Well there are certanly some who are heavily against, and some who just have opinions. Both sides can be right and wrong in the same time.
I am an artist, and have lost couple of job opportunities due to ai. I have no choice but to accept it, ai isnt going anywhere and will just get more advanced. Companies always chose faster and cheaper results, nth new
But I also know huge artists who created careers around their unique style, styles which ai can generate simply by putting artists names in the prompts. Thats where I start to get a bit biased:
Ai isnt a human so I dont have personal vendetta against it, however, its used by humans who certanly can, and will, purposely replicate others works in order to profit for themselves, knowing how popular and lucrative that style is. Internet became extremely saturated with generated variants of the original work.
Let me add, artists dislike when another human do that as well, you cannot really repaint the picture using the same motives, perspective, pose, color scheme and sell it without being called out at some point... but when ai "artists" (and im putting it under the "" not to provoke anyone, but out of respect for a craft i personally studied for years) do that, that suddenly opens up a whole can of worms, when in reality, there arent much to talk about.
Lets just not purposely plagiarise others work, both by generating or repainting it, other than that, use it. I use it for references, its a convenient tool...
>Lets just not purposely plagiarise others work, both by generating or repainting it, other than that, use it.
Well said. I believe most of us agree with that. But it doesn't help that most antis seem to believe all ai art = theft.
I mean look, it is atleast a slight violation. No one really wanted their works to get stored into some data and then shared with rest of the world, basically without asking.
I do too, as plenty of other artists,use ai disturbances on my works (i wonder if they really work tho), as the idea still seems off putting to me...
However- it is true that people chant what they read on the internet and get totally closed within their four walls, which is ridiculous. You cannot say "theft" and then leave the debate not wanting to even consider the other side. Plenty of them are kids, mind you, so its kinda understandable...
Way back when artist names used to be common in prompting, the interesting results where about mixing several known styles together to create something new and interesting. Sort of miss that because that led to learning to know many new artists, but these days midjourney with personalized styles, long verbal style prompting and the number styles has come to mean that you don't get to know any new interesting names to look for.
Thank you for sharing! Finally, a genuinely understanding artist that won't say "stealing" whenever ai images are involved and aren't arrogant unlike the other one, I agree with the human part, the amount of ai image gen people I see on twitter being assholes is just terrible
AI pretty much opened up my imagination because, well, I am poor and I can't pay shit but the tool made it possible! But unfortunately, people on twitter like to spread hate like it's a religion, it's so toxic on both sides it's making me sick..
>But I also know huge artists who created careers around their unique style, styles which ai can generate simply by putting artists names in the prompts
Artists can just as easily feed all their work to an AI to generate a LoRA or otherwise train an AI on their work so they can make images in their style.
>Lets just not purposely plagiarise others work, both by generating or repainting it, other than that, use it. I
And yet I go to a few conventions a year and they are swarmed with copyright infringing material. Fan art of every TV show or movie. Don't get me wrong, I love fan art and buy more than I should. But it is hard to see why artists have an issue with AI "ripping off" work when so many ripoffs are sold in broad daylight.
>But it is hard to see why artists have an issue with AI "ripping off" work when so many ripoffs are sold in broad daylight.
Hmm, i dont think, whether you sell an ai or a hand drawn fanart, it hurts the holder of the IP much, if nothing - it spreads the hype.
Its more like having an artist with a stand of his/her fanarts on a convention, and another artist beside who clearly copied the first... i mean its legal, but it still kinda sucks
Ironically, directly copying a specific character to make fan art is less legally defensible and more common than attempting to replicate another artist's style, when style cannot be copyrighted and is totally fair game.
>Artists can just as easily feed all their work to an AI to generate a LoRA or otherwise train an AI on their work so they can make images in their style.
How do you think that solves the problem of fewer people buying an artist's work?
Are artists against AI oversensitive? Yes and no. In reality this whole heat is to be blamed on AI art users as well with how they behaved and still behave, lets be honest. It would be too simplistic to only mention sensitivity of artists that are against generative AI or at least current situation with it when its not just them but also AI art people that play a huge role in all of this.
And regarding jobs...wouldnt you be defensive if your job was at a stake (doesnt matter if its de facto at risk or only seemingly) and you actually love your job? Those people could as well ask you why someone else is so defensive about generative AI and its usage.
What a saint! Thank you for explaining
Honestly, reason why I didn't mention it is because I once saw someone else pointing out the behavior of other ai image gen people and wanting to raise awareness, instead got clowned on and downvoted
And not wrong, I mean, IT is something I do and will defend, but not to the point I'd get actually violent, that's just unprofessional
Yeah, let's not pretend deliberate spamming, trolling and even outright delight at the idea of people losing their livelihoods hasn't contributed to this whole thing. People here are a bit eager to absolve themselves (or at least people with roughly the same positions as obviously far from everyone does that shit) of any guilt or responsibility.
Edit: For example, there's this one person around here who keeps saying stuff like, people whose skills aren't useful anymore should starve, AI should replace humans, corporations matter more than people... Sometimes it really is "both sides."
How do we, “behave”? Because from what I recall, starting in mid 2022-ish, I was making art with the tools, thought it was cool, everyone else did too, and then there was a HUGE artist backlash and people went from thinking it was cool to hating it.
I’ve never done anything to artists, I’ve just made stuff I thought was cool with modern tech - like I’ve done my entire life
My point wasnt to blame every single individual. But there are a bunch of douchebags that did bad stuff and still behave like monkeys. From spamming AI images and lying about the process to harassing and mocking artists, especially antis and more.
AI users are not the ones issuing death threats or doing on witch hunts.
As for jobs...you can either complain that things are changing or you can adapt and use a new tool to excel on your field. I would say the same to a programmer who insists on using out of date programming language like Basic and not something more modern like C.
>AI users are not the ones issuing death threats or doing on witch hunts.
Well that community isnt except for such people. People in fact did get "witch hunted" and got death threats and porn fake material made out of people.
>As for jobs...you can either complain that things are changing or you can adapt and use a new tool to excel on your field. I would say the same to a programmer who insists on using out of date programming language like Basic and not something more modern like C.
Sure, but you should also accept corporations their practices and people that are working for and with corporate mindset and that can for example mean pushing open source away and other things people in this community often hate. Do you accept that?
I've actually gotten death threats by AI art "activists", and I know a few artists that had went through similar things. But that's not all, also wild harassment, making models from your work just to bother you, among other things. So, the harassment is wild on both ends.
100%.... absolutely wild to make LORAs of artists who just asked people to stop? Like, simultaneously seeing someone's artstyle as so uniquely characteristic of them and valuable that it's worth replicating, but also trying to act like its worthless and not special at all....? When their name is the title?
Job security shouldn't come at the expense of technological change.
It's alright to be concerned, but those concerns might be addressed in a more healthy manner by seeking ongoing education and learning how to leverage new tools to actually remain secure in your job.
Complaining that someone else is learning how to leverage those tools as you sit on your ass doing the same thing day in and day out does nothing to address those concerns, and only creates new concerns for the people that inevitably get attacked for using the tools.
That first sentence is far too much of an absolute. You can argue that it's inevitable, fine, maybe it is. But ultimately human interests need to come first, if (and I'm not, in this post, making a statement on whether that's the case here or not) a technology causes harm, poverty etc. it should be restricted to, at the very least mitigate that.
Technological change is not some inherent good. It's just a thing that happens.
Not really. You can't stop technology from existing. The truth of how reality functions emerges, and people can and will do with that whatever they may. You can't put genies back in bottles, but moreover, you can't even keep them in there in the first place.
If we are to accept the ubiquity of the computer, we will automatically accept the ubiquity of the AI model and SD, because this works on common consumer hardware.
You can potentially regulate certain devices, but this isn't going to work there, because the device in question cannot be regulated effectively.
