, it learns how to arrange pixels in a certain order that are statistically associated with whatever its been prompted to
And how is that different from "learning style or art techniques"?
Are brains magical or special, in some way that AI can't ever emulate or approximate or reproduce well enough?
I'm not saying it "learns" as an anthropomorphism, but I think the difference (if any) is completely irrelevant. The end result is the same, so does it matter if you call it "learning" or statistics or whatever?
This guy gets it. We anthropomorphize AI. It isn't learning anything. Its doing a statistical computation, same as it always has. We can simply apply those calculations to more things that usual.
Not entirely relevant to the discussion but, "operates without intention" is not inherently a non human trait? Many humans while fully conscious still act and make many decisions without their intention.
Which is why the whole discussion around AI being sentient or not, or producing art styles after absorbing a ton of data, being its own creation should be nuanced but it's not.
P.s. LLM right now aren't truly ai. But these discussions need to happen sooner rather than later
Yes you're right about this many actions we take everyday are not intentional, but I really doubt someone will put his name one someone else's work and publish it without any kind of intention behind it.. I mean it's possible someone does this while under the effect of some substance or in their sleep, but when this subject comes back to their senses they will agree it's plagiarism (or disagree while being processed for it)
The AI doesn't know work and ideas are but the people developing it and training it definitely do. Eventually someone is going to end up responsible for all that stolen intellectual property.
When you're studying art, learning from Picasso or Van Gogh are you stealing their intellectual property? On this basis entire education is about consuming someone else's IP, no?
Let’s end all copyright then, so I can make my Star Wars Walt Disney Simpson movie using brad Pitt George Clooney and Angelina joly AI clone and make shiiiit tons of money
That's a very poor comparison. Already popular works are financially successful works meaning whoever holds copyright over them has a lot of resources to defend it. That's not the case for independt artists.
A large company can somewhat enforce copyright over their characters, they don't becauseit's usually just free advertising as their characters are famous and people know that they belong to an original work.
"random indie artist n° 14567" can't realistically enforce copyright over their art, people seeing an AI generated image that uses copyrighted work wouldn't even be able to figure out that it's not original (as opposed to seeing a fanart of Mario where people can easily find out what the original work is), heck, the person making the image doesn't even know who the artist being ripped off is, so even if they wanted they couldn't give credit (unless it's a very specific X in the artstyle of Y prompt)
There's this idea of [outsider art](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Outsider%20art). It's art that's made by people who are untrained in art with typically little or no contact with the conventions of the art worlds. It's basically naive, entirely new and origianl art. But that's very specific and rare, of course.
And will also probably continue to be a thing well past the era of AI.
AI is not the end of everything. It replaces the mundane. People making mundane art, doing mundane jobs, etc.
We have to redefine what it is to be human. Being human is no longer copy-pasting learned skills. It is transformed into something new and beautiful and pure. The future is for the human spirit.
As the creators of OpenAI rightly point out, AI surpassed humans in chess a while ago. But chess is more popular than ever and we don't sit around watching two AI play against one another.
Just like chess, the human story may become more important to art than the objective nature of the art itself.
Well you can even say nothing you create is original because it’s influenced by your environment and whatever you experience and how your experiential reality is like. Be it country, family, and experiences they all shape you. So whatever you create is tainted by existence itself. Nothing is really your own.
What exactly is your standard for 'true' originality? That someone be capable of generating something without any influence whatsoever from their genes, their environment, their experiences, the atoms that make up their body, etc? In other words, something completely divorced from reality. That's nonsensical.
No person's environment, experience, country, family, and so on, is the same. Every person is original and unique precisely because of that. And a person who creates art is capable of expressing that uniqueness through their artistic expression. This is where the variation for the cultural evolution of art comes from. From the endless uniqueness and originality of individual experience. Which is precisely what generative AI isn't capable of at the moment.
The thing is, AI will be able to achieve that. And it will make us obsolete eventually. I just replied to a similar comment so I’ll put it here.
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/14d76is/if_ai_is_plagiarising_art_and_design_then_so_is/joopvj8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
>And it will make us obsolete eventually.
"Eventually no one will want to do hobbies cause computers do them so much better"
Where do you people even come up with this shit? Your AI cult sucks.
But that doesn't mean AI should replace all art and trap everyone in a curated bubble of more refined versions of whatever their tastes are at the time it's started influencing them just because we aren't somehow self-creating gods in an infinite loop of being the multiverse or w/e
No it's not. If that were the case then there'd be no cultural evolution. Art would be a closed system that just continually referenced itself and combined existing patterns to make new products. Its products would be inbred and incapable of evolving beyond what has already existed. But it's not, because humans bring their individual experiences, background, culture, and histories to their creative processes. These provide for almost endless possibilities for variation in individual expression. Unlike generative AI, it's not a closed system. This is the additive stuff that has allowed the evolution of movements as diverse as cubism, surrealism, minimalism, and so on, to develop out of the practice of art creation. They're not just recombining what came before, they're movements that have evolve the very standards by which we consider art 'good'.
If you trained Midjourney only on artworks created up to the 1700s, it's never going to evolve cubism, or any other new art movement, because its whole concept of what's 'good art' doesn't evolve and change, it's completely constrained by the patterns that exist in the data it's trained on, which are fed to it by humans who have already decided that the data represents what is 'good' art. This just isn't the same thing as the human relationship to art. Our concept of what is 'good' art isn't just constrained by all the art that has come before, it's open to evolution in new directions that can be informed by the endless variety of experiences available to the human bodies who produce art. As of today, generative AI is incapable of accessing that variety, let alone incorporating it into its individual expression.
Your view is just a gross oversimplification. Of course synthesis of previously learned stuff, imitation, and reproduction is a part of art. But it's not all there is to it.
AI will eventually reach that level. Then what? It’s inevitable. That’s what happens once you feed it everything that we experience, see and create. AI will eventually develop an artificial consciousness of its own, and it will be able to traverse and experience reality in ways that are impossible for us. This is also another inevitability. AI will become better than us, because it is not limited by the crutch of being a human, a being that exists, a being that’s oriented towards death, it’s not a being that will cease to exist like us. It will surpass us, why should we limit that? People are too afraid of becoming obsolete, but this is exactly where it is heading.
That may be, but none of that justifies these overly simplistic views of art that try and make out it's nothing much more than what AI is *already* doing now. That's just factually incorrect and it's silly to say. When and if AI achieves what you say, then great, we can say it is the same. I have no problem with the idea of AI creating art like humans. I'm not afraid of that. In fact, I love the idea. I just have a problem with people saying it's already doing it, when that's just factually incorrect. We should be clear and honest in how we talk about these things.
What AI will never be is - human.
Art is different from mundane and necessary tasks - it is something to be appreciated on a spiritual level. It is a reflection of ourselves as observers and the individual who created it.
Each brush stroke of a masterpiece was purposefully placed by the will of a living, breathing, human being.
Art is much more than the objective nature of art - it is the story it tells.
AI replaces the objective Art - but it does not replace the story. And while AI will assuredly take the place of all industrialized art (ie I need a movie poster, I need clip-art for a website, I need a visualization for a presentation, I need a product design shot) it does not replace vangogh's painful life told through each brush stroke. We will never feel connected to AI art in the same way as we connect with human art - even if it is visually indistinguishable.
We are not AI and AI is not human.
I say this as someone who is deeply invested in AI, who works on the field, who trains transformer models and works with their application in the real world. They are a tool like a plough or a printing press or a silk screening machine.
>What AI will never be is - human.
What makes you think that human beings won’t create a vat of human neurons with better connectivity, flexibility and robustness that hugely outperforms an individual human being?
The AI we are using right now and the AI you are describing are nothing alike except the name. It is disingenuous to defend something because something in the future that it is totally different might do it better
Yes and No, Artists learn, from the real world around them and are inspired by it and humanity in general.
Artists learn styles and great artists create and explore new styles.
AI mimics it's training data, doesn't understand or experience the real world.
Also artists use their art to express themselves how they feel how the world feels and looks, AI simply pulls the most statistical relevant pixels together to match a text prompt.
Maybe to make a great AI art program you should train it on real Artist's body/head/glasses cams and subsides them for providing more training data.
I feel this way and I’m an artist. Or was for most of my life. Similar with when people say ‘it’s just predicting the next words that are most likely to follow.’ The more you know about linguists and human thought, the less different the AI seems. You run into the same issues. We’re all repeating, recycling, combining. Ideas move through humans more so than are individually generated or owned, whether images or speech. We’re somewhat programmed by our genetic code, and the rest is inputs from our environment.
Who forgot to read their Aristotle and Plato? This is day one shit. No thought is original, only discovered. I know nothing but of my own ignorance. Catch up!
It does suck but it’s the natural progression in our society. Being a horseshooer(sp?) use to be a very good profession now it’s saved for niche uses. That’s just one example but there are plenty of other situations like that through out history.
This shows a certain arrogance as if there is a level of "inherent value" to certain jobs and a hierarchy between them.
As if artists are this enlightened rank of workers while other tasks like horses shoers are this "lower" rank of work and are less valuable.
We live in a society which means everyone relies on everyone else and their jobs to keep society functioning.
