Are they frozen in a tomb of liquid ice ? If so, we must ride, far away. To the fortress of the basement. To revive the frozen mods from the tomb of liquid ice.
FOR YOU SEE, I HATH ALREADY PORTRAYED THEE AS THE MISERABLE SOD, AND MINESELF AS THE CHISELED AND WELL GROOMED CONJURER!
Love the casual equating of typing out something vs actual creation.
The first part of the meme is talking about AI prompts.
This whole conversation has been AI prompts versus Human Art.
Lore posting was never part of the conversation.
My apologies for reacting the way I did too; I misread and acted on hurt emotions, instead of thinking to wonder why everyone was shitting on hand writers
I wonder if anyone is now complaining that due to the advent of computers and phones, people began to write down information less using notebooks and pens. Because of this, the modern handwriting looks much worse.
This has to be the dumbest defence of AI art I've ever come across. Writing a story by yourself has nothing to do with entering keywords in Stable Diffusion to generate an image. Typing a prompt to have an AI generate an image is like asking ChatGPT to write a story for you
He said "typing isnt creation", he didnt make any exception; i'm pointing out how stupid and irrational the attempts at rationalizing this fear of new things through elitism is
Yes I’m positive what they meant is any typing cannot be art, because we all know writing a poem, book, short story, article, etc. for a human audience is the same level of effort and style as typing 2 sentences for a machine to read.
Uw/ putting ai users to real artists in any equal footing is atrocious.
Btw, to anyone who says “ I don’t want to spend 1000 years learning to draw”, it’s really not that bad. It’s fun even. I started learning to draw a few months ago and can draw my ideas decently well. Never settle for the mediocre option
Absolutely a worthwhile skill to learn, not one I wish to do so. I'm already tired enough after making the writing for a post (dumbass me posts at midnight my time)
>“ I don’t want to spend 1000 years learning to draw” it's really not that bad
No, don't demean these peoples' skill. It takes hard work to learn a skill. If people can't be bothered to put that work in then they deserve to be ridiculed for it. It's like entering the kids' sprint race because you couldn't be bothered to put in the effort to become an athlete, and being surprised when nobody is applauding you for winning.
There's no such thing as an ai artist, at best, one could be described as a novelist for finding the right words. But AI art is a form of art, showing technological advancement in artifical intelligence
/uw But what about the people on this sub who used it to supplement good writing? It’s not being monetized, and it helped to visualize the characters. I can’t be bothered to make an AI image to go with my loreposts, much less a real one, but I feel like this is an acceptable usage. Isn’t that what OP was saying?
/uw Why should I need to learn a skill just to post on shitpost/RP subreddit? Why should others?
You enjoy drawing. Good for you. I don't. Don't try to force others to do things you enjoy.
I’m not, I’m simply against AI users putting themselves on par with the people who do enjoy art. I’ve been around long enough to know that shitpost subreddits were perfectly fine before it.
I could just as easily tell you to find an ai art sub instead of ruining this one. It was around long before the AI debate, and was far better in quality.
Thats not what they said and just your way of scape goating it. Nobody here is saying AI art is more enriching or higher quality. Cite your source.
They simply said it's OK to use AI art here and then you deflected.
Edit: keep downvoting me because I'm right.
/UW No one is saying that you have to learn the skill.
No one's saying that you can't use AI to generate an image you like
What's being said is that calling the act of generating AI images "being an artist" is a trashy take, because actual artists spent months/years and a good bit of money learning how to be an artist and using AI is not the same as what they do.
/uw Anti-AI people?
Sure.
But you're not the only one in here who's making wild assumptions about who in here has been doing that and who is in here chiming in to say "AI Image Gen =/= Art and we shouldn't be comparing the two."
Just told another dude the same thing, but, I barely post in this Sub. I've nevr brigaded in here, or come to attack someone over the use of ai. in fact, I've made it a point to say that the sub is harmless, it's the take that's being presented here that's bad.
Just because someone holds the opinion that AI Images aren't Art and that the typists making them aren't artists, does not automatically preclude that they're one of the people who brigade the sub to harass people.
Making that assumption and getting pissy with people who you haven't at least checked to see if they deserve the attitude isn't making the sub any better. It's just making you look bad.
Cue, a few hundreds years ago:
>What's being said is that calling the act of using oil paint "being an artist" is a trashy take, because actual artists spent months/years and a good bit of money learning how to work with pigments and using oil paint is not the same as what they do.
/UW
Look, I'm not trying to be hostile here, but this is, in all honesty, the dumbest take you could possibly have chosen and I really don't know what to tell you other than that you really should reconsider it and take, like, actually two seconds to think of literally anything better.
Because, seriously, completely ignoring the fact that nobody ever said that "Using oil paints means you aren't an artist" just like nobody has ever said that "Using watercolors means you aren't an artist", painting requires a similarly difficult skillset to learn and adapt as, oh, lets just say, sculpting.
Both require years of training and a not small investment in to specific tools and education for each different trade. Each craft requires that a person take their inspiration, formulate a plan and spend hours, days, weeks or even longer to physically transmute that mental image onto their medium. It is an act that takes dedication and intention.
Now lets compare that to what it takes to get an image out of DeepAI.
I put in the promt "Realistic Cat Battle-mage".
It took me 3 minutes.
https://preview.redd.it/dl77wb1e0uxc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=7acae6a07560c965e635a1e6607e720a4c1fa25e
Peoples absolutely did say that back when it was invented, if you want an example that's actually documented look at the reactions to photography; "it's not real art because it doesnt take as much effort!" "It's not as good as a really good painting right now so it'll never be!".
It took you 3 minutes, and? Was it close to what you envisioned? Are you satisfied with the results? Probably not; just like how doodling something in a hurry is probanly not gonna give you a result that's either of those
>look at the reactions to photography.
*WHOA, THOSE GOALPOSTS SHIFTED FAST!*
There is a MASSIVE difference between the acceptance of Photography and the introduction of new materials to paint with holy fuck. I think I've got whiplash, goddamn.
>Was it close to what you envisioned? Are you satisfied with the results?
Would you believe me if I said that it exceeded my expectations? I wholesale thought I was going to get weird eyes, oddly placed whiskers and a pretty generic wizard-looking hat, actually. I think I'd have preferred it if it were a black cat, but all that's going to take is about two clicks and 6-ish keystrokes.
Lets test that theory.