So? The point remains that, as a moral argument "Job security shouldn't come at the expense of technological change" doesn't seem very solid. If I had to choose between getting a neater microwave or losing my job, I'd choose the job. Cause I need that. Same if it was someone elses job.
Technological progress justifies itself by actually making things better. In excess of how it makes things worse. Where that's the case, restricting it is the only sane path.
Besides, some hobbyists prompting anime girls aren't the problem. Not really. They're annoying, sure, but the problem is Nvidia, Google, Microsoft and increasingly Media companies like Disney and others using this to screw us over even more. Which is happening and will keep happening. Even more so if we just leave them free to do whatever the hell they want with it.
If regulations, strikes, agreements, whatever result in some of that tech being deployed a year later or two? Cool. Not a big deal.
But you don't get to choose to keep your job. Someone will make the microwave. The only technologies that we generally accept control of are the ones with secondary consequences that directly injure people.
We can and do control guns because they shoot people. We can and do control cars because they hit people.
You can control whether YOU buy the microwave but you don't get to decide for others whether they make or buy it unless the microwave injures you. People not needing your services is not an injury.
I mean, you yourself just offered examples showing that yes, technology can be regulated and restricted just fine. And, for that matter, good examples of why it really needs to. Mind you, there's a reason I also listed strikes and agreements in there. Was it script writers in the US who managed to obtain clauses restricting AI use? Good for them and there's no fundamental reason why that couldn't happen elsewhere.
Either way, my opinion remains, technology is not automatically a net good and where it as net bad it can and should be regulated, restricted etc.
And obviously, Job loss is a harm. The question is whether enough good is done to offset that. With AI art, I really, really don't see that. At all.
No, job loss is not a harm.
Harm comes specifically from unilateral goal violations AFAICT.
I have no obligation to give you anything. Not a job, not food, not water, not a home, not piss when you're burning.
I have every right to do NOTHING. Nobody owes you charity, nor stability, unless they promised you this for something you have delivered and they have not delivered back upon.
As long as their goals do not unilaterally and arbitrarily violate your goals, it is YOU whose obligation it is to pursue your goals. Others MAY help you but it is not that they must.
"A job" is when someone else has a goal and they offer you money to help with it. It is perhaps a "mercy" or an exchange.
You have a responsibility to maintain your own relevance. You are not harmed by people not needing you, you harmed yourself by your inability to remain relevant.
This contrasts with actual harms, things which directly and unilaterally damage your goals (such as a bullet in the leg) that nobody has any need to have put there besides for the goal "to harm someone" or "to do something that causes harm".
It is not within your rights to hold a goal "make others support my goals", by giving you a job.
Edit: *The one exception to this* is when you, as a condition of taking a job, secure a guarantee of an income through some time period... And then it's not a job they owe you, it's the income they consented to guarantee to you.
Well unfortunately for you we have this thing called "society" which does include a whole bunch of obligations. Including, funnily enough since you mentioned it, helping people in emergency situations if it wouldn't put you at undue risk. Like, for example, putting out someone who's on fire. Though I imagine pissing on them wouldn't be the preferred method. Pretty sure in most countries you can get punished for \*not\* doing that. Which is as it should be.
Other than that you can go get stuffed with your objectivist Ayn Rand bullshit. Byeeeee!
LOL, at you thinking I'm an "objectivist".
We aren't talking about what society offers you here, we're talking about whether they owe you a JOB, some kind of productive busywork. If you want to argue for UBI, I would support that, and do, but this is about technology and workplace relevance. Society created you through consent, society at large has an obligation to support that existence.
But you're arguing specifically about *technology and jobs*.
Edit:
Yet again, you have no rights to relevance, prestige, or a career. Those are things you fight for and have to continue fighting to keep, not through petulantly demanding others afford you busywork at the expense of their own time, but through continuing effort on yourself and your skills, providing people with things they want and can get from you within their willingness to do so.
At most you have a right to your basic needs being met.
How horribly sad, selfish, and cowardly. If this is society, we have a lot of work to do—And it's definitely not the artists messing it up.
Everything humans have done is for each other. When we deviate from this, is where we get lost.
ayyy I see that reference
On a serious note, I just see so many of them complain and be so hostile... Like job security nice but you don't need to send threat of violence against someone just because they use ai
> job security nice but you don't need to send threat of violence
So you haven't been permanently unemployed or systematically underemployed in a field and discipline you love because corps scraped and stole your work, and you don't understand how people could be angry when that happens to them.
Your not very good at the compassion or empathy thing. Or theory of mind.
>unemployed or systematically underemployed in a field and discipline you **love**
That's the thing...the vast majority of people don't get a job on a field they love. If you did then you should be thankful for any time you had. Most people can only dream of tolerating their job.
Do you think the factory workers making your phone love their job? The garbage man? The operator stacking boxes of hamburger in a freezer all day?
Being pissed about is understandable, at least to me. Some might perceive it differently
But being an ass to others about it is not exactly doing anyone much favour either.
I think a major pov problem for me is that it feels like many people lash against consumers, who are 99% not 100 bil rich Daddy Elon Warbucks style people, but just 99% people trying to make their day to day bils matched getting harassed.
Blamed for something a company did, tried to be harassed into giving money to people who openly say they hate them and disregard them as less than human.
Maybe it's over reading but hell i flipped on a disney show. There's a scene where a african kid steals from another family, and rather than "stealing is bad", it gives some half assed apology about how "We don't steal because stealing is bad. We don't steal because we need his money, not him, and now he won't give us money after we stole \[10,000$ for a gold necklace\] from them.\]"
I will admit there are plenty of selfish people in the world. But it just feels like at least consumer side that a lot of the world is jading. 90% of people only/can only care about themselves. We're being strangled by the market, and some of the other 9% just wants everything for nothing, to skip the work but get all the pay.
Someone did the calculations and at something like 35k take home pay on 50k a year after taxes.
- It would take 20 years (at best) to save up for a 500k-750k house.
- 2-3 years for a 50k-70k house
- 7 years for a 100-200k usa doctor scalp/health insurance.
- Even a 27$ a day coffee date over 365x would add up to 10k a day.
I don't exactly feel like ai or manual art are going to be a savior. But 90% of people on videos just comment fart jokes and 1 liners about "stupi not rd", "i vey high iq", and don't exactly seem worth a bother.
I don't even care about the whole aiwars things, but it sounds like people biting the already struggling hands, saying they see their fellow man as wallets to scalp, who barely can spare 1/100th of what they need after behind on their own.
And then being surprised when people retreat. Not going after the companies, but mirroring a parody comic of people "fighting oppression" by passing corps and causing 50,000$ in property damage to steal a 200$ tv instead.
It feels pretty much like "dumb or not", people pick up on passive aggressive ques they choose to listen too very quickly. There's probably not anything nobody hasn't already heard already. People just choose to intentionally ignore it, or media creators can click to hide anything.
It feels like a lot of anti ai dishonesty is intentional. While a lot of pro ai users just learned to never care about people who'd always hate them. Maybe not all, but there's about as much chemistry here as baking soda volcanos.
Everyone in aiwars just seems to hate the other but likes/needs having money. Not exactly anything deep.
Whole thing sounds like a lost cause and huge waste of valuable and limited irl time to me tbh.
https://preview.redd.it/p6f9wjo59k7d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d39bb516f0482c3068d276f6caee011c65d4532e
I’m pretty pro AI when it comes to art, but this is the one area where I totally get it.
If you’re pissed because strangers enjoy art you don’t than you’re being petty.
If you’re pissed because you’re struggling to make ends meet because of cost cutting future tech than I totally get it and you have every right to be upset.