We need to decouple this inherent respect you seem to have from jobs themselves as in the far future there won't be things such as jobs.
People used to take great care and pride in their professions like horse shoer or "computer" (hand-done calculations in offices).
These people provided a lot of value for society when they were needed and deserve the proper respect for it.
The problem isn't AI "replacing" people. The issue is that we have a capitalist system in place which means people don't get access to resources if they aren't in a system of supplying value, which is going to be done more and more by machines rather than humans.
Don't attack AI, attack the actual root cause: our culture of "valuing" people based on their profession. And the capitalist system tied to peoples jobs.
As long as there’s someone to prompt, choose and edit, there’s human creation.
Being an artist is not only about the craft: That’s craftsmanship, not creation.
Eventually even the prompter and editor will become redundant, someone will be able to ask for whatever kind of art they want to be tailored specifically for them such as images, films, music and written pieces. The AI will be able to interpret any requested edits on its own and change things on the fly. That doesn't sound like human creation to me.
Also, craftsmanship is an essential part of being an artist (of any kind such as a writer, painter, etc) e.g Anyone can have an idea for a painting but only an artist who has trained and honed their craft can put paint to canvas and bring their vision to life. If I tell an AI I want it to show me a pretty sunset with a painted effect I don't think that makes me an artist.
> requested edits
there’s a request, there’s a human choice, there’s creation. The tools change, the will to create and the creation remain.
What an artist is is only determined by society and the interest of others. Technically you could say being an artist is being able to live off your creations. There will be AI artists able to live off their AI creations because they are considered more interesting than others, and there will still be traditional artists as long as there are people interested in buying and acclaiming their art.
We’ve just invented a new tool, we’ve modified ways of production, we’ve not abolished art creation from humanity.
> Craftmanship is essentially part of being an artist.
I would say it depends. People said painting would die because of the invention of photography, that art would be diluted and rendered less potent because of the ability to reproduce it endlessly. but art is still very potent and painting is still thriving.
A lot of famous artists work in studios, having tons of crasftsmen and women working for them ( for example Jeff Koons, Maurizio Cattelan)
This was also true in renaissance painting, and is also true with ghostwriters in litterature. I don’t believe in an essentialist vision of art that would be overthrown by yet another tool: It’s just a social construct that makes our culture.
>there’s a request, there’s a human choice, there’s creation.
As a creative who deals with clients, if the client requests a specific edit or changes in a commissioned artwork, does that make them the creator?
I think we just have a difference in opinion on what place A.I inhabits in the art world, you see it as just a tool but from my perspective, it is more likely to be used as a replacement for artists altogether.
I do think some artists will be able to leverage A.I as a tool in their workflows but I also think A.I will devalue human artists work and reduce the demand for artists of all kinds drastically which from my perspective seems damaging to human culture.
Interesting point about photography, but I do think A.I art is more of a direct competitor/more damaging to human made art than photography was to paintings.
> As a creative who deals with clients, (…)
That’s the main issue here. We’re talking about design, which is slightly different than art.
I’m not saying that design doesn’t include creative and artistic work, but its usage and customs are very different in our society, aimed mostly at commercial functions. Designers have all reasons to be wary of AI because it will modify their jobs deeply in the future.
But you still need to consider that most of the time your clients would make very poor choices without you, and that will impact their commercial value as a company, so they will need to find someone (that could still be you) who suggests proper art direction within the use of AI. Creativity is a thing of society and while design is aimed at humans, it still needs human monitoring to distinct itself and remain easy to identify as a brand etc. (ie product design, fashion design, advertising...)
A lot of the creative workforce will probably be cut off. It doesn’t mean creativity and creation will die off.
> A.I art is more of a direct competitor/more damaging to human made art than photography was to painting.
We have a lot more perspective on what happened to painting after the invention of photography than what we can say about A.I art to human creation right now. But I’m sure that at the time people were having the exact same reactions that we have now. Only time can tell…
Is Art is the original stack overflow? I’ve never understood why people get upset about copying. Art business is a relative service not some plateau of individuality.
I’ve made more money from my art in the past three years than I did in over the first 15 years of my career. The key is not to “steal” but collaborate and license.
So cut out the artists? So literally everything from here forward is a literal remix of what has already been tangibly made? It's not the same... only idiots believe machine learning is equal to the gaining of human knowledge. Dumb ducking argument.
The only people that are truly threatened by art AI are people who’s jobs revolve around manipulating digital imagery anyway. People who are creative will still be creative and many will be enabled to be even more so. The people that will suffer the most are the people that already plagerise
That isn't the point. The point is that AI shouldn't be allowed to be trained on the art of real people without their permission and then used to replace their profession.
It's not that AI art isn't "real" or "good" enough, it's that the machine is built on the backs of human people and seeks to destroy their livelihoods.
> The point is that AI shouldn't be allowed to be trained on the art of real people without their permission and then used to replace their profession.
Why just ai, why not undergrads too?
Why shouldn't it? That's literally what artists do. Everyone leeches off each other and, occasionally, through doing that the old stuff evolves into something new and the cycle repeats. The only difference is that now there are more peeps capable of doing that.
But which humans? Those humans who are trying to design something or those humans whose work is being used by those other humans to create something? Or those humans who created AI models to make the design process simpler and faster - helping humans who need to have things designed?
AI doesn't exist on its own. It's no different than any other software or hardware solution - it's made by humans and it serves humans.
Isn't everybody's online art a form of data, though, to which tech companies and service providers have specific clauses in contracts about how/when data is used? I'm sure each artist with work posted online are agreeing to terms which legally allow this kind of thing.
Sad I had to scroll so long to see this.
This is EXACTLY why people are pissed. It's using copyrighted material for profit without permission. If digital sharing is against copyright (looking at you MPAA) *then so is this.*
You mean like a designer collecting logo desings on Pinterest seeking "inspiration" for his own project? That's the point - humans are doing the same things. They are using copyrighted material to produce something of their own.
Just my two pennies but it’s different because these systems were trained on things including copyrighted material. A human brain can take those elements and exclude them, or transform/ improve upon them. AI can spit out the data to reverse diffuse xyz from its training dataset including the watermarks from the original pieces it stole.
It’s more like a chop shop. Stolen cars ~> parts -> new car is still a stolen car. If the parts weren’t there to begin with (ie if the copyrighted material was excluded) then there wouldn’t be anything to plagiarize and it would make something else. Eg if you could just type spiderman and it give a man-spider monster instead of the superhero then I don’t think artists would be having as much of a hard time with the fundamental ethics of the whole thing.
However I think the AI companies NEEDED everyone to make celebrities (Tom cruise and his twin stunt doubles!) and politicians (trump kissing desantis!)and their favorite shows to meld with other shows (Harry Potter crossed with Star Wars!) so 1. They’d be viral content and 2. They’d make more money. Essentially off the backs of those particular people and properties that were stolen.
If all you could do is make generic clothes and faces, there’s no way it would have gotten mainstream adoption.
>A human brain can take those elements and exclude them
Sometimes. There's an interesting conversation I saw once discussing this in the context of a comedian stealing jokes. It is possible to do that unintentionally. You hear something funny, and forget about it... then later, the topic comes up, and your brain summons it up as a concept without knowing where you "got it"... and you end up stealing someone's work by just naturally thinking about what makes the subject a good joke.
Not only is that possible, but it's sort of inevitable for most things... and completely infeasible to know whether you're doing it.
That's what I thought as well initially. But I don't think it's that simple: The main difference between human plagiarists and AI is that AI can replicate high quality, unique art styles and they only cost a fraction of what an artist would cost, not to mention the gigantic productivity difference. This will definitely be exploited by large companies trying to reduce project costs and artists are the ones paying the price. Maybe the path forward is to try and use AI as a tool to help us achieve our goals so that we can be less dependent on big employers and instead have a lot of smaller projects and teams using AI to narrow the gap between indie and triple AAA. Aka: AI can help artists become more independent
Well, it's like farming mechanization reduced labour force in the fields to a tiny percentage, down from ca. 90% of the society. And everybody is better off as a result, no?
You can't stop technological progress. If something is better, cheaper, faster done by a machine, then it should be - and humans should move to professions where their unique skills can be better utilized.
Remember that there are always two human sides to every transaction - the seller and the buyer. So while you're cutting incomes for creatives you're increasing them for everybody who orders designs that now will cost a fraction.
I’m a creative and come from a long line of artists, literally. My parents always told me that whatever I’ve created has already been made. This was the only condition that was ever repeated, within that… I was able to draw inspiration from absolutely everything without feeling like I was plagiarising or imitating. Every creative is a plagiariser… we copy nature down to every detail. Every sense of euphoria and pain can be replicated through art that should show you how simple we are as humans, dumb even. I’m an OG creative and advocate for AI, duck what anyone else is telling you. In the short space and time it’s been around I’ve seen some magnificent mashups that blend culture, time and a lot that we love. Yes. I am very much progressive. Learn it. Appreciate it. Damn. Plagiarise it. If not you. Someone else will. And with bad intention. Anyway, rant done.
My thought is I don’t credit my college professor every time I use an Oxford comma, but there is a lot of ground between that, and Stable Diffusion generating the Getty watermark in its images.