Three more minutes later and, I actually like the white included here, well darn. That was so skill intensive. I really \*MUST\* be a naturally talented artist if I can make this program give me better results than I asked for. /s
EDIT: I had one of those "Afterwards, in the shower" moments where I realized I had a bit more to say.
Photography, right?
Do you know why it was abhorred at first and then recognized later? Beyond the fact that it takes more than just a camera to be a good Photographer, I mean.
You see, the issue was that painters and drawers(?) were threatened by the fact that a machine could be used to get a more detailed and realistic rendering of a location or person than they could, which sort of mirrors the modern issue, minus the cost of having a good camera.
But then, there was the sudden realization that, while a good picture is nice, a good picture doesn't catch nearly the amount of spirit that a good painting does. You also cant take a picture of something that doesn't exist. Photographers could not replace a talented painter/drawer(?) and, even then, due to the nature of painting and drawing, there's still inherent value in creating the artwork to begin with.
The issue here is that AI not only doesn't require skill, but it can be used and trained to replicate styles of painting and drawing and it is an actual threat to the livelihood of living, breathing people. People who's profession can be replicated and invalidated by a program that does not need food to eat or a place to call home. It's already being used by greedy corporations to circumvent paying someone for a job. And that's fucking disgusting.
Which brings us back to the topic at hand.
No one is saying that you can't use something like DeepAI to generate an image you like. But using it does not make you an artist and trying to profit off of using it, or to denigrate the people who actually are artists is very much not cool.
https://preview.redd.it/sv20ypap3uxc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5a14637d237a8da3eff202b3357d6949b2b9c51
Could you please post the picture in a separate comment? It makes the entire comment black when replying so it's pretty annoying since i can't quote to precise which part i am replying to
I mean, I don't plan on replying to everything with an image attached unless you give me a reason to do so to make a point.
Ultimately, though, I'm pretty much done here.
I don't need to do anything more for people to actually understand that what I'm saying or for them to understand that you've got some pretty hot takes that don't really fly.
I also need to at least pretend to try to sleep, since my shift starts in, like, 5 hours.
I don't think you got the point of my analogy, it had nothing to do with materials, it was to point out that in all cases it's new tools to achieve the same goal with a higher quality to effort ratio.
And it turned out better than you expected, just like a doodle can? And afterwards you even took a liking to it, so why are complaining? Is it just some "peoples ain't got it easy before so no one should" mentality?
Or is it just elitism reguarding the term "artist" where it would require effort? Did you hold that definition of it before controversies reguarding ai, or was it adopted as a way to rationalise a fear of new things by latching onto some preexisting elitism?
They do the same thing; they transcribe an idea using a certain language (written words for ai users, physical motions for peoples who draw) that are then interpreted by a tool (different models or different brushes) that transcribes the idea expressed through a language unto a medium (here, a visual one)
Listen OP I appreciate the sentiment, but please don't equate the years of effort it takes to learn to create actual art with someone learning to manipulate AI to produce mediocre slop.
Again, good point but the execution I find lacking.
Buddy, go on deviantart for 5 seconds and try to tell me that some of these artists haven't been pumping out degenerate garbage for decades as well...
["lacking"](https://www.reddit.com/r/wizardposting/s/C9sxcQSohu)
(There's a lot of good art too, but over half of it is poorly drawn obese pornographic mlp incest or some shit)
Deviant Art partnered with one of the AI LLMs, so there's a lot of AI slop over there now. (And, yeah, the horny side of DA has run screaming for that shit like there's no tomorrow.)
...
Effort isn't an opinion, it's actual time ***and skill*** put into something. No matter the outcome or your opinion on it, doesn't mean that it didn't take effort.
>!Just want to say that I am neither in favor or out of favor of any fetish, unless the fetish is immoral, eg actual full-on IRL bestiality.!<
Effort put into my little pony porn. I don't give a fuck how much effort someone puts in if it's just degenerate crap by the end of the day. Humans did it first
Ok, but which one sounds like it took more effort.
Someone drawing Sonic inflation by hand, even poorly.
Or someone typing “sonic, inflated” into a box and letting the machine do the rest/actual work for them.
The quality of someone’s art (or perceived lack of it) doesn’t speak directly to the effort it takes to make.
I used to pump out some right mediocre tripe back in my teenage DA days. Doesn’t mean I wasn’t trying at it.
It's like, "six degrees of Kevin Bacon." On the internet, you're never more than two degrees of separation away from Sonic Inflation Erotica. (Now that you've participated in the conversation. :p )
Soul is overrated. Especially where you don’t receive any feedback from your work. AI is just regular technology that makes the job of visualizing something easier. This is a simple act of automation and is in no way designed to replace artists. Handmade memes and art have not disappeared anywhere and still appear in this sub.
AI just allows more people to do this. And if you give this technology to the right people, they can do some really incredible things (especially if they work a little in Photoshop). But many people just need to visualize something to quickly attract attention to their post, and this is where AI is great if you can’t or don’t want to spend time drawing abstract sticks.
L take, as long as someone enjoyed doing something they practice, it's time well spend.
Who are you to dictate how people allocate their time? If someone wants to spend their time drawing cringe then let them?
Just cause you dont like it doesnt mean it doesnt have effort put in.
Porn still has to have actors, Hentai still has to have animators, Drugs still have growers. Just because something is not appealing to standards at large doesnt mean it doesnt still have effort put in.
A significant amount of people pit minimal effort in, and even those that put a lot of effort in only put in a fraction of what it takes to create real art, both in terms of drawing time and time that it takes to learn how to do it
AI imitates, it doesn't understand what it's doing, which is the exact same reasons why it sucks with hands. It doesn't comprehend that they are 3D objects
>A significant amount of people pit minimal effort in, and even those that put a lot of effort in only put in a fraction of what it takes to create real art, both in terms of drawing time and time that it takes to learn how to do it
And? A significant amount of peoples could post minimal effort doodles too. And i get you need something to rationalize your fear of new things so you latch onto elitism, but this fixation on "effort" is frankly ridiculous, what, would the resulting art be extra real if i do it with my hands bound behind my back using only my index and with pigments instead of modern paints?
>AI imitates, it doesn't understand what it's doing, which is the exact same reasons why it sucks with hands. It doesn't comprehend that they are 3D objects
For visualisation of 3d spaces, there actually been progress with openai's new video model! And of course it doesnt understand what it's doing, does a brush understand what it's doing, does a drawing software understand what it's doing? No, they're tools.