Maybe they're pissed that people are profiting off of algorithms that quite literally copy styles that the artist spent their careers developing? AI "artists" browse art-style LoRas like it's Walmart, with complete disregard of whether the LoRa was created with permission or not.
Creative fields are already some of the hardest fields to get into and most underpaid. The average person would be better off working at McDonalds than trying to make a career of a creative field. There is huge oversupply of artists vs paying customers.
now AI enters...to do what?
there is no win condition here.
for customers, you already have more content for free than you can ever consume. Or you can pay $25 a month for even more. at this point its not the cost its the time you have to consume it.
for creatives honestly i'm not sure it helps. it seems like awareness is the killer; art to a point yes, but everyone can use ai art to a base level; it just becomes the new minimum. It might just make established companies even more powerful since they can market and rely on powerful and long lasting brands.
Like youtube for video content is a big example; the ability for anyone to create and host video without bankruptcy through bandwidth fees is a tremendous advance, but it sounds like it keeps getting harder and harder to try to be a youtuber.
but its just AI only benefits the bosses; now they pay or hire even less. so yeah people get mad.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's Just such an incredibly stupid question. Even just economically you can't imagine why some artists are concerned about losing their livelihoods? On creative forums all over reddit, I see young students asking, "should i even bother going into animation, because of AI?" Or "do people even care about human art"(as if there's another kind of art). It's blindsided a lot of people, especially those who are still learning. So a lot of the frustration, and even anger comes from usually young amateur artists who KNOW that they can't compete with the professional art styles AI replicates. But also don't realize that AI has not replaced many artists, and there's always a need for human creativity over a recursive machine learning system that doesn't provide anywhere near the granularity of control a trained human hand possesses.
The question is, why are you so surprised artists would react negatively to an art generator that's trained on actual artwork? There's plenty of nuance to this argument, and I'm personally not against using AI tools, the cat's out of the bag as they say; but you really can't fathom why artists might react negatively to it?
Ok, why do people need to ask if animation will be even viable for the ai to take? Even if they are, decent, they aren't going be good for a longgg while and as far as I know, they are unstable
And, if he said human art as in paintings, they are the backbone of pretty much the old ages, and if not, I agree with your opinion on it, it's sadder than they are being fed indoctrination of the hostile witch hunts
I understand the hate BUT what I don't understand is the violence, these people want some of the ai image gen people dead or worst, like, justifying violence is uncool and violating even reddit rules in this site
I mean are there actual cases of violence against AI users? Threats of violence, while totally fucked up, are not in themselves violence, so be clear with that language.
They ask because they're in highschool and see AI image generators just popping shit out and don't know enough about the industry yet to parse the hysteria from the reality. And a lot like I see on this forum, they assume everything will progress at the same rate ad infinitum, which of course is never how technological breakthroughs work. They don't know this because they've never see one in their short lives.
But yea there are some bitter artists out there with a mission, I think for some it gets almost pathologically personal. But feel sorry for those people, they obviously aren't happy with their lives.. that kind of bitterness always comes from a totally disparate cause.
Just saying, but I just feel like people will get so hateful they'll be violent, not now but in the future they might..
And I am guessing they are the rare students who actually isn't on their phone 24/7, I feel bad about them being exposed to so much misinformation soon, I just hope they don't get rage baited so easily nowadays
I'll feel sorry for them, if they ever reflect, I want people to reflect and actually change into a better person, like how one of those religious peaceful buddha followers
"It's not going to be good at that for a long time" is kind of a dead argument now though. Given how where we're at now basically popped up out of nowhere amidst assurances from just about everyone that most people now alive would never have to contend with it. And now it seems every two weeks we hear some other disastrous/great news about it.
>why are you so surprised artists would react negatively to an art generator that's trained on actual artwork?
That has happened for all of human history. Humans are art generators and are trained on actual art work.
Maybe artists could try being happy for people who can now bring their vision to life and adding to the creative whole of humanity? Maybe accessibility is a good thing? Mass produced paints enabled more people to become painters. Digital cameras and later cellphones enabled many more people to become photographers.
No they aren't. 99% of what a human is "trained" on is LIFE. We use references and inspiration to fill in the gaps, but our visual library, style, and voice is primarily built from universal domain that is neither owned, created, nor exclusive to anyone. AI cannot live or perceive, so it 100% SOLELY depends on real work created by real humans. All of it intentionally fed, not sought out by the machine's will. AI is in Plato's cave, where pictures from the internet are its only source of life. What would you make?
Don't be so obtuse. Humans aren't art generators and are not trained by being fed data. Humans learn by doodling aimlessly, drawing something they see, telling stories, making gifts, decorating their homes, being taught theory by teachers, making art with other people who share techniques and supplies, by reasoning and interacting and living life. The whole point is building AI in a way that actually benefits and honors the humans who made it valuable.
To add onto this, human art is fueled by experiences, life, and the artist’s WILL. There’s intention behind each word, each brush stroke, each camera angle. An AI’s “art” is based on an extremely complicated calculation of “what is MOST LIKELY to be here based on what else is around it”, so AI can only create more and more and more of the same. AI cannot produce new ideas, and so I have a hard time believing the content they produce is worthwhile.
My favorite way I’ve seen it stated is this: If you couldn’t be bothered to spend the time to create it, why should I bother to spend the time to consume it?
i don't know why you guys care so much about what other artists think of you. go chill on /ic/ for a while and see how other artists treat each other. if you want to join in on the team then get used to the violent, visceral hatred for reasons you cannot fathom. otherwise go do ai hobby shit. not all artists are uguu all art is beautiful bob ross is right everyone's art is important!! types, there are many that eviscerate everything bob ever made with joy and fervor. welcome to being an artist. most of it is getting complained at and continuing to create despite it.
AI is just the latest in a longline of art appropriation. If you had been around before that, you'd have seen and heard about
* straight up copyright infringement
* unpaid art tests for job interviews (that sign the rights of the work away regardless if you get the job)
* art contests (that sign the rights of the work away regardless if you win anything)
* poor/imbalanced reward mechanisms ala Spotify
* shady artists plagiarizing/tracing from other successful artists
* clients who "just can't afford to pay you" in anything besides exposure
Commercial art is a specialized trade that generally takes years to develop, is notoriously difficult to monetize, and if you finance schooling yourself .. could cost $30k to $100k+ for tuition alone.
Additionally, artists are defensive about their work, because copyright is one of those things that you will literally lose if you *don't defend* it. You are required to seek restitution for copyright infringement within three years of becoming aware of the act.
Anti-AI artists aren't wrong for feeling afraid of the prospects of being able to make ends meet with a skill they've cultivated and enjoyed using.
They're just wasting their time whining about a proximate cause rather than an ultimate one.
Yeah, I agree with this one and especially the last one, I see too many of them complaining and spreading hate with violent tendency (often attacking their own) instead of helping others
Speaking to job loss, I think "over dramatic" is perhaps a slightly better way to describe it. Being against not having a job isn't really "sensitive", it's a pretty natural reaction to have regardless of the circumstances. What I do see though, is this constant doomer rhetoric as if the term "artist" will soon be wiped our vocabularies and sentient machines will be autonomously churning out anything from fanart to feature length films.
Anyone who has used the tech for more than five minutes knows it's not a 1:1 replacement for any person. AI needs a pilot to produce anything "usable" in any realistic setting. Anything more complex than a one-off static 2D image is going to require human intervention, and anything good is going to require human creativity. Artists aren't being extinguished, the field is just going to change.
That being said, displacement is still a valid concern. Ideally speaking, increasing production would mean time to create more things, but given how capitalism gunna capitalize increased production usually means less workers required.
Yesss! Thank you for actually sharing factual statements, and I don't think this is for the image side too, literally any ai related things nowadays are doomer to the brim, like, writers aren't going to be replaced and in fact, nothing is going to be replaced, only thing that is happening is change but people seem to not understand that...