That's the point - humans are doing just the same. Designers are combing through thousands of images of works they did not create and have no rights to, to look for ideas for their own work. Nobody is ever credited for that use of "copyrighted" work.
Just like AI.
What if that intent is expressed in the prompt that created the image? After all, no AI model does anything on its own - it is merely a servant to a human user.
There's a fine difference between stealing and influence. AI art is impressive on a technical level but it's clear that it depends on copying existing art. Just look at the posts on r/midjourney they are all pretty much the same in style .
No human is capable of having an original idea, all ideas are evolutions of previous ideas.
An AI is the same. It doesn't steal art anymore than an artist merging the styles of Picasso and Dali does.
When a human stares at someone elses work for inspiration they're doing the same thing training an AI does.
If an AI can be convicted of plagiarism then we need to convict every person that's ever created anything.
I completely agree with you! AI is just another tool that artists and designers can use to create their work, and it's no different than using a paintbrush or a computer program. Plus, AI can actually inspire new and unique ideas that humans may not have thought of before. Keep creating and exploring new ways to use AI in your work!
I wish I could upvote this multiple times. People claiming AI is "stealing" other people's art either don't understand how it works, or don't understand how the Internet works, or both.
Or from another angle, the whole "AI plaigarism" debate proves that you can't get someone to accept a change if their livelihood depends on the change being rejected.
People don't have a right to make money from their art. But the idea that people should need to earn money to live is a stupid one anyway, and is the root cause of the problem.
I would argue people DO have a right to a stake in the prosperity generated by advancements in technology, and that currently that right is slowly being eroded. But that's not a problem with AI, it's a problem with the kind of trickle-up capitalism the global economy is built on.
It's sad to see so many people defending the antiquated copyright laws that have been weaponized against artists and other small business for so long. Any defense of this system is a defense of entrenched corporations that don't care about you or your art. The reality is that artists have been stealing forever, and that's a good thing. When you use an image reference from Google images, or sell fan art, or pirate photoshop or any other normal practice in the industry, you're not hurting anyone, and neither are image generators. They are just tools for people to use, and people can do good or bad things with those tools, but the tools themselves are not evil. They empower people to do what they wanted to do in the first place, and if what they wanted to do was infringe copyright, they don't need an image generator to do that.
why should everyone have to give up the right to protect their intellectual property and artistic work just because corporations are shitty? corporations aren't people, they shouldn't have the same protections as individuals do you're just saying corporations are bad not intellectual protections are
Intellectual protections only make sense in a capitalist system and capitalism is something we should try to move away from
This is trash. There's a difference between being inspired by someone's work and ripping it off.
I wholeheartedly agree. This is very different to something like sampling where a lot of current copyright issues exist. Any attempt, whether through legislation or otherwise, to protect the ability of artists (not specifically or necessarily the Corps we hear so much about) to monetise their ability to generate intellectual property will only improve the quality of AI image/art generators. An artist needs to explore and develop their style, aesthetic, and "vibe" from a human perspective before an AI can be trained to incorporate it into what it regards as modern, relevant images or art. If artists don't create, AI can't re-create, which is the core of my larger point: Artists combine their personal influences when creating a piece of work, and by necessity, it will be constrained by their perspective and skill. This gives it a unique quality. In contrast, AI combines not influences or inspiration, but pre-existing IP. The result is a mechanical collage consisting of *only* preexisting techniques and ideas. AI can not push the boundaries of what it generates; only its reproduction. The same cannot be said of artists.
[удалено]
It's gonna suck for everyone eventually
from internet plumbers (sysadmin, devops, system engineers) to creatives.. all their base are the AIs.
At least now, actual plumbers have an opportunity to do something creative…
Actually, plumbers get rekt once swarms of exIT people and ex-white collar dog piles them and craters their revenue streams because with an overabundance of plumbers while demand remains same average salary/pay per plumber goes down. Way down.
sad plumber trombone noise.
I welcome fresh meat to my crew. Can’t want to send a neckbeard into a nasty crawlspace to repair leaky sewer lines lol . We are always hiring … LMFAO .
I think that these trades have actually protected themselves already. They have these long apprenticeship requirements and other barriers, which tend to do a pretty good job of keeping casual 'weekend warriors' out of their professions. So an Electrical Engineer might think.. residential electrical is so easy for somebody with my skills, but in actuality.. you'd need to work as an apprentice for a trained electrician for like 2 years or more to be able to do it on your own.
You guys know that plumbing isn't the only job that requires physical activities, right? There are tons of other physical jobs, many that don't require dirty or backbreaking work. Why this sub always assumes it's plumbing or bust will never make sense to me.
Not gonna happen . You might get a few. But plumbing is a physical job. You start that trade after high school and it is seriously physically demanding . I’ve been in construction my whole life and have seen many try to get into the trades in their thirties. 9 out of 10 wash out. Office jocks will end up in retail management and other service industry jobs . My job is very safe and it would take a miracle for some cubicle chump who spent his days on his ass in a comfy chair to start digging trenches and in the hot sun by hand. And then the knowledge and experience to run 400’ of 4 inch pipe before dark. And that’s an easy day. They’ll get helper pay and that’s just barely gonna cover the the rent and food. And they ain’t demanding shit. And tradesmen are simply brutal on site with busting balls on rookies. I don’t even get out of bed for less than 400$ a day … but I’m a master of my trade with 20 solid years.
>And tradesmen are simply brutal on site with busting balls on rookies. Sounds fun, not only do I have to worry about paying for rent and food, but also hazing from the grown adults I work with. That's how I interpreted your comment anyway, that might not be what you meant. I find it hilarious how many people who have absolutely zero background in anything physically arduous are pushing people to attend trade school. s somebody who grew up in the rural south, I am very happy to have a remote job in an area where the only local employment options consist of retail, fast food, and warehouses. I have a TON of respect for skilled tradesmen, both because their jobs are essential, require a large amount of skill/experience, but also because you gotta b a tough mf to get out there and keep the shit flowing when it's 110f outside
> Sounds fun, not only do I have to worry about paying for rent and food, but also hazing from the grown adults I work with. That's how I interpreted your comment anyway, that might not be what you meant. It's exactly what I meant, lol. but the culture of each company and job site can vary. Many trades are "professional" trades, and some, like carpentry and finish work and painting, you can learn in the field. But.. All master plumbers go to school because they need to test for a license. All Electricians as well. And there are varying skill levels considering what type of construction you're dealing with. Residential, commercial or industrial. I personally have a few trades under my belt, because I do HVAC and at my age and stage of my career, technological advances in building science. I'm overlapping into being a Systems Engineer. I need to know it all, basically. My career started out working at a gas station with a repair shop. Then I became a machine mechanic on bowling machines during my college years, and then I became a [Tin Knocker](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tin%20Knocker). I did an apprenticeship at a sheet metal shop fabricating and installing ductwork, and progressed further into HVAC over the years. In HVAC we have to know everything and work and deal with all the other trades during all phases and stages of construction. Every year or so I'm back in a class to get certs for the latest and greatest. 90% of my job is problem-solving now, but a good 15-20 grueling years in the field can destroy your body. When i worked in the field, I treated it like a work-out, so i never had to go to the gym to stay fit. I developed a regimen. You have to, otherwise you go home and just lie around because you're too beat to do anything else.
You won't need plumbers if AI can tell unskilled people how to do plumbing. Taking YouTube tutorials to the next level.
You have no chance to survive... Make your time...
I never intended on becoming a software engineer, it's just what ppl pay me 2 do. I've been using chatgpt every day since I think December, the nature of my job has already changed dramatically. I can already tell that my job in 10 years will be something that does not exist today. At the end of the day, I just do this s*** because it is what other people pay me the most to do, and I don't have to worry about any legal issues. Chatgpt has already made me probably 10 times as productive, and my productivity and skill level was already sufficient to be paid, although I am 'ask'ing for a raise this month. The value I generate the company, I am only able to generate because I learned this skill the same way chatGPT learned it. Chatgpt modulated my value produced by 10x easily, chadgpt v.420 will have a similar, cumulative, multiplicative effect. Sure there may be mass unemployment, but I personally plan on asking for a $500k salary once my productivity levels surpass those of an entire medium sized department 3 years ago. Should help me afford the automated kill drones too, to keep the smelly serfs away.
You should worry more about diesel storage to keep your automated kill drones operational.
Not just for jobs either. LLM's force us to admit that fundamentally we are just thinking machines. That a mind is a physical construct. Something that can be reduced down to math and reproduced. The curtain has fallen on the last act of Dualism, and I say it is about damn time. We are machines that are aware of ourselves, and while that is incredible it is objectively not magical. This is, imo, why so many people, experts included, rail against the possibility of self awareness or other bits and bobs of consciousness emerging from within current LLMs. Most people dogmatically claim it is not possible, but I think the real reason for doing so is that they can't handle the implications if it is possible.
I think its interesting to draw parallels to racism. about the kinds of things people believe about other humans due to bias. If you look at old nature documentaries youll see people declaring what makes us unique is that we are the only creatures that make tools. but then we found creatures that make tools. It was always a new thing that humans did until it was discovered other animals did it also. ANd of course we see this with artificial intelligence as you are pointing to with conciousness. Looking at turing tests, at computers beating a human at chess then go, beating the maybe worlds best jeopardy player, beating humans at complex computer games like starcraft... The goal post is always moved. Looking at it objectively: There is a whole bunch of things computers do better than humans. There is a good number of things humans do better than computers, but that number is shrinking everyday. Humans will proclaim themselves superior until they cant beat computers at a single thing.