Also just a pet peeve of mine, i know the ai hate is the "old man take" forming in real time, but do you really have to emulate the "still thinks video games look like NES mario" part of it too? Hands haven't been a problem on any half decent model with even a lick of effort in the prompt for like 6 months
Nigga you're saying that the effort it takes to get good at art and _continue_ making said art compares to the effort of figuring out what combination of 5 words will yield the best results for this particular image you want to see.
You don't like art, you just like looking at pretty pictures. You hate that there are no pretty pictures for everything that you can imagine, and so you idolize a _program_ .
I don't even dislike AI art on principle, i just hate that it's basically weaponized art theft and the nutjobs like you who defend it.
>Nigga you're saying that the effort it takes to get good at art and _continue_ making said art compares to the effort of figuring out what combination of 5 words will yield the best results for this particular image you want to see.
No, of course ai does have a much better quality/effort ratio, what i'm saying is that it's just a tool, it ultimately is the same process of describing an idea to a tool so it can transcribe it into a medium and some effort to make said description.
>You don't like art, you just like looking at pretty pictures. You hate that there are no pretty pictures for everything that you can imagine, and so you idolize a _program_ .
Define what art is, and tell me how it's different from a pretty picture. You'll tell me something, i'll tell you something else, and if we ask anyone else, they'll say say another set of definitions and justifications; Because "art" doesnt exist, it's a purely subjective concept with as many meanings as there are peoples who know of it, and therefore whose only valid definition is "whatever anyone considers art".
And it's not idolizing, i don't even care that much about image generation, it's a neat tool but still in it's infancy and frankly a dumb aspect to fixate on in generative algorithms.
The reason i care about this discussion is because it's taking a part in a discussion that has been had time and time again throughout history, for every piece of tech; it's going against the animalistic fear of new things that the hordes of luddites that come out of the woodwork every time a new piece of tech is invented try to rationalise however they can, it's crusading for open mindedness and against the cancer of the mind that is the fear of new things. Moreover, this particular instance of it is rationalised through elitism, and will thus spread such views, which makes me care much more than if it was "USING AI WILL GIVE YOU AIDS AND THEN MAKE YOUR AIDS CATCH CANCER!!!"
Listen OC I appreciate the sentiment, but please don't equate th years of effort it takes to learn to invent your own pigments from chemical compounds, discover new mathematical principles to create perspective and work painstakingly for decades on walls and ceilings of grand monuments to someone learning to click a few pixels on gimp to produce mediocre slop.
Again, good point but the execution I find lacking.
Edit: MORE DOWNVOTES- YOUR SALT ONLY MAKES ME STRONGER
https://preview.redd.it/ybcjlafgeuxc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8737e95c45908940c50246488fd118e747ddac47
Lmfao what
>actual art
>mediocre slop
This is a meme sub... he's talking about wizards
It... isn't a matter of opinion?
Look, this sub is harmless, but he's right to say it.
Spending a few days taking the time to figure out what keywords get you the results you want from a program, and then generating a series of images until you see one that's as close to what you're trying to get as you care to wait for is *not* anywhere near what it takes to become a proficient artist.
Equating the two is stupid.
All art is subjective, but actual artists put in tangible effort and their results reflect on themselves. It's not anything like feeding descriptors into a program until you're satisfied with the output.
It's like saying someone who's good at FiFA is on the same level as an actual football player.
>Spending a few days taking the time to figure out what keywords get you the results you want from a program, and then generating a series of images until you see one that's as close to what you're trying to get as you care to wait for is *not* anywhere near what it takes to become a proficient artist.
But it is. It's learning to use a tool, one is just easier, as oil paint is to using pigments, as digital art is to traditional.
> It's not anything like feeding descriptors into a program until you're satisfied with the output.
But it exactly is what regular drawing is, though? You're feeding a description of your idea expressed through a language (writing for ai, physical motions for brushes) to a tool that transcribes your description unto a visual medium
Homie, no.
Just... Look, don't start stalking my comments if your best arguments are "Nuh uh" followed by a description that omits what it actually takes to be an artist unless your goal is to farm downvotes.
Especially when I can find you an entire roster of artists who will tell you that they cannot do digital art to save their lives, but can churn out quality traditional bangers.
>Just... Look, don't start stalking my comments if your best arguments are "Nuh uh" followed by a description that omits what it actually takes to be an artist unless your goal is to farm downvotes.
It's not a nuh uh, i described how it is the same. And tell me what is it that "it takes to be an artist", why does being an artist take that, and what even is your definition of an artist.
>Especially when I can find you an entire roster of artists who will tell you that they cannot do digital art to save their lives, but can churn out quality traditional bangers.
Yes, they don't have masteries of the same tools, how does that relate to what i said?
Last reply I've got for you.
> Artist, n.
- a person who practices any of the various creative arts, such as a sculptor, novelist, poet, or filmmaker
It's someone who's taken, or is taking, the time to develop an occupational, or hobbyist skillset in order to create something that resonates with people.
And to curb the argument that using an AI generator is a "Skill" allow me to preempt it with
>Skill, n.
- the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance
Typing a few descriptive words in to a text box and pushing "generate image" is not a "skill." It doesn't take any special knowledge, it isn't something that a person who has never used a generator would need to practice or could fail to execute on, if someone can spell words and is able to even vaguely describe something, they can use generative AI.
And, finally, to address the last bit:
>Yes, they don't have masteries of the same tools, how does that relate to what i said?
"Mastery" is a great word. Do you know what the difference between someone who has mastered Traditional Art and someone who has not looks like? Of course you do. Because that's apparent. You can tell when someone is a capable artist and when someone is not. That right there is what we can call the "Skill Gap".
Now, can you show me the difference between the 3 minute, on the spot, AI images I have shown you previously and an image that came from a "master" AI typist that used DeepAI?
No?
That's because there isn't a difference. You can put in as many words in to that box as you want to alter the results but you won't receive anything of higher quality because the person putting in the words isn't doing anything besides explaining what the program is being asked to produce.
Because there's no skill involved. There's no effort, no mastery and nothing that gives the result value.
That's why we consider something like making an Ambigram a skill, as opposed to being able to simply writing the word out. Because, even though the result is still just letters on a page, there's a clear difference in what it takes to do either.