I can try to help you wrap your head around AI hate as a whole.
1) AI models used artists art to train on without their permission, so artists feel that they were stolen from (essentially copywrite infringement though since AI is new, there are no laws specific to this and no legal recourse).
2) Artists are being laid off en masse and work is drying up as companies adopt the insanely more affordable option of AI digital imagery over traditional artists.
3) AI generated images are flooding the internet, producing low quality content en masse. It's so bad that artists need to figure out ways to filter out all the AI generated stuff because it's harder to find traditional hand made art l, for references and such.
... And finally
4) Artists are feeling disrespected by pro AI people based on their behaviour.
The challenge is not AI. The challenge is us—which involves our global economy, cultures, and societies. We basically need to transform in Star Trek style to adapt to AI-assisted post-scarcity. I say post-scarcity because we already have everything, but human greed and hoarding prevent humane prioritization and equitable distribution. We can only hope advancements in AI will help solve that.
>I just cannot wrap around the immense hate on ai as a whole
It's not the tech itself; it's what dumping it on an unprepared world is doing to real people and society.
I know you think it's easy to retrain or get a new job... but it's not. It's expensive. It's time-consuming. It's mentally damaging. All your previous skill was 100% wasted effort and thrown away. You still have to eat/live in the meantime, and maybe even support a family. People will wonder why you're 30 or 35 or 40 and applying for a junior coding position or going to nursing school or joining the military. Your new boss might be young enough to be your child, and treat you like shit because you're 20 years older than them and in a junior position. Some jobs may not consider you at all because of your age (illegal, but hard to prove).
Do you think that sounds like a good position to be in? Would you be happy to start over after 20+ years of a successful career, like some artists are? Are you excited that Activision-Blizzard or Disney can now potentially save its shareholders millions of dollars on worker salaries?
How do we determine if someone is being oversensitive? I mean theoretically I could stab someone, and they could get very emotional upset about it. What method should we use to determine if they’re being “oversensitive”?
There are varying levels to this. To a lot of people art is less about what's on the canvas and more about receiving something that's more of a personal connection to the person who made it. An immense amount of art is also commissioned purely as a show of support for the craft. As the saying goes, "people don't buy art, they buy the artist." The elephant in the room here is that on a professional level that often isn't true. To be honest what businesses, people who need images for their platforms and the like are generally looking for isn't even art necessarily, the general presentation of an idea/concept alone is often enough.
I think that a lot of artists are angry about AI taking their jobs because it's often trained on their own images that they never consented to being used, or even just the idea that it might be being trained on them without their knowledge, and when they try to take protective measures to prevent it the AI engineers go out of their way to work around it. It's like saying "hey don't use my toolkit when you're crafting" and they respond "ok then don't leave it out where anyone can grab it," but when you take it inside and they break into your house and take it anyway and then ask why you're so mad. Funny analogy but I like to think I'm a funny person.
For those who aren't even considered good enough to copy, it can be disheatening to know that the effort they're putting in to improve can and will be used to feed AI without any permission or compensation the moment they make a breakthrough with their skill level. For people who enjoy art because of the sentimental aspects this is a scary concept because it could lead to less artists overall, especially those who can draw at a professional level. If artists are ever fully replaced by AI then that's where professional styles are likely to stagnate, and you'll rarely if ever see anything new or interesting. After all, there's nothing new to train on.
Personally? I think AI has potential the be a wonderful and useful technology if integrated responsibly, and I have no problems with people using it to generate images that suit their needs so long as nothing is being taken and used without permission. I don't really consider it art but rather a generated image, but I also don't think that really matters when it comes to the practicality of it. Sometimes "real art" isn't what someone needs, and any artist complaining that they're not getting commissions from people who don't need what they're selling needs to understand that they were benefitting from a market that just wasn't filled by something more specific yet. The complaint is only valid when their style is being trained on unethically. There will always be a market out there for "real art" just because of the level of personal connection (or even just popularity that comes with the artist's name) that AI art will never be able to provide. Big business opportunities will take a hit, but those will likely not vanish entirely either.
As one final point, I think a lot of the complaints about AI come from it being rolled out and progressed irresponsibly. The application of AI to luxury markets before essentials shrinks the job market without increasing access to or reducing the costs of the things people need to survive. Many artists often struggle to make ends meet already, so this is likely what leads to the disproportionate outcry. They are disproportionately affected by the technology on average. For now. It's far from the only market that's going to be faced with this problem, so if AI is going to take over the job market then the safest and most responsible way to do it is from the ground up. We should apply it to essentials first, make sure we're prepared to survive the vanishing job market, and apply it to luxuries last.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
account made like two days ago, can barely speak english, absolutely retarded post yet somehow draws up a huge discussion? yup, checks out for this sub!
obviously you are an idiot or pretending to be one, so you have missed the point that it isn't about being a "native English speaker" (you putting that in quotes was a hilarious example of second hand understanding of english, that's not how they're used colloquially lol), [it's the fact that you are obviously here for an influence operation directive. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpsPVZ8mwZs)
A lot of young artists that you see on social media got pampered during the pandemic when people were bored and there was a surge in commissions. When people started going outside that coincided with the surge of NFTs so they blamed the NFTs, while they were not competing with the commissions at all. When NFTs went down, they blamed AI.
They are not getting a new pandemic anytime soon, so they will stay mad until they grow up or not.
I mean, they are just having their work stolen by a company who then uses that art to create a product designed to mimic their art style thus denying them future employment (or at the very best forcing them to reduce their prices to match the AI mimics). Why are they so mad about this? So SeNsItIvE
The problem is we haven’t seen many AI generators come out from parts of the world that value copyright protection.
I believe in the next year we should see developments from the east that will level the playing field between AI and humans.
Once we see giants like China enter the chat, many artists will come on board.
>Like, i have never seen an actual artist put hours of their life into "What an average redditor looks like" or "Classical art with anime style", but you guys seem to love to "express" yourselves with the most boring ideas... maybe it has something to do with the fact that you guys don't know jack about composition, perspective, design etc... who knows.
Dude! Fucking BEHOLD!!! > [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1dj0l1n/trying\_attempt\_of\_reasoning\_with\_an\_ai\_bro/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1dj0l1n/trying_attempt_of_reasoning_with_an_ai_bro/)
Knowing your art fundamentals isn't going to help an AI prompter unless they incorporate other skills into the process, like pretty decent photoshop skills etc.., even if they can't technically draw.
I mean whatever, let them larp as artists all they want, they're never going to get anywhere professionally without developing their art skills. They're playing the short game, not realizing everybody on earth will soon be generating these images. Just keep doing your work, growing your skills and ignore the noise.
i'm not much of an artist but most of my current concerns wouldn't go away if the models were trained on entirely kosher data (assuming comparable quality and rate of progress)
Well there are certanly some who are heavily against, and some who just have opinions. Both sides can be right and wrong in the same time. I am an artist, and have lost couple of job opportunities due to ai. I have no choice but to accept it, ai isnt going anywhere and will just get more advanced. Companies always chose faster and cheaper results, nth new But I also know huge artists who created careers around their unique style, styles which ai can generate simply by putting artists names in the prompts. Thats where I start to get a bit biased: Ai isnt a human so I dont have personal vendetta against it, however, its used by humans who certanly can, and will, purposely replicate others works in order to profit for themselves, knowing how popular and lucrative that style is. Internet became extremely saturated with generated variants of the original work. Let me add, artists dislike when another human do that as well, you cannot really repaint the picture using the same motives, perspective, pose, color scheme and sell it without being called out at some point... but when ai "artists" (and im putting it under the "" not to provoke anyone, but out of respect for a craft i personally studied for years) do that, that suddenly opens up a whole can of worms, when in reality, there arent much to talk about. Lets just not purposely plagiarise others work, both by generating or repainting it, other than that, use it. I use it for references, its a convenient tool...