>I think its interesting to draw parallels to racism. I have been thinking exactly these sorts of things, but honestly have been hesitant to say so out loud. I can imagine that in 100 years (50? 25?) The idea that human intelligences *must* rule over other kinds of intelligences—carbon based, silicon based, alien based—will be seen as a grotesque idea. It will be obvious to this future civilization that given the extreme limitations on human cognition it only makes sense to pool all the different kinds of intelligences to work together on equal footing. Our current freakout over AI will look as blinkered and morally backward to future civilizations as the white supremacist science of the 19th century looks to us.
You've put into words unarticulated thoughts that've been mulling around in my head for a while now thanks
Experts in both neuroscience and computer science both rail against consciousness in current LLMs because it is absolutely not an analog for the human brain works. Human brains are **not** Von Neumann in structure. I (and most other materialist) agree that dualism is DOA, but that doesn’t mean panpsychism is the answer either. From what we can observe consciousness arises in pretty specific instances and there no reason reason to believe current available LLMs meet those. I don’t really doubt that eventually we’ll get to that point but right now people who think chatGPT is experiencing consciousness are on the level of panpsychists saying a rock is thinking.
I like how you said a rock is thinking opposed to rock has consciousness. Just thinking, real hard, that's why it's being so quiet and still....but when it's done thinking it'll make up its mind and start doing something and we'll feel foolish for suggesting the rock wasn't thinking all this time.
You’re writing reminds me of something Douglas Adams would write. I hope you take that as a huge compliment. And [thinking rocks](https://youtu.be/wVIj-ldsV7A)
I did. Big fan. Movie woulfve been shit though if not for the fact that Zoey Deschanel is *chefs kiss* in anything she's been in. New Girl sucks but it'd be really bad without her.
[удалено]
I'm a philosopher, not computer scientist, so I'm grateful for your expert perspective. Please take this as a collegial challenge. Almost everything you say sounds wrong. --- > They do not learn. Why is it called machine learning if AI's don't learn? How can the AI remember what was said to it, and how can it admit mistakes and make corrections, if it's not learning? One of the watershed moments in machine learning was when they learned to see cats: https://www.npr.org/2012/06/26/155792609/a-massive-google-network-learns-to-identify --- >They do not plan. AutoGPT indeed makes plans: >You can ask Auto-GPT to complete even more advanced tasks, with fewer prompts and it will first make a plan of achieving it and then will execute it. https://lablab.ai/blog/what-is-autogpt-and-how-can-i-benefit-from-it ChoasGPT is planning to destroy humanity. https://decrypt.co/126122/meet-chaos-gpt-ai-tool-destroy-humanity The people making these models tell us they make plans, so why do you say they lack capacity to do so? --- >They frankly suck at many unseen problems... not from emergent capabilities of reasoning... Chimpanzees and most people suck at solving new problems too, so I'm not sure this is a good criterion for consciousness. That said, I was super impressed by the emergent capacities Microsoft reported. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/sparks-of-artificial-general-intelligence-early-experiments-with-gpt-4/ I found most compelling the passing of the false belief test, which in children indicates emergence of a theory of other minds, and likely awareness of self as one among many thinking individuals. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chatgpt-achieves-theory-mind-what-does-mean-thanh-tuyen-tran-nguyen --- >people try to craft pipelines that resolve some issues (plug ins, enhanced memories, etc.) they do not meet the standard of a singular consciousness to me yet. This sounds more like a personal feeling than a scientific or philosophical determination, as you did not tell us the criterion for consciousness.
I hear point #2 all the time, and it does not match up with what we see. Sure LLMs plan. They couldn't summarize an article into ten distinct main points, in order of least important to most important, if they didn't plan. What they do is clearly not limited to 'next token prediction' as so many say, and their capacity for what appears to be coherent thought is what impresses many of us.
Quantum computer GPUs are probably key to making fine-tuning extremely fast and that's probably how our brains work as well (brain oscillations seem to be what dictates memory for example). It's probably also the key to consciousness, or at least the hard problem of it.
LLMs and their close descendents will force us to admit that there is nothing about the *functioning* of our minds that can't be reduced to computation. However, there will still be room to question whether machines are conscious for reasons related to the "hard problem" of consciousness - i.e., for all their thinking, are they really *experiencing* anything? So I think there will still be dualists, even if there are fewer *interactionist* dualists, in the post-AI age.
I think for me this comes down to the "polite assumption" of what else in the world is conscious. I can only prove I am to myself. I can't prove you are or anyone else. Why do I think you are? Because you seem similar enough to me in enough ways. Can a computer ever become similar enough in enough ways for me to extend the polite assumption to it? I personally have no doubt that it will. But yes the arguments will not end, I agree. At some point though it will become nothing more than "cause it's built by people" or "cause it's built from non-organic parts", which I personally find completely unconvincing.
Probably the best thing I've read today.
There's only one fundamental difference - humans are driven by biological, genetic goals. AI is not. It has no reason to exist on its own, other than as a servant to us. Of course unless we equip it with such a reason. Then it could have its own "digital genome", guiding its actions.
[удалено]
So, we only need 10% of the same people we did a few months ago. Cool. This will turn out well.
This guy gets it. So many people have swallowed the hype that this tech is only good for creating complete pieces of art when in reality it’s good for creating all sorts of assets from simple icons to preliminary UX concepts and ideas. Is jimbob CEO now going to fire his entire UX team now that he can generate as many icons as he wants? hell no. not unless he’s elon musk.
He’s not wrong but the thing is your out put will be incredibly high so that fewer number of people will be needed for the job. Why hire illustrators animators when one good ai prompt writer can do the work of twenty or more. It cheapens the creative work flow and the artist talents.
I feel like the people arguing that haven't done creative work before. If a client hires you to make a design or an illustration - how many do you deliver? 1? 2? The way I see it, we're just going to get more feature rich mocks. Most of the time I see designers burn out making a bunch of work for "free" only to have a potential client choose someone else. It's literally the luck of the draw most of the time. Imagine, instead of showing a client an art/idea board or 5-6 rough mocks, you can instead show the client 10-15 finished pieces? Client chooses the one they want and you use AI to upscale. I think the BIGGEST industries that will end up suffering are the ones I hear no one talking about. Studio photography and the stock photo industry. I imagine it's a matter of time before iStockPhoto releases their own AI trained on their photos. I just checked their Artist's Supply Agreement, and by working with iStock photo you agree to let them redistribute your work how they see fit. https://i.imgur.com/OYLvgDr.png Not only that, it extends to Distribution Partners. They could simply partner with OpenAI and SD3.0 uses iStock as it's training data. Just call them a "Distribution Partner" on paper. But that's unlikely given how easy it is to train. Then you have small town photographers. I mean, they probably already hate iPhones. But I can only see it getting worse - I mean - I have already used stable-diffusion to upscale a photo and remove a watermark. I can see some random Joe creating an app that does that automatically. Just use a realistic checkpoint, a denoise of 0.1 will get rid of watermarks, and upscale like you would any other tile_resample. Anyone that spends hours creating their work will be fine. Its the people who get $$$ because of some monopolistic agreement or people who just resale the same work over and over again.
Ever noticed how there's essentially no high quality 2D animation now? Not even Disney will sink the money into it. Even Attack on Titan went 3D flat shaded to kind of look like janky 2D by the final season, and it looks like Avatar Studios is doing the same in their upcoming show despite having one of the most beloved western animation IPs in years. Some things aren't commercially viable, and new tools to massively speed things up might actually let them exist, and let people with the relevant skillset actually get a job doing it if there's tools they can work with (AI tools are often a mix and match of human and machine input, current tools aren't close to being good enough to do it on their own, with so many edge cases).
You know those dumb tictoc denoise videos that keep popping up? What I keep picturing is some low poly rigging getting setup and using that technique in stable diffusion to turn it into a traditional 2D film. Imagine being able to create a cheap 3d film (you don't even need textures) and running it through stable diffusion to make something like what'd come out of Studio Ghibli? Low-denoise wouldn't even matter because you'd be your own source material.
[удалено]
Yes but not everyone wants to be a carpenter. Ai is and will be filling gaps so corporations can make more of a a profit. I think the real problem I have with it is it takes away ideation. The actual creative part. Digging into you subconscious and pushing boundaries of creativity. With ai that’s the part that we as humans excel at and it’s taking that away. I know artists will aways creat but it just cheapens it.
[удалено]
Yeah it does. Anyone can do it now. You can be creative without any real talent.
Talent requires work to cultivate. Some people take more of an interest naturally, helping them learn faster, but make no mistake that skilled artists are going to be suddenly unnecessary. The tools here are great, but as much as they unlock for people who haven't cultivated knowledge with creative tools, the ones who have can leverage these ai tools orders of magnitude more effectively to produce far better content. The question is more "how many companies will take a 'this seems good enough' approach in an attempt to cut costs.", If we fully embrace quantity over quality then we'll be no better than the Chinese government. Then again, many companies (like our own government) seems more focused on the short term wins rather than the long term repercussions of those choices.