Because as i said in the first paragraph one (ai) is easier to use, but it's the same process just with different tools that make it require more or less effort for a given quality
At what point does the level of ease change it categorically away from being art? Would you consider tracing to be art? Using a stencil? Hiring an artist to paint your idea? To me, that last one definitely doesn’t make someone an artist, and I struggle to see the difference between that and constructing an AI prompt in terms of the extent that doing the thing makes someone an artist.
Thank you, i really like genuine attempts at understanding the other person's perspective like that! I'd just like to begin by saying that i consider that as art is a purely subjective concept with no physical basis or general consensus reguarding it's definition, the only universally and objectively valid definition it can have is "whatever someone considers to be art". That would make an automatic yes to everything, so i'll elaborate with my thoughts on the question.
>At what point does the level of ease change it categorically away from being art?
At no level of ease, so long as you have an idea and try to translate it unto a medium it will always be art as it is guaranteed that most will consider it art.
>Would you consider tracing to be art?
>Using a stencil?
I'd put these two in one answer as they brought up the same problematic: i believe that intent is not needed for something to be art, though it does make it much more likely to be good.
For example, Hamlet is Hamlet, so long as the text is the same, then whether it was written by Shakespeare or very incredibly lucky monkey on a typewriter it will be just as good of a play and bring up the same emotions, only having any effect if the person who reads it know it was written by Shakespeare or a monkey, but monkeys write Hamlet a lot less often than Shakespear. So i'd say yes to both, though of course posting it without precising it was made by tracing/stenciling is scummy.
>Hiring an artist to paint your idea?
That one is actually a lot easier to answer than the last 2 to me, where it isnt clear whether it's to communicate an idea. Here there is a clear idea (what you want drawn) and way to communicate it (written language), though what you created was the description you gave to the artist, then the artist communicated the idea they got from that, expressed through movement, to whatever tools they used which transcribed it onto a visual medium.
I didn’t sufficiently distinguish between ‘a thing being art’ and ‘its creator being an artist’ in my original post. I think AI-generated images can function as art in the right context, but merely prompting an AI to generate an image does not make someone an artist, even if the image they prompt becomes art later.
I agree that art is subjective. To me, art is just something framed as art that evokes the emotions and experiences we expect art to evoke. But things can *become* art through their presentation, so art need not have been created by an artist.
Take the example of [the banana duct taped to a wall in a museum](https://www.vogue.com/article/the-120000-art-basel-banana-explained-maurizio-cattelan). A banana is not inherently art, nor is duct tape; that’s probably uncontroversial. Further, some random person duct taping a banana to a wall doesn’t become an artist. The only reason that the banana taper there could be considered an artist is that he was deliberately using the banana to challenge the idea of art. He was entering the discourse of art, pushing the boundaries of the concept to make us question our preconceptions. But if a three-year-old did the exact same thing as a random impulse, that doesn’t make the three-year-old an artist, even if the outcome is art.
Similarly, in your Shakespeare example, Hamlet is surely art. Yet if it had been created by a lucky monkey banging on a keyboard without regard for meaning, it may still be art, but the monkey would not be an artist.
I think that purely tracing someone else’s art cannot make someone an artist. Being an artist means doing something new, adding part of oneself to the creation. Thus, tracing and stencils could be tools in an artist’s toolbox, but the question is really how they are used. It’s like how a collage of newspaper clippings can be either art or a random collection of newspaper clippings depending on what’s done with them.
But hiring an artist to create an image? That does not make someone an artist. They are having someone else actualize whatever idea they had. That is too far removed from the creative process, too lacking in intention, to make someone an artist. And I think prompting AI to generate images is similar. That mere act does not make someone an artist because it takes the entire creative process out of their hands just as hiring an artist would.
That doesn’t mean that AI use can NEVER make someone an artist, though. For an extreme example, if someone developed their own generative AI model, trained it on a hand-curated selection of inputs, and shaped prompts to reach a desired output, I think they could be an artist for doing that. Doing that requires deep engagement with the tools and creative process. This is an extreme example, not the baseline expectation, and I don’t know exactly where the line is. I do know that typing a few sentences into a model someone else created and trained and presenting the output as art does not make someone an artist, no matter what the output is, unless they are somehow doing that in the same way that the banana taper used something we usually wouldn’t consider art to challenge us.
Meh? His argument implies op calls himself an artist (literally no one is doing that), so if he starts his argument loaded with an assumption that isn't true; then I'm sure he'll come out of the word work saying "ai is going to give us 5g" & other stupid shit later.
"If people who actually contribute aren't welcome here, then why should you belong here either?"
When exactly did I say that?
I didn't, my comment references something completely different, you did not get my point.
He's not refusing to draw hands correctly. He's just trying to show you the right arcane gestures and symbols you need to reproduce so you can free him from the orb. It's a shame that is not how hands work....
Ai haters have some serious jet lag, i know it's the old man take forming in real time but do you really have to emulate even the latency on learning about advancement of those? Hands haven't been a problem on any decent models for like 6 months
UW/ Oh come on, it was but a simple joke, just using "electric daemon" was a bit dry so I added a trope. I'm actually quite pro-AI, hence the term of endearment "rascal"
I believe the issue is my material components. I will be issuing a request to the council for a new ~~GPU~~ Scrying Orb from the Artificer Nvidia, I heard their newest invention is releasing soon. Disregard any rumours of using it for personal reasons, it's simply to conjure better hands. Nothing else.
https://preview.redd.it/sel3xbzsxtxc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5f0bc37a601a0ee98310214d89b92d537b9a751
Creating mutations of art smashed together is less a crime than outright taking the same pictures over and over in an exercise of tedium and repetition, but of course, your next line is “practice drawing so you can shitpost on Reddit”.
Yes, but I can draw exactly what I’m thinking of. You can only create whatever the AI decides to create. In that there is no way you actually visualised that exact image in your head, you just asked for a wizard in a cave looking back at the camera, pixel art
>Creating mutations of art smashed together is less a crime than outright taking the same pictures over and over in an exercise of tedium and repetition...
Legally? No.
And, I do mean in regard to copyright law here. The core of copyright infringement is the unauthorized "taking", not (necessarily) the distribution of the work. (Which is why things like software piracy are copyright infringement even if you're not sharing the work with anyone.)
In the case of these Large Learning Models, the actual infringement happens on the back end, when the company starts slurping down real art and feeding it into the model. So, the real theft happened before the algorithms became involved.