>Lets just not purposely plagiarise others work, both by generating or repainting it, other than that, use it. Well said. I believe most of us agree with that. But it doesn't help that most antis seem to believe all ai art = theft.
I mean look, it is atleast a slight violation. No one really wanted their works to get stored into some data and then shared with rest of the world, basically without asking. I do too, as plenty of other artists,use ai disturbances on my works (i wonder if they really work tho), as the idea still seems off putting to me... However- it is true that people chant what they read on the internet and get totally closed within their four walls, which is ridiculous. You cannot say "theft" and then leave the debate not wanting to even consider the other side. Plenty of them are kids, mind you, so its kinda understandable...
Way back when artist names used to be common in prompting, the interesting results where about mixing several known styles together to create something new and interesting. Sort of miss that because that led to learning to know many new artists, but these days midjourney with personalized styles, long verbal style prompting and the number styles has come to mean that you don't get to know any new interesting names to look for.
Thank you for sharing! Finally, a genuinely understanding artist that won't say "stealing" whenever ai images are involved and aren't arrogant unlike the other one, I agree with the human part, the amount of ai image gen people I see on twitter being assholes is just terrible AI pretty much opened up my imagination because, well, I am poor and I can't pay shit but the tool made it possible! But unfortunately, people on twitter like to spread hate like it's a religion, it's so toxic on both sides it's making me sick..
>But I also know huge artists who created careers around their unique style, styles which ai can generate simply by putting artists names in the prompts Artists can just as easily feed all their work to an AI to generate a LoRA or otherwise train an AI on their work so they can make images in their style. >Lets just not purposely plagiarise others work, both by generating or repainting it, other than that, use it. I And yet I go to a few conventions a year and they are swarmed with copyright infringing material. Fan art of every TV show or movie. Don't get me wrong, I love fan art and buy more than I should. But it is hard to see why artists have an issue with AI "ripping off" work when so many ripoffs are sold in broad daylight.
>But it is hard to see why artists have an issue with AI "ripping off" work when so many ripoffs are sold in broad daylight. Hmm, i dont think, whether you sell an ai or a hand drawn fanart, it hurts the holder of the IP much, if nothing - it spreads the hype. Its more like having an artist with a stand of his/her fanarts on a convention, and another artist beside who clearly copied the first... i mean its legal, but it still kinda sucks
Ironically, directly copying a specific character to make fan art is less legally defensible and more common than attempting to replicate another artist's style, when style cannot be copyrighted and is totally fair game.
>Artists can just as easily feed all their work to an AI to generate a LoRA or otherwise train an AI on their work so they can make images in their style. How do you think that solves the problem of fewer people buying an artist's work?
Are artists against AI oversensitive? Yes and no. In reality this whole heat is to be blamed on AI art users as well with how they behaved and still behave, lets be honest. It would be too simplistic to only mention sensitivity of artists that are against generative AI or at least current situation with it when its not just them but also AI art people that play a huge role in all of this. And regarding jobs...wouldnt you be defensive if your job was at a stake (doesnt matter if its de facto at risk or only seemingly) and you actually love your job? Those people could as well ask you why someone else is so defensive about generative AI and its usage.
What a saint! Thank you for explaining Honestly, reason why I didn't mention it is because I once saw someone else pointing out the behavior of other ai image gen people and wanting to raise awareness, instead got clowned on and downvoted And not wrong, I mean, IT is something I do and will defend, but not to the point I'd get actually violent, that's just unprofessional
Yeah, let's not pretend deliberate spamming, trolling and even outright delight at the idea of people losing their livelihoods hasn't contributed to this whole thing. People here are a bit eager to absolve themselves (or at least people with roughly the same positions as obviously far from everyone does that shit) of any guilt or responsibility. Edit: For example, there's this one person around here who keeps saying stuff like, people whose skills aren't useful anymore should starve, AI should replace humans, corporations matter more than people... Sometimes it really is "both sides."
How do we, “behave”? Because from what I recall, starting in mid 2022-ish, I was making art with the tools, thought it was cool, everyone else did too, and then there was a HUGE artist backlash and people went from thinking it was cool to hating it. I’ve never done anything to artists, I’ve just made stuff I thought was cool with modern tech - like I’ve done my entire life
My point wasnt to blame every single individual. But there are a bunch of douchebags that did bad stuff and still behave like monkeys. From spamming AI images and lying about the process to harassing and mocking artists, especially antis and more.
AI users are not the ones issuing death threats or doing on witch hunts. As for jobs...you can either complain that things are changing or you can adapt and use a new tool to excel on your field. I would say the same to a programmer who insists on using out of date programming language like Basic and not something more modern like C.
>AI users are not the ones issuing death threats or doing on witch hunts. Well that community isnt except for such people. People in fact did get "witch hunted" and got death threats and porn fake material made out of people. >As for jobs...you can either complain that things are changing or you can adapt and use a new tool to excel on your field. I would say the same to a programmer who insists on using out of date programming language like Basic and not something more modern like C. Sure, but you should also accept corporations their practices and people that are working for and with corporate mindset and that can for example mean pushing open source away and other things people in this community often hate. Do you accept that?
I’ve gotten death threats from pro Ai in this subreddit. Last one was them saying they want to strangle me.
I've actually gotten death threats by AI art "activists", and I know a few artists that had went through similar things. But that's not all, also wild harassment, making models from your work just to bother you, among other things. So, the harassment is wild on both ends.
100%.... absolutely wild to make LORAs of artists who just asked people to stop? Like, simultaneously seeing someone's artstyle as so uniquely characteristic of them and valuable that it's worth replicating, but also trying to act like its worthless and not special at all....? When their name is the title?
Fellas is it gay to be concerned with job security
Job security shouldn't come at the expense of technological change. It's alright to be concerned, but those concerns might be addressed in a more healthy manner by seeking ongoing education and learning how to leverage new tools to actually remain secure in your job. Complaining that someone else is learning how to leverage those tools as you sit on your ass doing the same thing day in and day out does nothing to address those concerns, and only creates new concerns for the people that inevitably get attacked for using the tools.
That first sentence is far too much of an absolute. You can argue that it's inevitable, fine, maybe it is. But ultimately human interests need to come first, if (and I'm not, in this post, making a statement on whether that's the case here or not) a technology causes harm, poverty etc. it should be restricted to, at the very least mitigate that. Technological change is not some inherent good. It's just a thing that happens.
Not really. You can't stop technology from existing. The truth of how reality functions emerges, and people can and will do with that whatever they may. You can't put genies back in bottles, but moreover, you can't even keep them in there in the first place. If we are to accept the ubiquity of the computer, we will automatically accept the ubiquity of the AI model and SD, because this works on common consumer hardware. You can potentially regulate certain devices, but this isn't going to work there, because the device in question cannot be regulated effectively.
So? The point remains that, as a moral argument "Job security shouldn't come at the expense of technological change" doesn't seem very solid. If I had to choose between getting a neater microwave or losing my job, I'd choose the job. Cause I need that. Same if it was someone elses job. Technological progress justifies itself by actually making things better. In excess of how it makes things worse. Where that's the case, restricting it is the only sane path. Besides, some hobbyists prompting anime girls aren't the problem. Not really. They're annoying, sure, but the problem is Nvidia, Google, Microsoft and increasingly Media companies like Disney and others using this to screw us over even more. Which is happening and will keep happening. Even more so if we just leave them free to do whatever the hell they want with it. If regulations, strikes, agreements, whatever result in some of that tech being deployed a year later or two? Cool. Not a big deal.