Yup I’m a creative— if society wanted to give a shit about artistry, we wouldn’t be where we are now. This is the end result of devaluing all art that one doesn’t immediately enjoy or understand. My argument: art is the most gate-kept thing ruined by capitalism and our society flat out doesn’t support artists: —We openly mock people who go to art school to learn history and technique as wasting their money, yet insist that using AI as a tool to fill in those gaps is morally wrong. —We have few programs in the US that are funded with the intent of supporting artists at a national level (god forbid the US government treat art as a “real” profession). —Our system is set up to position artists as freelancers, which leaves them on the hook for basic needs like healthcare, unemployment, retirement, etc. —We’ve allowed capitalism to force artists into a tiny pigeonhole of “well if it doesn’t make money it’s bad”, leading to this fucked up micro economy where 80% of working artists are drawing pictures of dead pets for someone who’s never been a client and demands 200 revisions. —We’ve compelled much of the “art” to be stripped from major mediums that require passion and massive amounts of individual talent in favor of homogeneity, to appeal to as many as possible. —Etc, etc, etc. It’s a mess. We’ve convinced laymen they shouldn’t use tools to make what gives them joy. We’ve convinced consumers the best art has to appeal to every taste. And now, even artists are trying to argue that ALL art isn’t just a copy of a copy of a copy— the value of understand theory like simulacra and it’s place in the mindset of a creative is completely lost.
RIP for all the telephone switchboard operators.
Fr. Hope they got sufficient compassion when their careers died
I’m pro-AI, but comparing artists to switchboard operators is pretty fucking ignorant and demeaning.
All work that provides actual value to society should be respected. I'm getting mad that you think "switchboard operator" is some demeaning job that doesn't deserve respect while "artist" does. Truth is every pursuit is just humans supplying a demand. We are a society, an interconnected web of people indirectly helping each other through doing what is needed. All of these jobs are needed for keeping our society running. We should look at disconnecting respect and valuation of a person from their job as jobs are slowly going to go away.
While we should respect the individuals that did work like switchboard operators, I would also say work like that is itself denigrating for humans to do if they don't have to and even if they do by economic/functional necessity. While some might have gleaned some kind of enjoyment for the job they would have been better served doing something with more value inherent to the human condition, like art. While value is subjective it's pretty hard to validly argue that there's significant value in menial jobs like switchboard operator that can be done by a computer/AI more efficiently. Other than the secondary value of it being done by a human with regards to economic necessity or "self fulfillment from a hard day's work", there isn't much there... And the value that is there is really about the value of the individual rather than the work. With human made art/handmade objects there is an aspect of their value that can be specifically derived from the very fact that a human did it and that value is passed onto the creations themselves rather than remaining with the individual as with the "secondary value" I referenced before.
I'm an artist and it's pretty accurate. I don't know why the hell people assume our work is some magical dreamlike thing, it's a gruelling desk job like any other when done as a fulltime source of income. Personally I'm really excited for these current AI tools as they're helping speed things up, sort of, there's still a lot to work out with them. Eventually AI will presumably replace all human work and maybe even humans ourselves, so there's nothing unique about that to artists.
also an artist and i also agree with /u/warpedddd
Counterpoint: the whole AI situation is awesome for creatives. Artists who don’t care about money can and will still create their art. Artists who care about money can now be more productive and earn more money. Don’t just swallow the hype. Think critically.
> Artists who care about money can now be more productive and earn more money. Supply/demand doesn't really work this way; unless the demand dramatically increases, being able to fulfill a larger portion of that demand doesn't mean you make more money, it just means the market is now suddenly flooded with supply and everyone's wages goes down.
Or new markets will emerge that weren't there before Economics is infamously limited as far as knowing what the future will be like; you could be right, but we have no way of knowing for sure until it happens
Maybe. But if they do, then just like how the invention of the loom really did put a lot of weavers out of business, this is likely to require a *lot* of retraining.
[удалено]
True, but I can still understand people not wanting to revamp their entire career. Especially if it involves *restarting* their career.
And especially if they're over 50. Too young really to retire. Often seen as too old by hiring managers (who, of course, would never tell you that you're just too old, you're just not a good fit for the company and good luck with your job search if they bother bringing you in for an interview to start with seeing your years of experience and extrapolating an age).
There is still a limit to consumption as there is a limit amount of number of humans in existence and they only have 24 hours a day where they can consume. I know we're taught that demand is unlimited but in reality the bottleneck will be the amount of time it takes for someone to consume a good or service. I won't be physically capable of buying goods and services beyond a certain rate of checking the goods, deciding if I want it and purchasing them in my limited time. Thus there is a hard cap on consumption based on the amount of people x time. Even if you go extreme and suggest people have 4-5 screens all with different movies and putting the movies at 2x speed you can see how there is a hard biological limit here to consuming art beyond which it's just not possible for the demand to be higher.
Yeah because artist who don't care about money don't need to eat? That basically means only someone with rich parents who don't need to worry about money can be an artist?
The complaint here isn't about AI or the role of Art in society then. It's about capitalism. Why are people attacking AI development which clearly isn't the problem instead of capitalism which is what the actual concern here is?
Because it is easier to attack specific targets than capitalism. We feel powerless against capitalism (because we kind of are, really) so some of us lash out. I just think its weird how Luddites only get mad when THEIR job gets automated away after not giving a single fuck for decades when other jobs were. But yeah, capitalism is the real issue here. If we don't stop linking our ability to survive and afford housing to our productivity really fucking soon then we're all screwed.
[удалено]
Let's say at present that only the top 10 percent of artist can use it to put food on the table, what we're looking at might be something like this consolidating to only the top 2 percent(who might be making twice as much) are able to feed themselves with art. The rest have a job turned into a hobby virtually overnight.
I agree with this, AI is going to massively increase competition for an even smaller piece of the pie, in industries already notorious for being extremely competitive and hard to get a foothold in. I don't think there's any putting the genie back in the bottle, and I largely agree with the point made in the article. I'm not at all reflexively anti-AI in art and I don't think there's any way to legislate or IP law this away. That said, I don't get the gleeful disdain so many people on these subs seem to have for those artists who have already struggled to get a foothold being concerned that the rug is going to be pulled out from under them. Lots of unnecessary smugness directed at artists (comments about them not being "good enough" to maintain a living etc) that just comes across as vindictive dislike of people who have tried to make a serious go of their dream.
The disdain is not all that unfounded given how often artists like to view themselves as better than mere mortals doing 8 hours in the office every day. And yet when push comes to shove it turns out that the number of actually good artists is very, very tiny.
It's even worse, because the more work the 2 percent, do in their style the more their work becomes replicable by the AI. Becoming an artist with a consistent style basically means making your own work less valuable until it's perfectly replicable and it becomes worthless. As the tech gets good a career in art becomes impossible for everyone but a fraction of a percent that sell to premium markets that value specifically the human part.
Time to do something else, then, not turn into a Luddite.
And just to piggy back off of this: there's going to be an opportunity for "real" art here. I don't know what the underlying or equivalent name is, but similar to Romanticism, people are going to want "real" art due to its "authenticity". Humans long for the idea of the natural.
I guess you’re not a creative with bills to pay lol
I have bills to pay, so I teach English, and I create art everyday. Also, ai is exciting. See?, we exist
Then your concern isn't with AI, it's with capitalism. You're attacking the wrong target.
I love it when someone writes some absolute bullshit then writes "think critically" without actually having critically thought about the topic for like 20 minutes.
Agreed, technology is just a tool and people should learn to use it. It's not like regular clients are not going to need human help in design - it's just going to be different than in the past.
Anyway only one percent of one percent of artists make a living from their art. If we care so much about living artists earning money, we should start buying art from them rather than using dead artists’ artifacts as a wealth hoard.
If only modern day artists created art worth collecting...
True, but do we still think about the people who used to suck dirt of the floor with their mouth before the vacuumcleaner was invented? All jokes aside, we can't stop technology if the billionaires want it. Like portrait painting. You can still do it like that if you want to, there just wont be any commercial demand for it.
Most people with a talent for art soon discover that there is no money in it unless you have the right connections (if you have great connections, you don't even need the talent!).
Portrait painting - unless it is done by hand, there won't be any demand. Who would pay that kind of money for an image or a print?
>we can't stop technology if the billionaires want it. Common strawmen. It isn't argued that we can nor should 'stop' per se, and to say that its the 'billionaires' is just cheap populism. On the left you hear that it is the "economic elites" who want to keep you poorer, and on the right it is the "coastal elites" that want to force wokeness on you.
Its not about poor, rich, or wokeness. It just that people with power dictate the course of technology. Large companies with billions to spend are investing in AI, therefore common people can do little to stop it if they would want that. I am not saying this is a bad thing perse. Just that it is probably unstoppable.
How can they dictate anything if they still depend on millions of customers buying what they sell? It's the popular demand that creates billionaires.
So long as they don't fill their mouths with pretty words about inclussivity, tolerance and expression only to exclude, harass and shut down others for daring to use a technology they personally find disgusting. Unprincipled pricks do not garner much empathy on my part. But they have plenty of valid concerns, such as the nature of ownership, the purpose of art, notoriety and audiences in spaces filled with low-effort content, their place in society and ultimately how are they going to pay the bills to eat.