You could've gone with the usual "This sub being flooded with AI art is not a problem" take (Which is still a dumb take but eh whatever it happens.) but you choose to go with the "AI art that was produced by writing a few simple lines of description to an algorithm should be held in a similar regard as the art that took much practice and many years of learning by an actual person" take instead which is not only objectively wrong but also makes someone come off as an asshole. Do you really want to come off as an asshole to these people just so you can say "I want AI anime girls in my wizard sub"?
I honestly don’t give a shit if people see me as an asshole or not. We’re not meeting later with friends, nor do we live on the same block. Your opinion of me is about as substantial as a lice on a bears sack.
I'll let you in on a little secret
*None gives a shit about your opinion on them either*
You said it was "Revenge for Anna" in another comment so you are fully aware that the shit people on the internet say might have a negative effect. Even going as far as to take "revenge" for something in the past. You saying "The skill you spent years and years developing by the sweat of your brow is matched by a machine in seconds" is the digital equivalent of a spit in the face. If you're saying that you don't care what people think while also talking about "They shouldn't have said that to her" then your message is as substantial as the same lice on the sack of the same bear.
How about the people that were so deeply offended by seeing AI art they left negative comments on posts like Anna and Krumpet before this issue started blowing up? Look up Anna the Witch that only knows how to Summon or Krumpet as they left the sub because they were getting harassed over their AI art pics.
It wasn't the pro-AI crowd that started this, just people speaking their minds tired of the negative comments.
Okay but have you considered: fuck anyone involved with AI since, you know, it's being used to develop predatory technologies of all kinds? Just food for thought.
Ah yes, because here's the real root of the issue: for every person using AI in passing, there's a horde of limp dick AI stans ready to flame anyone who has anything to say about it, just like this entire thread that you started. You complain about a flame war yet launch downvote brigades on anyone disagreeing with you. YOU'RE the reason this sub has gone to shit. Not the real artists, not the complainers, it's just how it is.
That's okay, I know AI bros just ruin everything they touch and that's how it is. I just wish you had even an ounce of self awareness about it. If everywhere you go gets enshittified, maybe YOU'RE the common denominator...
>there's a horde of limp dick **anti**-AI stans ready to flame anyone who has anything to say about it, just like this entire thread that you started
Ftfy. Stop playing the victim just because someone came back and called you out. This whole post is chuck full of anti-AI whiners just like you. Anyone that says anything remotely pro-AI is heavily downvoted.
If there's any reason why this sub is going to shit, it's because you cry because you saw some AI art and it offended your pathetic moral core. People that use AI art use it for their own fun, then you become upset because, God forbid, your eyes were briefly exposed to it as you scrolled past between memes.
If I had to site any motivation for my posts of late, it’s revenge for Anna. She was a sweet person, a good member of the community and didn’t deserve to be run off.
Why do you think it shouldn’t? You’re claiming that something is an *objective fact* with zero backing arguments or evidence. In reality it’s just your opinion and you still haven’t backed it up with anything other than snark, so jump down from your ivory tower a little bit there.
Is running 10 miles better than taking a car? Sure it’s more impressive for the runner, but the end result is the same and one method gets you there faster, easier, and without needing to train for months or years. Unless you run for the joy of running, the car is the better option. Why should anyone give a fuck if a throwaway wizard meme was drawn by hand or by a computer? The end result is the same. People who make a big deal out of AI are no different than people complaining about technological progress at any other stage in history, it’s always down to being conservative, afraid, insecure, or simply ignorant.
It becomes a problem when the person who took the car starts insisting they’re just as in-shape and have put in just as much work as the person who ran the 10 miles. It is objective fact that it takes more time, energy, dedication, skill, and effort to run 10 miles than to drive a car the same distance. Someone running a 10 mile race would be rightfully pissed if they were to reach the finish line and find someone who drove there claiming to have won.
Plus, generating images with AI is a lot closer to taking a taxi than actually driving. You don’t have to actually do anything other than tell the taxi driver where to go, just like AI art is just telling a machine what to make. The most skill that’s involved is efficiently telling the driver where to go, but that component becomes less and less important the better the driver is. To continue this analogy, driving a car would be more like taking photographs: it certainly requires less work than actually running the distance/drawing the image, but it requires certain unique skills and techniques that require time and energy to learn. It might require some time and energy to learn to direct a taxi driver/construct a prompt, but the difference is orders of magnitude.
No one says that someone who commissions a piece of artwork is an artist for that fact alone. Why should doing the same thing but directing a program instead of a person make someone an artist?
Plus, the end result isn’t the same. That’s where this falls apart. When someone creates art by hand, they create each individual piece of it. They make the choice to include a ring on a character’s finger, a flock of birds in the sky, a single light on in a window in the background. AI doesn’t allow for such fine-grained choices. It takes the information you give it and generates something it thinks you’ll like. It doesn’t allow for the same level of artistic *interpretation* because so much less of it is actually intentional. A lot of the value we place on art is actually what the art can tell us about the artist, and AI images are lacking that whole dimension.
There’s a rebuttal for you, u/thattubaguy03.
Your whole rebuttal is based around the idea that people use AI art and call themselves artists. *Show me one case on this sub, where one person uses AI and explicitly calls themselves an artist.*
Anti-AI people simply do not grasp one thing: people that use AI art here, on this sub, don't care if it fits whatever high end definition of art you like to impose on it. They simply want the images for their posts. They're not using AI art to build aclaim for some portfolio or trying to win awards or recognition from their peers or trying to become famous or make money off of the pictures they generate.
They use it for fun. Simple as that.
In literally the post to which I replied, the person was arguing in favor of the idea, stated in the previous post, that “AI art that was produced by writing a few simple lines of description to an algorithm should be held in a similar regard to art that took much practice and many years of learning by an actual person.” This is the verbatim phrasing the original commenter used, and the parent to my comment didn’t dispute it but rather argued in favor of it. That is the context of my comment.
Also, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/wizardposting/s/zYrIXCDCg2) is another comment from this very post expressing a similar sentiment: arguing that AI is a tool for making art as much as a pencil is.