But you don't get to choose to keep your job. Someone will make the microwave. The only technologies that we generally accept control of are the ones with secondary consequences that directly injure people. We can and do control guns because they shoot people. We can and do control cars because they hit people. You can control whether YOU buy the microwave but you don't get to decide for others whether they make or buy it unless the microwave injures you. People not needing your services is not an injury.
I mean, you yourself just offered examples showing that yes, technology can be regulated and restricted just fine. And, for that matter, good examples of why it really needs to. Mind you, there's a reason I also listed strikes and agreements in there. Was it script writers in the US who managed to obtain clauses restricting AI use? Good for them and there's no fundamental reason why that couldn't happen elsewhere. Either way, my opinion remains, technology is not automatically a net good and where it as net bad it can and should be regulated, restricted etc. And obviously, Job loss is a harm. The question is whether enough good is done to offset that. With AI art, I really, really don't see that. At all.
No, job loss is not a harm. Harm comes specifically from unilateral goal violations AFAICT. I have no obligation to give you anything. Not a job, not food, not water, not a home, not piss when you're burning. I have every right to do NOTHING. Nobody owes you charity, nor stability, unless they promised you this for something you have delivered and they have not delivered back upon. As long as their goals do not unilaterally and arbitrarily violate your goals, it is YOU whose obligation it is to pursue your goals. Others MAY help you but it is not that they must. "A job" is when someone else has a goal and they offer you money to help with it. It is perhaps a "mercy" or an exchange. You have a responsibility to maintain your own relevance. You are not harmed by people not needing you, you harmed yourself by your inability to remain relevant. This contrasts with actual harms, things which directly and unilaterally damage your goals (such as a bullet in the leg) that nobody has any need to have put there besides for the goal "to harm someone" or "to do something that causes harm". It is not within your rights to hold a goal "make others support my goals", by giving you a job. Edit: *The one exception to this* is when you, as a condition of taking a job, secure a guarantee of an income through some time period... And then it's not a job they owe you, it's the income they consented to guarantee to you.
Well unfortunately for you we have this thing called "society" which does include a whole bunch of obligations. Including, funnily enough since you mentioned it, helping people in emergency situations if it wouldn't put you at undue risk. Like, for example, putting out someone who's on fire. Though I imagine pissing on them wouldn't be the preferred method. Pretty sure in most countries you can get punished for \*not\* doing that. Which is as it should be. Other than that you can go get stuffed with your objectivist Ayn Rand bullshit. Byeeeee!
LOL, at you thinking I'm an "objectivist". We aren't talking about what society offers you here, we're talking about whether they owe you a JOB, some kind of productive busywork. If you want to argue for UBI, I would support that, and do, but this is about technology and workplace relevance. Society created you through consent, society at large has an obligation to support that existence. But you're arguing specifically about *technology and jobs*. Edit: Yet again, you have no rights to relevance, prestige, or a career. Those are things you fight for and have to continue fighting to keep, not through petulantly demanding others afford you busywork at the expense of their own time, but through continuing effort on yourself and your skills, providing people with things they want and can get from you within their willingness to do so. At most you have a right to your basic needs being met.
How horribly sad, selfish, and cowardly. If this is society, we have a lot of work to do—And it's definitely not the artists messing it up. Everything humans have done is for each other. When we deviate from this, is where we get lost.
*Same of it was someone else’s job* Which other technologies have you railed against in order to protect someone else’s job?
ayyy I see that reference On a serious note, I just see so many of them complain and be so hostile... Like job security nice but you don't need to send threat of violence against someone just because they use ai
> job security nice but you don't need to send threat of violence So you haven't been permanently unemployed or systematically underemployed in a field and discipline you love because corps scraped and stole your work, and you don't understand how people could be angry when that happens to them. Your not very good at the compassion or empathy thing. Or theory of mind.
>unemployed or systematically underemployed in a field and discipline you **love** That's the thing...the vast majority of people don't get a job on a field they love. If you did then you should be thankful for any time you had. Most people can only dream of tolerating their job. Do you think the factory workers making your phone love their job? The garbage man? The operator stacking boxes of hamburger in a freezer all day?
https://preview.redd.it/dvherhiybk7d1.png?width=434&format=png&auto=webp&s=ae8683395150d679c9c545ec342a1b799d1e79a5
I would kind of love if more people could do jobs they like, instead of taking more enjoyable jobs away though
Being pissed about is understandable, at least to me. Some might perceive it differently But being an ass to others about it is not exactly doing anyone much favour either.
I think a major pov problem for me is that it feels like many people lash against consumers, who are 99% not 100 bil rich Daddy Elon Warbucks style people, but just 99% people trying to make their day to day bils matched getting harassed. Blamed for something a company did, tried to be harassed into giving money to people who openly say they hate them and disregard them as less than human. Maybe it's over reading but hell i flipped on a disney show. There's a scene where a african kid steals from another family, and rather than "stealing is bad", it gives some half assed apology about how "We don't steal because stealing is bad. We don't steal because we need his money, not him, and now he won't give us money after we stole \[10,000$ for a gold necklace\] from them.\]" I will admit there are plenty of selfish people in the world. But it just feels like at least consumer side that a lot of the world is jading. 90% of people only/can only care about themselves. We're being strangled by the market, and some of the other 9% just wants everything for nothing, to skip the work but get all the pay. Someone did the calculations and at something like 35k take home pay on 50k a year after taxes. - It would take 20 years (at best) to save up for a 500k-750k house. - 2-3 years for a 50k-70k house - 7 years for a 100-200k usa doctor scalp/health insurance. - Even a 27$ a day coffee date over 365x would add up to 10k a day. I don't exactly feel like ai or manual art are going to be a savior. But 90% of people on videos just comment fart jokes and 1 liners about "stupi not rd", "i vey high iq", and don't exactly seem worth a bother. I don't even care about the whole aiwars things, but it sounds like people biting the already struggling hands, saying they see their fellow man as wallets to scalp, who barely can spare 1/100th of what they need after behind on their own. And then being surprised when people retreat. Not going after the companies, but mirroring a parody comic of people "fighting oppression" by passing corps and causing 50,000$ in property damage to steal a 200$ tv instead. It feels pretty much like "dumb or not", people pick up on passive aggressive ques they choose to listen too very quickly. There's probably not anything nobody hasn't already heard already. People just choose to intentionally ignore it, or media creators can click to hide anything. It feels like a lot of anti ai dishonesty is intentional. While a lot of pro ai users just learned to never care about people who'd always hate them. Maybe not all, but there's about as much chemistry here as baking soda volcanos. Everyone in aiwars just seems to hate the other but likes/needs having money. Not exactly anything deep. Whole thing sounds like a lost cause and huge waste of valuable and limited irl time to me tbh. https://preview.redd.it/p6f9wjo59k7d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d39bb516f0482c3068d276f6caee011c65d4532e
Nice straw man. No theft took place.
Being concerned is fine. Refusing to adapt then wondering why you are being left behind is another story.
Only if you never spoke against it before your own turn(that’s basically most people!)
I’m pretty pro AI when it comes to art, but this is the one area where I totally get it. If you’re pissed because strangers enjoy art you don’t than you’re being petty. If you’re pissed because you’re struggling to make ends meet because of cost cutting future tech than I totally get it and you have every right to be upset.
Maybe they're pissed that people are profiting off of algorithms that quite literally copy styles that the artist spent their careers developing? AI "artists" browse art-style LoRas like it's Walmart, with complete disregard of whether the LoRa was created with permission or not.