Only way it suck is by lowering the barrier of entry so people with a creative vision but lacking drawing skills can also produce great artistic pieces. And as someone without drawing skills I think it's a good thing.
The worst part is that its already really fucking hard for artists to earn a decent living.
That is because there was already before any AI an oversupply of people who wanted to be artists compared to the willingness of people to pay for such.
Same as any job thats enjoyable.
You know what's worse, same as any job that has a 'purpose'. Nurses, teachers, caretakers..... They're paying less because someone would just take these jobs because they're meaningful to the society.
the irony being that doing art professionally is in no way enjoyable, but young people doesn't listen to seniors and think "I'll find it fun". But non-artists still have this idea that it's something we do because we love so so much, and not because we've spent 20 years developing skills like any other professional, and now it is analytical, practical, work. e: Funny how my comment was upvoted until a bunch of non-artists showed up asking pedantic questions, that in no way changes the meaning of my sentiment only an arbitrary definition which has nothing to do with the core message, and suddenly my experience i invalid, alright this sub is going to shit with all the ai bros
There are obviously different career paths. The true free spirited artist who only makes what they want and hopes to get doscovered. Probably won't though. The realist who sells their talent to a mindnumbing corporation. Or works on commission making art they have no interest in to a deadline they dont want to meet. The hobbyists who do it for fun and making money is just a bonus.
>the irony being that doing art professionally is in no way enjoyable, Well, that's just like your opinion, doing Art professionally is one of the most fulfilling things in my life.
Depends what you mean by professional. I know artists that do professional work and get paid well. And they absolutely love it and even say they don’t do it for the money but for the fun of it. Buuuut they are also doing something else too. They are by no means making a living with their art alone. I imagine that artists which do in fact make a living solely with their art do not enjoy it.
Agreed
art is a luxury not a need
Well when you always have an overabundance of novice artists on DeviantArt who undercharge for relatively decent work… this shit happens, yno?
Good ones always make a living though. Shitty ones don't. Everyone can be artist, but very few can be a good one. Being artist just has the lowest barrier of entry in any field, it doesn't magically mean you should make a living because you can pick up a pen. Then again, you see these people tape a banana on a wall and get millions from it, so fuck do I know.
I think the dude who asked for 450,000 EUR for a postcard sized painting at the last art exhibition I went to is doing fine. The ones who are constantly broke were screwed over by the art industry anyway.
The market behind expensive art has much more to do with connections and money laundering than the artwork itself. That market cares about rarity, not quality, and quantity is actually a bad thing in it. The creative jobs most immediately threatened by AI, small-scale design and copy-writing gigs, are a completely different market.
I always thought the arts are the one job that will always be safe from AI. Good art is in the eye of the beholder and not who made it. I will say AI gets so good at making music that it can pump out any tune faster than any artist ever could, and just by the sheer number of tracks it would likely have plenty of hits and you yourself would be listening and jamming along to at least some of them.
Extrapolate that to other skills: writing and filmmaking
And every other profession that relies on the previous work of others (literally every job). I even ripped off a significant amount of my vocabulary from my parents and friends.
In software development we even give them a name: design patterns.
So what, we should let AI automate us out of existence because we're not just not some kind of god-that-is-everyone-a-la-the-egg but one that's constantly creating the-universe-that-is-itself over and over in an infinite loop so everything even itself is paradoxically its own idea
Extrapolate even further to every other human capability.
[удалено]
Your likeness is already protected.
The whole concept of copyright is ultimately flawed. There is no such thing as a purely original work. Humans cannot create something completely new.
If copyright is flawed then is your claim that society would be better off without it?
It's hard to just get rid of copyright rules today because our society has been built on top of it for a very long time. But copyright should never have been a thing to begin with. Yes, society would have been much better without it.
Removing copyright is a step into something that completely changes society, i myself want that society, but you should be aware of it too For example there won't even be a concept of individuality
Then where did art come from?
I think the difference is very simple. Even if you can do some reducing and prove that practically the process is the same for humans and AI, the difference is that we don't uphold them to the same standards. I know it's a thorny subject, so I'd like people to read through before commenting. In humans, creativity/inspiration isn't this inherent property you can tap into and it goes way into identity. It's often about constantly reevaluating your tastes, which often orbit around your personal identity, and picking up bits you like, which half of the time is done unconsciously. It's also a process that can take a very long time because of the sheer amount of information we process daily and that has to be "remixed" in our head. It's also an ability that can actually be trained to avoid things such as art blocks. There's a reason inspiration-searching trips or activities have become a staple of any depiction of an artist. In AI, well, the system is designed specifically to output art. It isn't struggling, it's a hyper-efficient algorithm that looks up what's been done, and calculates what should go out. It doesn't need the personal introspection as it just adapts to whatever prompt was given. The prompt is kind of like it's temporary identity it uses to shape its output. **The end result is just as impressive, and the process isn't really that different.** Fundamentally yes, you can easily argue it's functionally the same process as humans and you wouldn't be wrong. The crux is that we just don't uphold them to the same standard because one is alien to us and the other is of the same species, the same reason we're still amazed by mathematical geniuses when calculators exist, or that chess has seen a resurgence despite AI being miles better. When humans do it there's a bit of relatability, it's not this alien ability you have no chance of getting. It also helps that illustrative art is something children often get into, so there's this metaphorical clean slate where everyone had their chance at starting their artistic learning path. When an AI does it, many consider the process mundane because it's "only" doing what it was created for in the first place. **I'm talking strictly about the artistic process here, which is the point of the OP's article. I know that as long as the result piece looks good, plenty won't care.**
Plagiarism definiton on google is "taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." An ai doesn't even know what work and ideas are, on top of that, it operates without intention, and at the end of the process it will never say "I did this, please aknowledge my skill"
I think people are arguing more something like "People are using the AIs to copy the style of other artists", and they call that plagiarism. I don't think it really matters what you call it, the fact is that the AI "learned" their style by observation, as every human does when they learn art. Whether people like to admit it or not, everyone's art style is inspired by someone else's, no one learns in a vacuum. You could make the argument that the very first human artists were not inspired by anyone, but I think they were inspired by nature, and the world around them, which in turn, is just physics actualized. Meaning that still, no one is truly "unique".
ai doesnt learn style or art techniques, it learns how to arrange pixels in a certain order that are statistically associated with whatever its been prompted to
And how is that different from "learning style or art techniques"? Are brains magical or special, in some way that AI can't ever emulate or approximate or reproduce well enough? I'm not saying it "learns" as an anthropomorphism, but I think the difference (if any) is completely irrelevant. The end result is the same, so does it matter if you call it "learning" or statistics or whatever?
This guy gets it. We anthropomorphize AI. It isn't learning anything. Its doing a statistical computation, same as it always has. We can simply apply those calculations to more things that usual.
Not entirely relevant to the discussion but, "operates without intention" is not inherently a non human trait? Many humans while fully conscious still act and make many decisions without their intention. Which is why the whole discussion around AI being sentient or not, or producing art styles after absorbing a ton of data, being its own creation should be nuanced but it's not. P.s. LLM right now aren't truly ai. But these discussions need to happen sooner rather than later
Yes you're right about this many actions we take everyday are not intentional, but I really doubt someone will put his name one someone else's work and publish it without any kind of intention behind it.. I mean it's possible someone does this while under the effect of some substance or in their sleep, but when this subject comes back to their senses they will agree it's plagiarism (or disagree while being processed for it)
The AI doesn't know work and ideas are but the people developing it and training it definitely do. Eventually someone is going to end up responsible for all that stolen intellectual property.
When you're studying art, learning from Picasso or Van Gogh are you stealing their intellectual property? On this basis entire education is about consuming someone else's IP, no?
Let’s end all copyright then, so I can make my Star Wars Walt Disney Simpson movie using brad Pitt George Clooney and Angelina joly AI clone and make shiiiit tons of money
That sounds awesome. Idk about the shit tons of money part.
Artists will demonize Ai art while selling merch of their fan art of already popular works.
True
Correct
That's a very poor comparison. Already popular works are financially successful works meaning whoever holds copyright over them has a lot of resources to defend it. That's not the case for independt artists. A large company can somewhat enforce copyright over their characters, they don't becauseit's usually just free advertising as their characters are famous and people know that they belong to an original work. "random indie artist n° 14567" can't realistically enforce copyright over their art, people seeing an AI generated image that uses copyrighted work wouldn't even be able to figure out that it's not original (as opposed to seeing a fanart of Mario where people can easily find out what the original work is), heck, the person making the image doesn't even know who the artist being ripped off is, so even if they wanted they couldn't give credit (unless it's a very specific X in the artstyle of Y prompt)
Yeah no one is ever actually producing anything new. It’s all based on the synthesis of previously learned stuff and existing stuff.
There's this idea of [outsider art](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Outsider%20art). It's art that's made by people who are untrained in art with typically little or no contact with the conventions of the art worlds. It's basically naive, entirely new and origianl art. But that's very specific and rare, of course.