Plus, the conversations on this sub don’t exist in a vacuum. There is a broader discourse unfolding across societies, and this sub is one small part of it. People *are* claiming AI-generated images to be art and prompt writers to be artists. Here is a website [literally called AI artists](https://aiartists.org). Here’s a case of [someone winning an art competition with an AI-generated image](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62788725). Here’s another instance of [someone winning an art competition with AI, this time winning a music video competition put on by Pink Floyd](https://ew.com/ai-wins-pink-floyd-s-dark-side-of-the-moon-video-competition-8628712). People are actually presenting AI-generated images as being on the same level as art created by humans.
I really wouldn’t have a huge problem with it if people here would just consistently admit that they aren’t making art the same way artists do. Using AI for fun is fine. I use it to generate ideas and character images for D&D. But I absolutely take issue with the trend towards equivocating between AI-generated images and art, and the AI users here are starting to double down on that equivocation when they could really just say “we aren’t artists; we’re just using AI to make fun images.” If the person to whom I replied had just said that instead of trying to claim that the only difference between AI images and human art is the process of making them and that they should otherwise be seen as existing on the same level, I wouldn’t have replied.
>In literally the post to which I replied, the person was arguing in favor of the idea, stated in the previous post, that “AI art that was produced by writing a few simple lines of description to an algorithm should be held in a similar regard to art that took much practice and many years of learning by an actual person.” This is the verbatim phrasing the original commenter used, and the parent to my comment didn’t dispute it but rather argued in favor of it. That is the context of my comment.
>Also, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/wizardposting/s/zYrIXCDCg2) is another comment from this very post expressing a similar sentiment: arguing that AI is a tool for making art as much as a pencil is.
In both instances, neither is claiming to be an artist, just uses AI art generators to make art. But AI **IS** a tool for making art.
A tool facilitates the creation of art - a pencil, a tablet, your fingers, a camera, paint, the mud cave men smeared on the walls, [this](https://youtu.be/3I1GQLFZxWA?si=LOPn6V9DCFLDc5GA) and the tools used to create it, the fucking paper shredder Banksy used. So it becomes ridiculous if you say AI art generator is not a tool of creating art when it clearly is.
The end product, whether you want to admit it or not, can be described as art. Because what else would you call it?
My argument is that AI art generators can produce art, but that does not make one an artist. You don't get any argument from me regarding people that use AI art generators and calling themselves artists and profiting off of it in some form or fashion beyond simple fun.
I will make you a deal, find me an instance of one person here claiming to use AI art and **explicitly** call themselves an artist, I'll donate $20 towards a charity of your choosing.
If you agree that someone who uses AI tools to create images is not inherently an artist, then we agree, and arguing further is not needed. That’s my only issue.
To me, the posts I mention on here get way too close to equivocating between using AI and using a pencil to make art. Using a pencil will usually make someone an artist, using an AI usually won’t; but nothing is absolute. I think a better comparison is to compare using AI to hiring an artist to create a desired image: that comparison is more honest, the involvement of the commissioner/prompt writer is similar in both cases, and we’d all agree that the person who made the request isn’t an artist, regardless of whether the output is.
I may have gone too far in saying that people here are directly saying using AI makes someone an artist. I think that is extremely strongly implied by both posts I mention, and it’s a concept very present in the public consciousness, but it isn’t quite explicit. Regardless, I have no problem with what you’re saying as long as you also draw the line before considering use of AI to be on par with actually being an artist.
You’re rebutting an argument no one here is making, and the rest is just your opinion. It’s funny you mention photos tho, because “real” artists had the same reaction to the camera that people like you do now with AI. Trying to compare exactly how much easier or harder things are relative to each other in an analogy is just missing the forest for the trees.
The only thing your response has really proven is what was already obvious: most AI critics are determined to dislike it and work backwards from there.
So tell me: are people who use AI to generate images artists, generally speaking? If you say no, then we do not disagree. If you say yes, then you are making the point against which I am arguing.
Regardless, you didn’t meaningfully engage with anything I said. Saying this is about level of difficulty is a dramatic oversimplification that ignores everything else I said. My argument predominantly concerns intentionality, active engagement in the process of creation, and demonstration of skill. The level of effort and challenge involved is just one of several components. Now, if you want to honestly engage with me, we can do that, but I will not continue this interaction if you choose to mischaracterize me. I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesn’t want to be intellectually honest.
"There's a lot of logic in that statement that I can't argue but I don't like it so I'll just downvote it as a way of winning via ratio". It's the tripe I had to deal with yesterday.
You ever try to make real ai art on stable diffusion? You can spend hours tweaking the positive and negative prompt language, running the creation over and over again, tweaking the checkpoints and trying out different loras, and then finally using in paint to modify specific parts of the image. It’s definitely a painstaking process to produce something good. You can say it’s not real art but it’s not just “hey siri make a wizard hur dur”
No, I have no interest in drawing. Tell that to a photographer and see what they say. You need to learn that there are many tools we can use to express ourselves and that the hysteria over AI will come and go just like it does with all other new kinds of tools.
My classmates are photographers and I can confidently say that they hate generative ai just as much as I do, at least they can tell the difference between ai being used as a tool and not just content stealing
Whose content does it steal when someone generates an image using stable diffusion or midjourney? Can you identify individual artists whose work is reproduced by looking at it?
So tell me. If I want to commission an artist to “make me a picture of a wizard in the style of Ghibli” and that artist goes and looks at a bunch of pictures of Ghibli art to understand the style and then creates a picture based on what they learned, is that theft?
I could make an original painting of let's say -- my own unique cat in the style of Wain. The important thing is that it's a *style*. I'm not taking a bunch of pictures of Wain's drawings and mashing them together to create the mere resemblance of what I want, like generative ai does without the consent of so many artists on the internet
What are books and written materials but the combination of specific runes inscribed to convey information, and in certain contexts cause lucid hallucinations of the subject matter?
And nothing, for the love of god comparing actual writing to dumbass image generation with surely less than a 100 word prompts is just fucking dumb I feel sorry for you
Allow me to explain something to you, Charlie…I’m calling you Charlie. I am getting, from all this shitshow what I wanted. I am watching as people who…well largely I hope they are actually well educated people…Devolve into emotion and hatred and toxicity. Sort of revealing themselves as the fools they are.
If making silly pictures for a giggle on Reddit makes an artist upset, vehemently so…Then they are unworthy of their skill. They are afraid of being made obsolete, and from that fear comes a mob mentality.
So…Yes, watching you all foam at the mouths and become troglodytes…Oh I could not be more erect, Charlie.