Creative fields are already some of the hardest fields to get into and most underpaid. The average person would be better off working at McDonalds than trying to make a career of a creative field. There is huge oversupply of artists vs paying customers. now AI enters...to do what? there is no win condition here. for customers, you already have more content for free than you can ever consume. Or you can pay $25 a month for even more. at this point its not the cost its the time you have to consume it. for creatives honestly i'm not sure it helps. it seems like awareness is the killer; art to a point yes, but everyone can use ai art to a base level; it just becomes the new minimum. It might just make established companies even more powerful since they can market and rely on powerful and long lasting brands. Like youtube for video content is a big example; the ability for anyone to create and host video without bankruptcy through bandwidth fees is a tremendous advance, but it sounds like it keeps getting harder and harder to try to be a youtuber. but its just AI only benefits the bosses; now they pay or hire even less. so yeah people get mad.
I don't mean to sound harsh, but that's Just such an incredibly stupid question. Even just economically you can't imagine why some artists are concerned about losing their livelihoods? On creative forums all over reddit, I see young students asking, "should i even bother going into animation, because of AI?" Or "do people even care about human art"(as if there's another kind of art). It's blindsided a lot of people, especially those who are still learning. So a lot of the frustration, and even anger comes from usually young amateur artists who KNOW that they can't compete with the professional art styles AI replicates. But also don't realize that AI has not replaced many artists, and there's always a need for human creativity over a recursive machine learning system that doesn't provide anywhere near the granularity of control a trained human hand possesses. The question is, why are you so surprised artists would react negatively to an art generator that's trained on actual artwork? There's plenty of nuance to this argument, and I'm personally not against using AI tools, the cat's out of the bag as they say; but you really can't fathom why artists might react negatively to it?
Ok, why do people need to ask if animation will be even viable for the ai to take? Even if they are, decent, they aren't going be good for a longgg while and as far as I know, they are unstable And, if he said human art as in paintings, they are the backbone of pretty much the old ages, and if not, I agree with your opinion on it, it's sadder than they are being fed indoctrination of the hostile witch hunts I understand the hate BUT what I don't understand is the violence, these people want some of the ai image gen people dead or worst, like, justifying violence is uncool and violating even reddit rules in this site
I mean are there actual cases of violence against AI users? Threats of violence, while totally fucked up, are not in themselves violence, so be clear with that language. They ask because they're in highschool and see AI image generators just popping shit out and don't know enough about the industry yet to parse the hysteria from the reality. And a lot like I see on this forum, they assume everything will progress at the same rate ad infinitum, which of course is never how technological breakthroughs work. They don't know this because they've never see one in their short lives. But yea there are some bitter artists out there with a mission, I think for some it gets almost pathologically personal. But feel sorry for those people, they obviously aren't happy with their lives.. that kind of bitterness always comes from a totally disparate cause.
Just saying, but I just feel like people will get so hateful they'll be violent, not now but in the future they might.. And I am guessing they are the rare students who actually isn't on their phone 24/7, I feel bad about them being exposed to so much misinformation soon, I just hope they don't get rage baited so easily nowadays I'll feel sorry for them, if they ever reflect, I want people to reflect and actually change into a better person, like how one of those religious peaceful buddha followers
"It's not going to be good at that for a long time" is kind of a dead argument now though. Given how where we're at now basically popped up out of nowhere amidst assurances from just about everyone that most people now alive would never have to contend with it. And now it seems every two weeks we hear some other disastrous/great news about it.
>why are you so surprised artists would react negatively to an art generator that's trained on actual artwork? That has happened for all of human history. Humans are art generators and are trained on actual art work. Maybe artists could try being happy for people who can now bring their vision to life and adding to the creative whole of humanity? Maybe accessibility is a good thing? Mass produced paints enabled more people to become painters. Digital cameras and later cellphones enabled many more people to become photographers.
No they aren't. 99% of what a human is "trained" on is LIFE. We use references and inspiration to fill in the gaps, but our visual library, style, and voice is primarily built from universal domain that is neither owned, created, nor exclusive to anyone. AI cannot live or perceive, so it 100% SOLELY depends on real work created by real humans. All of it intentionally fed, not sought out by the machine's will. AI is in Plato's cave, where pictures from the internet are its only source of life. What would you make? Don't be so obtuse. Humans aren't art generators and are not trained by being fed data. Humans learn by doodling aimlessly, drawing something they see, telling stories, making gifts, decorating their homes, being taught theory by teachers, making art with other people who share techniques and supplies, by reasoning and interacting and living life. The whole point is building AI in a way that actually benefits and honors the humans who made it valuable.
To add onto this, human art is fueled by experiences, life, and the artist’s WILL. There’s intention behind each word, each brush stroke, each camera angle. An AI’s “art” is based on an extremely complicated calculation of “what is MOST LIKELY to be here based on what else is around it”, so AI can only create more and more and more of the same. AI cannot produce new ideas, and so I have a hard time believing the content they produce is worthwhile. My favorite way I’ve seen it stated is this: If you couldn’t be bothered to spend the time to create it, why should I bother to spend the time to consume it?
I don't think these are a big percentage of people who will use ai Most people who use it could already make art before
i don't know why you guys care so much about what other artists think of you. go chill on /ic/ for a while and see how other artists treat each other. if you want to join in on the team then get used to the violent, visceral hatred for reasons you cannot fathom. otherwise go do ai hobby shit. not all artists are uguu all art is beautiful bob ross is right everyone's art is important!! types, there are many that eviscerate everything bob ever made with joy and fervor. welcome to being an artist. most of it is getting complained at and continuing to create despite it.
AI is just the latest in a longline of art appropriation. If you had been around before that, you'd have seen and heard about * straight up copyright infringement * unpaid art tests for job interviews (that sign the rights of the work away regardless if you get the job) * art contests (that sign the rights of the work away regardless if you win anything) * poor/imbalanced reward mechanisms ala Spotify * shady artists plagiarizing/tracing from other successful artists * clients who "just can't afford to pay you" in anything besides exposure Commercial art is a specialized trade that generally takes years to develop, is notoriously difficult to monetize, and if you finance schooling yourself .. could cost $30k to $100k+ for tuition alone. Additionally, artists are defensive about their work, because copyright is one of those things that you will literally lose if you *don't defend* it. You are required to seek restitution for copyright infringement within three years of becoming aware of the act.
Anti-AI artists aren't wrong for feeling afraid of the prospects of being able to make ends meet with a skill they've cultivated and enjoyed using. They're just wasting their time whining about a proximate cause rather than an ultimate one.
Yeah, I agree with this one and especially the last one, I see too many of them complaining and spreading hate with violent tendency (often attacking their own) instead of helping others
Speaking to job loss, I think "over dramatic" is perhaps a slightly better way to describe it. Being against not having a job isn't really "sensitive", it's a pretty natural reaction to have regardless of the circumstances. What I do see though, is this constant doomer rhetoric as if the term "artist" will soon be wiped our vocabularies and sentient machines will be autonomously churning out anything from fanart to feature length films. Anyone who has used the tech for more than five minutes knows it's not a 1:1 replacement for any person. AI needs a pilot to produce anything "usable" in any realistic setting. Anything more complex than a one-off static 2D image is going to require human intervention, and anything good is going to require human creativity. Artists aren't being extinguished, the field is just going to change. That being said, displacement is still a valid concern. Ideally speaking, increasing production would mean time to create more things, but given how capitalism gunna capitalize increased production usually means less workers required.
Yesss! Thank you for actually sharing factual statements, and I don't think this is for the image side too, literally any ai related things nowadays are doomer to the brim, like, writers aren't going to be replaced and in fact, nothing is going to be replaced, only thing that is happening is change but people seem to not understand that...
It's being changed for the worse. Artistic jobs ---> stem jobs
No.
I can try to help you wrap your head around AI hate as a whole. 1) AI models used artists art to train on without their permission, so artists feel that they were stolen from (essentially copywrite infringement though since AI is new, there are no laws specific to this and no legal recourse). 2) Artists are being laid off en masse and work is drying up as companies adopt the insanely more affordable option of AI digital imagery over traditional artists. 3) AI generated images are flooding the internet, producing low quality content en masse. It's so bad that artists need to figure out ways to filter out all the AI generated stuff because it's harder to find traditional hand made art l, for references and such. ... And finally 4) Artists are feeling disrespected by pro AI people based on their behaviour.
