Lemmy when discussing health care: Karl Marx
Lemmy when discussing creative works: Ayn Rand
I don't know if Marx would disagree with individual artists owning the intellectual right to their artworks.
And if you asked Lemmy about how long copyright should last, I doubt that Ayn Rand would approve.
When I was making an android game I wanted to make art so i made an ai art gen on Perchance. OP would hate it most of all since a large part of it is the combining of different artist styles. I personally love being able to combine my 5 fav artists and see what prompts become with them combined.
I recently realized the artist Hannah Yata results in cool trippy pics. I then went to her site and yeah her pics are really like that. She's one of maybe 8 artists I've recently found a special connection to that I would not have known about otherwise.
so yeah ai art may be bad for struggling professional artists but for people that are not big money game studios yet, ai art basically allows having nonstockimage art in projects legally. I can 100% say ai art empowers me to have visuals where I could not have before unless i used stock(gross) images or had starting wealth to pay artists. So if you focus on artists losing, also focus on the poor but smart kid in some poverty place who is now that much more empowered to make something on their phone and legitly escape poverty.
There was a wealth barrier to visual art; now there isn't.
Entrenched struggling professional artists cry. People needing art that weren't wealthy enough to pay for it win.
When drugs become fabricateable at home by anyone, drug companies will also cry. People that weren't wealthy enough to pay for them win.
Same thing.
Poor artists.
But when you're the one no longer paywalled it's a different story.
You’re doing the corkboard thing in the post. This requires a lot of specific details and assumptions and benefit of the doubt, none of which can be applied to AI generation writ large.
I’m glad your ends are not nefarious. I’m glad you found a new artist you like. But you have to understand that you are not the norm.
because I don't make art to sell, I'd love to train an Ai on my pics or songs and then see what it can make when given cool prompts :)
But I'm far from the competitive capitalism scene so I more view such an activity with a sense of wonder instead of anything to do with a loss of paid work.
Fuck AI art, honestly. I find the idea of using AI for instance in microbiology for finding combinations of proteins awesome, and so is it being used to help people learn and improve. For instance, when I don't understand concept in like math and engineering, I ask AI to give me advice. But using it for 'art' is honestly disgusting. It steals personality from art.
Plaigerism isn't the problem. This society that makes living so hard that you need to snatch every crumb, that's the problem.
Great artists have been stealing and sampling since forever. It really isn't a big deal unless you're broke.
The way some people defend AI generated images reminds me of the way some people defend the act of tracing other people's art without the artist's permission and uploading it while claiming they made it.
As someone who is largely around the art community admiring and sharing thier work, the fact that I could confuse AI Generated Images and thusly falsely share or save them has been such a huge anxiety of mine every since 2022
One easy way to check is the look for JPEG artifacts that doesn’t make any sense. A lot of the systems were trained with images stored as JPEGs, so the output will have absurd amounts of JPEG artifacting that will show up in ways that make no sense for something that actually went through JPEG compression, such as having multiple grids of artifacts that don’t line up or of wildly different scales.
I'm really bad at noticing small details. Luckily 99% of AI artists use the same art style (with more or less Pixar influence for humans) so I can still spot AI imagery from a mile away
And the face is always one of these.
All of these faces make physical sense, while AI art often doesn't.
Or you only notice the obvious ones and are oblivious to all the ones you have not recognized
I only consume garbage slop when it's manmade. A song with 57 kajillion views is real art. A movie with Dwayne Johnson is real art. Only rich people should be able to subject everyone to their limited imagination. Now that regular people can create slop my delicate capitalist machines that shit out content for me to consume are being disrupted. I'm too lazy and dumb to form personal connections with other humans so these fake ass systems are the only way I can get content. And you just can't tell if it's human anymore, it's so sad.
This is an interesting take honestly. A lot of art is made without much care or creativity. That isn't a bad thing. So why should AI "art" be considered inherently bad?
AI plagiarism wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for intellectual copyright and capitalism. Ironically, the status quo of AI art being public domain is absolutely based, as the fruits of our stolen labor belong to us. The communists and anarchists should totally make nonprofit AI art that nobody is allowed to own. Reclaiming AI would be awesome!
Unfortunately, tech bros want to enslave all artists along with the rest of the workers, so they'll rewrite copyright law to turn AI into their exclusive property. It'll be an exception with no justification besides "greed=good"
It's random slop shat out by a machine. Art requires a living, breathing human with thoughts, emotions, and experiences, otherwise it's just a pile of shit.
AI is a tool. The product can be a random slop if you give it sloppy instructions, or someone can realize this way their great artistic idea that they would not be able to make real otherwise. The pictures don't just generate themselves, you know? It's living priple who tell the machine what's on their minds. If your mind is creative, the results can be good.
It's only immoral, not inherently of lower quality. Aesthetics and ethics aren't about what actually is, but about what should be. Even if an AI and a person produce the same image, the AI isn't a living, breathing human. AI art isn't slop because of its content, but because of the economic context. That's a far better reason to hate it than its mistakes and shortcomings.
AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don't get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.
It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author's identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.
AI can do much more than "reproduce".
Is one of those things giving attribution? If I ask for a picture of Mount Fuji in the style of a woodblock print, can the AI tell me what its inspirations were?
it can tell you its inspiration about as well as photoshop's content-aware fill, because it's sort of the same tech, just turned to 11. but it depends.
if a lot of the training data is tagged with the name of the artist, and you use the artist's name to get that style, and the output looks made by that artist, you would be fairly sure who to attribute. if not, you would have to do a mathematical analysis of the model. that's because it's not actually associating text with images, the text part is separate from the image part and they only communicate through a sort of coordinate system. one part sees text, the other sees shapes.
also, the size of the training dataset compared to the size of the finished model means that there is less than one bit stored per full image. the fact that some models can reproduce input images almost exactly is basically luck, because none of the original image is in there. it just pulls together everything it knows to build something that already exists.
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