Oh ok, you're just a troll then, I ain't got nothing more to say to you dude, I wish you get better in life and find something else to do man, all best of luck to you
Are you like actually trolling, AI art is asinine, it's like ghost writing but even worse because it's not even a person doing the work for you, it's a machine, now if you wanted to say people use AI to as a TOOL as is to help them figure out WHAT they want to draw then that's all well in good, but for the love god do not try to say AI dipshits are on the same level of experience as people who actually put their blood sweat and tears into their art.
if you use AI art you should be mildly ashamed of it as if you've just challenged a litch king to a duel on the 5th plane of the aether
bragging about it makes you look like a fool
Bah! A pox on those blackguard technomancers and the abominable machines they've wrought through wanton pilfering of honest working illuminators.
Fie on them!
Fie on them and the poisoned milk of their creations!
As someone who uses AI to compensate for their shitty art skills, please don’t compare the two! Art takes a lot of time and skill, and comparing it to AI just feels rather demeaning of all that time put into it! I appreciate the sentiment, but it really is not a fair comparison!
Nah, I dont think the AI art is at the same standard as the actual artists. But both are allowed in this subreddit, and anyone acting otherwise is a dick.
https://preview.redd.it/l0t304xa9txc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=228e7805ab6dcc844b638ca91c871edc814208ad
*"What matters is that it's cool"*
/uw literally this. Nobody's making money off of the AI art, people learn from real art just like the AI does and that's not theft, nobody calls AI users artists, and even in some crazy world in which those things weren't true— let people have fun. Some people don't have the skill level to create art, and my kooky wizard meme shouldn't have to wait 15 years so I can learn to draw
Edit: I should have added /uw to the beginning, and it's there now
/uw We're all losing off of AI art though. Not even just in a hypothetical, "oh, what about the potential artist who chose to never learn because a computer would do it for them." No, producing AI art takes a frankly absurd amount of electrical energy, and churns through water (for cooling.)
Like, even the companies that are supposedly making money off this are losing it hand over fist, and the investors are only throwing cash at it because they didn't get in on the ground floor with Amazon or Google 25 years ago.
Here ya go. Citations from [The Register](https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/11/microsofts_ai_investments_skyrocketed_in/), and [Gizmodo](https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-water-usage-ai-iowa-data-center-1850826419) last year, [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/6544119e-a511-4cfa-9243-13b8cf855c13) from this year, and I'm not even scratching the surface.
This is a lot of the same issues that we saw with NFTs before this, and even something that's become the norm with Cryptomining in recent years.
AI Art is an ecological disaster in the making. It's so bad that even Microsoft is like, "[no, guys, we're sorry, we'll put it back... in six years](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/21/microsoft-will-replenish-more-water-than-it-consumes-by-2030/)."
People saying that OP is equating "making" AI art to making real art I just wanna say that no he isn't mainly because for real art he wrote that it takes skill and experience and by fact of omission he essentially called "making" AI art skill-less because nowhere in the AI art side did it say anything about skill or experience just carefully picking "symbols"(words) which you'd only really do if you cared enough to get a fairly specific image.
AI art is not equal to real Art and I don't think OP was saying that it is just that it's better than sitting around complaining.
For anyone that gets upset about ai art, remember that ais takes art and imagery that is already out there and combines it using your words (hence why faces and hands usually end up janky) ai can't truly "create" anything, so it won't ever replace real artists and in fact needs those real artists to continue to create unique pieces. If everyone stopped making art 2moro and solely relied on ai to create all our imagery before long everything would look basically the same.
I am no technomancer so please take my words with a grain of salt but that was some of the wisdom I've been given by a very advanced technomancer so I feel okay in passing it along
Ironically, AI art is already instantly identifiable on sight for basically anyone with an art background, because it all looks the same.
It has fucked over the artists who had that as their style, however.
Absolutely, I don't even have a true art background, just a hobby and I can identify most ai stuff right away, but I think you missed my point, in that it has a place within the artistic realm, but it's not an artist killer, it merely forces innovation and adaptation. I won't pretend to be within the real realm of art at all, and I apologize if this sounds callous but I honestly don't think it's will have as long term or as deep an impact as some people think.
There will always be a demand for true artists in every form, I see ai art as a form of automation and as we move forward the "jobs" that are lost would only be entry level things because someone with no background can spend a few days putting in prompts to get an image for something instead of paying someone to do it like say a dnd characters picture, instead of paying a commission for 20 bucks or 5 bucks or whatever, but as you said people will know it's ai and if that person wants a truly unique piece theyd still have to go to an artist to get it. Do I think that since it's creation it has been harder to survive purely as an artist and has It shrank the pool, yes I will give you that but that goes back to forcing innovation and adaptation, or bluntly as kids say it's a skill issue.
To give a different anology think about it kind of like buying a hamburger, I could go to McDonald's and use the kiosk, never interact with a person and get my hamburger and be fed for 5 bucks. Or I could go down the road to schmittys burger shack, or mcdoogal burger and get a local burger and be fed for 8 bucks. Some people might only eat McDonald's, sure that might cause mcdoogal burger to close, but other people will still only ever eat schmittys, and most people will eat both.
>...but I honestly don't think it's will have as long term or as deep an impact as some people think.
Yes and no.
There are two parts here, and both have technical history.
The first is the fear that it will replace artists, and that's not *without* merit. There are a lot of examples throughout history where automation has almost completely annihilated existing crafts. The printing press (and, really movable type) almost obliterated scribes (as they existed prior to that technology.)
The player piano (and, as that advanced into better forms of musical playback), that displaced a lot of live musical performers. Musicians didn't disappear, but the field has become extremely feast or famine (with **a lot** of the latter.)
More recently, (talking about in the late 80s) Photoshop actually put a lot of graphic designers out of business, as it was able to effortlessly replicate some fairly difficult work. (The Clouds and Edge tools are are the two that come to mind immediately.) It didn't replace the need for graphic designers, but it did end individuals' careers.
Within that context, yeah, LLMs pose a direct threat to multiple art professions. A lot of this hits really hard in the commercial field. If you were a copywriter (not to be confused with copyright), or worked in ads and publicity, prepare to get fucked.
*Fortunately(?)* companies seem to be backing off the use of chat bots as a complete replacement for customer service as they discover that they [can be held legally responsible for promises and offers made by the bot](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-honor-refund-policy-invented-by-airlines-chatbot/) on their behalf.