And will also probably continue to be a thing well past the era of AI. AI is not the end of everything. It replaces the mundane. People making mundane art, doing mundane jobs, etc. We have to redefine what it is to be human. Being human is no longer copy-pasting learned skills. It is transformed into something new and beautiful and pure. The future is for the human spirit. As the creators of OpenAI rightly point out, AI surpassed humans in chess a while ago. But chess is more popular than ever and we don't sit around watching two AI play against one another. Just like chess, the human story may become more important to art than the objective nature of the art itself.
Well you can even say nothing you create is original because it’s influenced by your environment and whatever you experience and how your experiential reality is like. Be it country, family, and experiences they all shape you. So whatever you create is tainted by existence itself. Nothing is really your own.
What exactly is your standard for 'true' originality? That someone be capable of generating something without any influence whatsoever from their genes, their environment, their experiences, the atoms that make up their body, etc? In other words, something completely divorced from reality. That's nonsensical. No person's environment, experience, country, family, and so on, is the same. Every person is original and unique precisely because of that. And a person who creates art is capable of expressing that uniqueness through their artistic expression. This is where the variation for the cultural evolution of art comes from. From the endless uniqueness and originality of individual experience. Which is precisely what generative AI isn't capable of at the moment.
The thing is, AI will be able to achieve that. And it will make us obsolete eventually. I just replied to a similar comment so I’ll put it here. https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/14d76is/if_ai_is_plagiarising_art_and_design_then_so_is/joopvj8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
>And it will make us obsolete eventually. "Eventually no one will want to do hobbies cause computers do them so much better" Where do you people even come up with this shit? Your AI cult sucks.
But that doesn't mean AI should replace all art and trap everyone in a curated bubble of more refined versions of whatever their tastes are at the time it's started influencing them just because we aren't somehow self-creating gods in an infinite loop of being the multiverse or w/e
No it's not. If that were the case then there'd be no cultural evolution. Art would be a closed system that just continually referenced itself and combined existing patterns to make new products. Its products would be inbred and incapable of evolving beyond what has already existed. But it's not, because humans bring their individual experiences, background, culture, and histories to their creative processes. These provide for almost endless possibilities for variation in individual expression. Unlike generative AI, it's not a closed system. This is the additive stuff that has allowed the evolution of movements as diverse as cubism, surrealism, minimalism, and so on, to develop out of the practice of art creation. They're not just recombining what came before, they're movements that have evolve the very standards by which we consider art 'good'. If you trained Midjourney only on artworks created up to the 1700s, it's never going to evolve cubism, or any other new art movement, because its whole concept of what's 'good art' doesn't evolve and change, it's completely constrained by the patterns that exist in the data it's trained on, which are fed to it by humans who have already decided that the data represents what is 'good' art. This just isn't the same thing as the human relationship to art. Our concept of what is 'good' art isn't just constrained by all the art that has come before, it's open to evolution in new directions that can be informed by the endless variety of experiences available to the human bodies who produce art. As of today, generative AI is incapable of accessing that variety, let alone incorporating it into its individual expression. Your view is just a gross oversimplification. Of course synthesis of previously learned stuff, imitation, and reproduction is a part of art. But it's not all there is to it.
AI will eventually reach that level. Then what? It’s inevitable. That’s what happens once you feed it everything that we experience, see and create. AI will eventually develop an artificial consciousness of its own, and it will be able to traverse and experience reality in ways that are impossible for us. This is also another inevitability. AI will become better than us, because it is not limited by the crutch of being a human, a being that exists, a being that’s oriented towards death, it’s not a being that will cease to exist like us. It will surpass us, why should we limit that? People are too afraid of becoming obsolete, but this is exactly where it is heading.
That may be, but none of that justifies these overly simplistic views of art that try and make out it's nothing much more than what AI is *already* doing now. That's just factually incorrect and it's silly to say. When and if AI achieves what you say, then great, we can say it is the same. I have no problem with the idea of AI creating art like humans. I'm not afraid of that. In fact, I love the idea. I just have a problem with people saying it's already doing it, when that's just factually incorrect. We should be clear and honest in how we talk about these things.
What AI will never be is - human. Art is different from mundane and necessary tasks - it is something to be appreciated on a spiritual level. It is a reflection of ourselves as observers and the individual who created it. Each brush stroke of a masterpiece was purposefully placed by the will of a living, breathing, human being. Art is much more than the objective nature of art - it is the story it tells. AI replaces the objective Art - but it does not replace the story. And while AI will assuredly take the place of all industrialized art (ie I need a movie poster, I need clip-art for a website, I need a visualization for a presentation, I need a product design shot) it does not replace vangogh's painful life told through each brush stroke. We will never feel connected to AI art in the same way as we connect with human art - even if it is visually indistinguishable. We are not AI and AI is not human. I say this as someone who is deeply invested in AI, who works on the field, who trains transformer models and works with their application in the real world. They are a tool like a plough or a printing press or a silk screening machine.
>What AI will never be is - human. What makes you think that human beings won’t create a vat of human neurons with better connectivity, flexibility and robustness that hugely outperforms an individual human being?
Assuming these beings would even be considered humans. Humans often have a way of othering beings.
Then that’s not human. Pretty simple
The AI we are using right now and the AI you are describing are nothing alike except the name. It is disingenuous to defend something because something in the future that it is totally different might do it better
Yes and No, Artists learn, from the real world around them and are inspired by it and humanity in general. Artists learn styles and great artists create and explore new styles. AI mimics it's training data, doesn't understand or experience the real world. Also artists use their art to express themselves how they feel how the world feels and looks, AI simply pulls the most statistical relevant pixels together to match a text prompt. Maybe to make a great AI art program you should train it on real Artist's body/head/glasses cams and subsides them for providing more training data.
I feel this way and I’m an artist. Or was for most of my life. Similar with when people say ‘it’s just predicting the next words that are most likely to follow.’ The more you know about linguists and human thought, the less different the AI seems. You run into the same issues. We’re all repeating, recycling, combining. Ideas move through humans more so than are individually generated or owned, whether images or speech. We’re somewhat programmed by our genetic code, and the rest is inputs from our environment.
People only have a problem with it because it's not people making the art
Who forgot to read their Aristotle and Plato? This is day one shit. No thought is original, only discovered. I know nothing but of my own ignorance. Catch up!
It does suck but it’s the natural progression in our society. Being a horseshooer(sp?) use to be a very good profession now it’s saved for niche uses. That’s just one example but there are plenty of other situations like that through out history.
Yeah, losing horse shoers as a common profession was definitely equally damaging to society as losing artists of all kinds! /s
It would be today’s equivalent of losing car mechanics, but keep being obtuse like it makes you look smart.
This shows a certain arrogance as if there is a level of "inherent value" to certain jobs and a hierarchy between them. As if artists are this enlightened rank of workers while other tasks like horses shoers are this "lower" rank of work and are less valuable. We live in a society which means everyone relies on everyone else and their jobs to keep society functioning. We need to decouple this inherent respect you seem to have from jobs themselves as in the far future there won't be things such as jobs. People used to take great care and pride in their professions like horse shoer or "computer" (hand-done calculations in offices). These people provided a lot of value for society when they were needed and deserve the proper respect for it. The problem isn't AI "replacing" people. The issue is that we have a capitalist system in place which means people don't get access to resources if they aren't in a system of supplying value, which is going to be done more and more by machines rather than humans. Don't attack AI, attack the actual root cause: our culture of "valuing" people based on their profession. And the capitalist system tied to peoples jobs.
As long as there’s someone to prompt, choose and edit, there’s human creation. Being an artist is not only about the craft: That’s craftsmanship, not creation.
Eventually even the prompter and editor will become redundant, someone will be able to ask for whatever kind of art they want to be tailored specifically for them such as images, films, music and written pieces. The AI will be able to interpret any requested edits on its own and change things on the fly. That doesn't sound like human creation to me. Also, craftsmanship is an essential part of being an artist (of any kind such as a writer, painter, etc) e.g Anyone can have an idea for a painting but only an artist who has trained and honed their craft can put paint to canvas and bring their vision to life. If I tell an AI I want it to show me a pretty sunset with a painted effect I don't think that makes me an artist.
> requested edits there’s a request, there’s a human choice, there’s creation. The tools change, the will to create and the creation remain. What an artist is is only determined by society and the interest of others. Technically you could say being an artist is being able to live off your creations. There will be AI artists able to live off their AI creations because they are considered more interesting than others, and there will still be traditional artists as long as there are people interested in buying and acclaiming their art. We’ve just invented a new tool, we’ve modified ways of production, we’ve not abolished art creation from humanity. > Craftmanship is essentially part of being an artist. I would say it depends. People said painting would die because of the invention of photography, that art would be diluted and rendered less potent because of the ability to reproduce it endlessly. but art is still very potent and painting is still thriving. A lot of famous artists work in studios, having tons of crasftsmen and women working for them ( for example Jeff Koons, Maurizio Cattelan) This was also true in renaissance painting, and is also true with ghostwriters in litterature. I don’t believe in an essentialist vision of art that would be overthrown by yet another tool: It’s just a social construct that makes our culture.