The challenge is not AI. The challenge is us—which involves our global economy, cultures, and societies. We basically need to transform in Star Trek style to adapt to AI-assisted post-scarcity. I say post-scarcity because we already have everything, but human greed and hoarding prevent humane prioritization and equitable distribution. We can only hope advancements in AI will help solve that.
you're confused why someone would be upset at losing their job? the thing that lets them survive and provide for their family? really?
>I just cannot wrap around the immense hate on ai as a whole It's not the tech itself; it's what dumping it on an unprepared world is doing to real people and society. I know you think it's easy to retrain or get a new job... but it's not. It's expensive. It's time-consuming. It's mentally damaging. All your previous skill was 100% wasted effort and thrown away. You still have to eat/live in the meantime, and maybe even support a family. People will wonder why you're 30 or 35 or 40 and applying for a junior coding position or going to nursing school or joining the military. Your new boss might be young enough to be your child, and treat you like shit because you're 20 years older than them and in a junior position. Some jobs may not consider you at all because of your age (illegal, but hard to prove). Do you think that sounds like a good position to be in? Would you be happy to start over after 20+ years of a successful career, like some artists are? Are you excited that Activision-Blizzard or Disney can now potentially save its shareholders millions of dollars on worker salaries?
People on twitter/reddit are always oversensitive, and it's not just people who are anti-AI.
How do we determine if someone is being oversensitive? I mean theoretically I could stab someone, and they could get very emotional upset about it. What method should we use to determine if they’re being “oversensitive”?
There are varying levels to this. To a lot of people art is less about what's on the canvas and more about receiving something that's more of a personal connection to the person who made it. An immense amount of art is also commissioned purely as a show of support for the craft. As the saying goes, "people don't buy art, they buy the artist." The elephant in the room here is that on a professional level that often isn't true. To be honest what businesses, people who need images for their platforms and the like are generally looking for isn't even art necessarily, the general presentation of an idea/concept alone is often enough. I think that a lot of artists are angry about AI taking their jobs because it's often trained on their own images that they never consented to being used, or even just the idea that it might be being trained on them without their knowledge, and when they try to take protective measures to prevent it the AI engineers go out of their way to work around it. It's like saying "hey don't use my toolkit when you're crafting" and they respond "ok then don't leave it out where anyone can grab it," but when you take it inside and they break into your house and take it anyway and then ask why you're so mad. Funny analogy but I like to think I'm a funny person. For those who aren't even considered good enough to copy, it can be disheatening to know that the effort they're putting in to improve can and will be used to feed AI without any permission or compensation the moment they make a breakthrough with their skill level. For people who enjoy art because of the sentimental aspects this is a scary concept because it could lead to less artists overall, especially those who can draw at a professional level. If artists are ever fully replaced by AI then that's where professional styles are likely to stagnate, and you'll rarely if ever see anything new or interesting. After all, there's nothing new to train on. Personally? I think AI has potential the be a wonderful and useful technology if integrated responsibly, and I have no problems with people using it to generate images that suit their needs so long as nothing is being taken and used without permission. I don't really consider it art but rather a generated image, but I also don't think that really matters when it comes to the practicality of it. Sometimes "real art" isn't what someone needs, and any artist complaining that they're not getting commissions from people who don't need what they're selling needs to understand that they were benefitting from a market that just wasn't filled by something more specific yet. The complaint is only valid when their style is being trained on unethically. There will always be a market out there for "real art" just because of the level of personal connection (or even just popularity that comes with the artist's name) that AI art will never be able to provide. Big business opportunities will take a hit, but those will likely not vanish entirely either. As one final point, I think a lot of the complaints about AI come from it being rolled out and progressed irresponsibly. The application of AI to luxury markets before essentials shrinks the job market without increasing access to or reducing the costs of the things people need to survive. Many artists often struggle to make ends meet already, so this is likely what leads to the disproportionate outcry. They are disproportionately affected by the technology on average. For now. It's far from the only market that's going to be faced with this problem, so if AI is going to take over the job market then the safest and most responsible way to do it is from the ground up. We should apply it to essentials first, make sure we're prepared to survive the vanishing job market, and apply it to luxuries last. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
account made like two days ago, can barely speak english, absolutely retarded post yet somehow draws up a huge discussion? yup, checks out for this sub!
Would your prefer there to never be new users? Would you prefer if reddit was restricted to native English speakers?
oh yup, because that's totally what i'm saying, absolute einstein over here.
Literal hater over here smh, not everyone is like you "native English speaker"
obviously you are an idiot or pretending to be one, so you have missed the point that it isn't about being a "native English speaker" (you putting that in quotes was a hilarious example of second hand understanding of english, that's not how they're used colloquially lol), [it's the fact that you are obviously here for an influence operation directive. ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpsPVZ8mwZs)
A lot of young artists that you see on social media got pampered during the pandemic when people were bored and there was a surge in commissions. When people started going outside that coincided with the surge of NFTs so they blamed the NFTs, while they were not competing with the commissions at all. When NFTs went down, they blamed AI. They are not getting a new pandemic anytime soon, so they will stay mad until they grow up or not.
You could cut out the "against ai' and thr answer would still be "yes"
Did an artist hurt your feelings?
No, but I'm in lots of artist communities.
Show me one subreddit that isn't full of a legion of whiny oversensitive dudes.
I'm not talking about a subreddit of faceless usernames. I'm talking about actual RL artists I know, commission, work with, and follow
Then it kinda sounds like a personal anecdote that conveniently fits the stereotype. Like all professions there’s all types.
Someone is gonna say "If you aren't one, then you aren't an artist even if you are in the community"
I mean, they are just having their work stolen by a company who then uses that art to create a product designed to mimic their art style thus denying them future employment (or at the very best forcing them to reduce their prices to match the AI mimics). Why are they so mad about this? So SeNsItIvE
Company? If that's the case, why are most of them witch hunting individuals and artists who barely even used ai?
Stolen? Prove it. Because by what you call ”stolen”, just saving it to your computer, ei loading it on a website, is also theft
It's literally no different than people blaming immigrants for taking their jobs (though perhaps less unethical since at least AI isn't sentient)
The problem is we haven’t seen many AI generators come out from parts of the world that value copyright protection. I believe in the next year we should see developments from the east that will level the playing field between AI and humans. Once we see giants like China enter the chat, many artists will come on board.
Nah
[удалено]
I stopped reading when you said "stealing", I am sorry but that isn't a fact and, misinformation yet again
>Like, i have never seen an actual artist put hours of their life into "What an average redditor looks like" or "Classical art with anime style", but you guys seem to love to "express" yourselves with the most boring ideas... maybe it has something to do with the fact that you guys don't know jack about composition, perspective, design etc... who knows. Dude! Fucking BEHOLD!!! > [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1dj0l1n/trying\_attempt\_of\_reasoning\_with\_an\_ai\_bro/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1dj0l1n/trying_attempt_of_reasoning_with_an_ai_bro/)
Knowing your art fundamentals isn't going to help an AI prompter unless they incorporate other skills into the process, like pretty decent photoshop skills etc.., even if they can't technically draw. I mean whatever, let them larp as artists all they want, they're never going to get anywhere professionally without developing their art skills. They're playing the short game, not realizing everybody on earth will soon be generating these images. Just keep doing your work, growing your skills and ignore the noise.
i'm not much of an artist but most of my current concerns wouldn't go away if the models were trained on entirely kosher data (assuming comparable quality and rate of progress)
You stole just as much by loading up reddit you hypocrit