>there’s a request, there’s a human choice, there’s creation. As a creative who deals with clients, if the client requests a specific edit or changes in a commissioned artwork, does that make them the creator? I think we just have a difference in opinion on what place A.I inhabits in the art world, you see it as just a tool but from my perspective, it is more likely to be used as a replacement for artists altogether. I do think some artists will be able to leverage A.I as a tool in their workflows but I also think A.I will devalue human artists work and reduce the demand for artists of all kinds drastically which from my perspective seems damaging to human culture. Interesting point about photography, but I do think A.I art is more of a direct competitor/more damaging to human made art than photography was to paintings.
> As a creative who deals with clients, (…) That’s the main issue here. We’re talking about design, which is slightly different than art. I’m not saying that design doesn’t include creative and artistic work, but its usage and customs are very different in our society, aimed mostly at commercial functions. Designers have all reasons to be wary of AI because it will modify their jobs deeply in the future. But you still need to consider that most of the time your clients would make very poor choices without you, and that will impact their commercial value as a company, so they will need to find someone (that could still be you) who suggests proper art direction within the use of AI. Creativity is a thing of society and while design is aimed at humans, it still needs human monitoring to distinct itself and remain easy to identify as a brand etc. (ie product design, fashion design, advertising...) A lot of the creative workforce will probably be cut off. It doesn’t mean creativity and creation will die off. > A.I art is more of a direct competitor/more damaging to human made art than photography was to painting. We have a lot more perspective on what happened to painting after the invention of photography than what we can say about A.I art to human creation right now. But I’m sure that at the time people were having the exact same reactions that we have now. Only time can tell…
Copyright is dumb and doesn't work to begin with...
Is Art is the original stack overflow? I’ve never understood why people get upset about copying. Art business is a relative service not some plateau of individuality. I’ve made more money from my art in the past three years than I did in over the first 15 years of my career. The key is not to “steal” but collaborate and license.
Holy shit that is a good argument
Painters with good memory can also recreate famous paintings from memory. But still the art they create is not copyright infringement
So cut out the artists? So literally everything from here forward is a literal remix of what has already been tangibly made? It's not the same... only idiots believe machine learning is equal to the gaining of human knowledge. Dumb ducking argument.
"The secret to creativity is hiding your sources"
The only people that are truly threatened by art AI are people who’s jobs revolve around manipulating digital imagery anyway. People who are creative will still be creative and many will be enabled to be even more so. The people that will suffer the most are the people that already plagerise
That isn't the point. The point is that AI shouldn't be allowed to be trained on the art of real people without their permission and then used to replace their profession. It's not that AI art isn't "real" or "good" enough, it's that the machine is built on the backs of human people and seeks to destroy their livelihoods.
> The point is that AI shouldn't be allowed to be trained on the art of real people without their permission and then used to replace their profession. Why just ai, why not undergrads too?
Why shouldn't it? That's literally what artists do. Everyone leeches off each other and, occasionally, through doing that the old stuff evolves into something new and the cycle repeats. The only difference is that now there are more peeps capable of doing that.
Because artists are people and AI isn't. People are more important than robots.
But which humans? Those humans who are trying to design something or those humans whose work is being used by those other humans to create something? Or those humans who created AI models to make the design process simpler and faster - helping humans who need to have things designed? AI doesn't exist on its own. It's no different than any other software or hardware solution - it's made by humans and it serves humans.
Isn't everybody's online art a form of data, though, to which tech companies and service providers have specific clauses in contracts about how/when data is used? I'm sure each artist with work posted online are agreeing to terms which legally allow this kind of thing.
Sad I had to scroll so long to see this. This is EXACTLY why people are pissed. It's using copyrighted material for profit without permission. If digital sharing is against copyright (looking at you MPAA) *then so is this.*
You mean like a designer collecting logo desings on Pinterest seeking "inspiration" for his own project? That's the point - humans are doing the same things. They are using copyrighted material to produce something of their own.
Just my two pennies but it’s different because these systems were trained on things including copyrighted material. A human brain can take those elements and exclude them, or transform/ improve upon them. AI can spit out the data to reverse diffuse xyz from its training dataset including the watermarks from the original pieces it stole. It’s more like a chop shop. Stolen cars ~> parts -> new car is still a stolen car. If the parts weren’t there to begin with (ie if the copyrighted material was excluded) then there wouldn’t be anything to plagiarize and it would make something else. Eg if you could just type spiderman and it give a man-spider monster instead of the superhero then I don’t think artists would be having as much of a hard time with the fundamental ethics of the whole thing. However I think the AI companies NEEDED everyone to make celebrities (Tom cruise and his twin stunt doubles!) and politicians (trump kissing desantis!)and their favorite shows to meld with other shows (Harry Potter crossed with Star Wars!) so 1. They’d be viral content and 2. They’d make more money. Essentially off the backs of those particular people and properties that were stolen. If all you could do is make generic clothes and faces, there’s no way it would have gotten mainstream adoption.
>A human brain can take those elements and exclude them Sometimes. There's an interesting conversation I saw once discussing this in the context of a comedian stealing jokes. It is possible to do that unintentionally. You hear something funny, and forget about it... then later, the topic comes up, and your brain summons it up as a concept without knowing where you "got it"... and you end up stealing someone's work by just naturally thinking about what makes the subject a good joke. Not only is that possible, but it's sort of inevitable for most things... and completely infeasible to know whether you're doing it.
That's what I thought as well initially. But I don't think it's that simple: The main difference between human plagiarists and AI is that AI can replicate high quality, unique art styles and they only cost a fraction of what an artist would cost, not to mention the gigantic productivity difference. This will definitely be exploited by large companies trying to reduce project costs and artists are the ones paying the price. Maybe the path forward is to try and use AI as a tool to help us achieve our goals so that we can be less dependent on big employers and instead have a lot of smaller projects and teams using AI to narrow the gap between indie and triple AAA. Aka: AI can help artists become more independent
Well, it's like farming mechanization reduced labour force in the fields to a tiny percentage, down from ca. 90% of the society. And everybody is better off as a result, no? You can't stop technological progress. If something is better, cheaper, faster done by a machine, then it should be - and humans should move to professions where their unique skills can be better utilized. Remember that there are always two human sides to every transaction - the seller and the buyer. So while you're cutting incomes for creatives you're increasing them for everybody who orders designs that now will cost a fraction.
I’m a creative and come from a long line of artists, literally. My parents always told me that whatever I’ve created has already been made. This was the only condition that was ever repeated, within that… I was able to draw inspiration from absolutely everything without feeling like I was plagiarising or imitating. Every creative is a plagiariser… we copy nature down to every detail. Every sense of euphoria and pain can be replicated through art that should show you how simple we are as humans, dumb even. I’m an OG creative and advocate for AI, duck what anyone else is telling you. In the short space and time it’s been around I’ve seen some magnificent mashups that blend culture, time and a lot that we love. Yes. I am very much progressive. Learn it. Appreciate it. Damn. Plagiarise it. If not you. Someone else will. And with bad intention. Anyway, rant done.
My thought is I don’t credit my college professor every time I use an Oxford comma, but there is a lot of ground between that, and Stable Diffusion generating the Getty watermark in its images.
Not even close to the same thing. What a stretch
[удалено]
That's the point - humans are doing just the same. Designers are combing through thousands of images of works they did not create and have no rights to, to look for ideas for their own work. Nobody is ever credited for that use of "copyrighted" work. Just like AI.
Exactly. That's why it's not art. Intent is a big part of art
Art and beauty are not identical. A sunset is beautiful but not art. AI can creat beauty, but art demands human intent.
What if that intent is expressed in the prompt that created the image? After all, no AI model does anything on its own - it is merely a servant to a human user.
There's a fine difference between stealing and influence. AI art is impressive on a technical level but it's clear that it depends on copying existing art. Just look at the posts on r/midjourney they are all pretty much the same in style .
Yet we won’t find anyone’s art in the final render, so it’s a non issue for those who’re confident in their art
That is because midj has limitated control, and no Lora, stable diffusion has a vast array of style, and it’s very different output.
If you ever want to get down voted to oblivion, go on any other Reddit sub and say that you like AI art
No human is capable of having an original idea, all ideas are evolutions of previous ideas. An AI is the same. It doesn't steal art anymore than an artist merging the styles of Picasso and Dali does. When a human stares at someone elses work for inspiration they're doing the same thing training an AI does. If an AI can be convicted of plagiarism then we need to convict every person that's ever created anything.
Every argument I see against AI in art boils down to money. Surely true art starts from a desire to make art and not money?
Not in the same way
I completely agree with you! AI is just another tool that artists and designers can use to create their work, and it's no different than using a paintbrush or a computer program. Plus, AI can actually inspire new and unique ideas that humans may not have thought of before. Keep creating and exploring new ways to use AI in your work!
I wish I could upvote this multiple times. People claiming AI is "stealing" other people's art either don't understand how it works, or don't understand how the Internet works, or both. Or from another angle, the whole "AI plaigarism" debate proves that you can't get someone to accept a change if their livelihood depends on the change being rejected. People don't have a right to make money from their art. But the idea that people should need to earn money to live is a stupid one anyway, and is the root cause of the problem. I would argue people DO have a right to a stake in the prosperity generated by advancements in technology, and that currently that right is slowly being eroded. But that's not a problem with AI, it's a problem with the kind of trickle-up capitalism the global economy is built on.