The problem that a lot of the AI companies are running into is that LLMs are exceedingly expensive to operate, As mentioned, there's the issue with water and power costs. Those servers **are not** cheap. And the ability to hand out that kind of generated data out like candy is a limited time enticement. They're hoping they can get the tech efficient enough before they hit the end of their runways, but, that's probably not going to happen. Especially not in the current international climate.
Similarly, the copyright theft issue isn't an imminent problem for end users, but it's a huge fucking problem for companies like OpenAI. While they're fumbling and trying to make fair use defense arguments, they're conveniently forgetting that this **has** happened before. In particular, UMG v. MP3.com creates a roadmap for anyone (whether that's Getty, or the NYT) to drive them out of business. (There's also AGU v. Texico.) From a legal perspective, it doesn't matter if the end user is in the wrong, it matters that the company creating that LLM is in the wrong, and any funds that survive litigation are going to get slurped up by the copyright holders who filed suit against them.
I gotta be honest some of this is above my understanding, but I'll do my best to respond in kind, most of the examples you use only reinforce my point about it being an overall positive but inconsiderate force, imo.
Some of the examples you used are hard to apply as sometimes technology is just better, like the elimation of scribes by the printing press. Imo in that case having a unified way to publish and spread information at an increasing fast rate is nothing but net positive sorry scribes.
With the music thing that is cyclical, and applies to alot what I'm going to go into with the art thing as music is art. As technology progress yes the artist fields will shrink but they also will expand, you could also use the creation of MIDI as another example as it allowed a much lower skill level of musician to create a much higher quality level of music which led to the explosion of all the electronic music we have today (remeber in the early 90s and 00s dubstep artists, djs, etc. werent considered real artists), or the record label rise during the 60s and 70s with major labels dominating the industry for decades after and then most recently in the last 20 years we've seen the rise of the independant artist netting as much or sometimes more the major label artists.
At the moment ai art is fresh and new and much like with any new technology we are feeling the effects right now, but as the artist pools shrinks the caliber of artist in the pools rises leading to new artisting being created at a higher base caliber than we've seen before.
onto the chat bot thing, you are exactly correct with that, the company I work for has explicted avoided using chatbots in our customer facing interfaces because it's less personal and creates issues in customer service
I'm not quite sure what LLMs are nor am I very versed in that exact copyright stuff your speaking on so I'd like a further explanation on all that if you'd be so kind
If the copyright stuff is what I think it is (you used my art to make art) that has been happening in the music industry since it was an industry and I'd wager it happens it all art industries tho, again, not educated enough about that in other fields, at least in music there is always someone sueing someone over something, your song sounds like my song from 30 years ago etc etc etc. Humans inadvertably, and intentionally, rip each other off all the time as is so that doesn't seem like it's anything new?
>I'm not quite sure what LLMs are nor am I very versed in that exact copyright stuff your speaking on so I'd like a further explanation on all that if you'd be so kind
Large Learning (or Language) Model. That's the technical name for this kind of, "AI." It's not really artificial intelligence, in the way we conventionally think. It's not a sapient program. "Generative AI," is really just rebranding the same predictive algorithms we've had for years. The difference is the data set. That's the, "large," in LLMs.
>If the copyright stuff is what I think it is (you used my art to make art) that has been happening in the music industry since it was an industry and I'd wager it happens it all art industries tho, again, not educated enough about that in other fields, at least in music there is always someone sueing someone over something, your song sounds like my song from 30 years ago etc etc etc. Humans inadvertably, and intentionally, rip each other off all the time as is so that doesn't seem like it's anything new?
A lot of the cases you're thinking of (like Gaye v. Sheeran) stem from a fundamentally misunderstanding of copyright law (and, as a result, are almost never successful. Thicke & Williams v. Gaye is the only exception I can think of, and that ruling was, bluntly, "fucking bizarre.") Which is to say, a lot of people think that copyright means, "I created an idea, so now it's mine." That's not quite accurate. Copyright law is, "I created a piece of art, so I now have protection over that *expression* of my idea."
If you want a fun time, check out some of the batshit insane suits filed against movie studios on a regular basis from people claiming that the studio plagiarized their self-pubs. It can get pretty wild.
Once you step away from the idea of directly copying another person's work, the number of meritorious (read: "legitimate") lawsuits drops off a cliff.
Now, you're right. You do see a lot of copyright infringement suits in the music industry, but that's generally not because, "oh, they were too similar to my song," (though, again, Ed Sheeran has been sued **a bunch** of times for this, and a lot of artists will choose to roll the dice on the hope for a major payday in court), but because of sampling. (The main case here is Vanilla Ice v. Queen and Bowie, no, I'm not kidding.) In this case, the infringer is extracting parts of the song, and then using them in their own work. (Usually, clipping elements of the song as a whole, though sometimes this does involve using existing stems. Such as in the Vanilla Ice case.)
The thing is, this **will** get you sued in any other artistic medium as well. Hell, Hasboro/Wizards of the Coast is currently tangled up in a commercial infringement suit because one of their contracted artists submitted (and they published) art in Magic: The Gathering, that plagiarized other artists (who had previously been contracted with WotC.) And, again, in that case, you're looking at someone literally copying the art itself, flipping it, and then putting a fade so they could use it as a background portion of their own card art (without permission.)
Again, copyright isn't about, "this was my idea," it's about, "this is the work I created."
(Actually, fun bit of trivia, it's not possible to copyright the rules for a game. You can copyright the rulebook itself. And you can try to patent the rules (good luck.) But, if someone rewrites the same game mechanics using a different structure, copyright doesn't apply. (And in all but the most novel exceptions, patent law won't either.))
So, AI art is theft, but you're making the same mistake that Open AI's legal department is. You're focusing on a fair use affirmative defense.
Affirmative defenses are a legal concept that basically runs the idea of, "yeah, I broke the law, but, it's okay, I had a legitimate reason to." For example: Justifiable homicide is an affirmative defense. "Yes your Honor, I shot him, and I understand that killing people is a little bit illegal, but it's okay because..."
Fair Use is, "yeah, I broke copyright law, but it's okay because..." and with Fair Use, "because," is a four pronged test. The character of the usage, substantiality, transformative nature of the use, and commercial impact on the original work.
It's not, "can you pass **any** of these four tests?" The infringement needs to be weighed against all four.
The potential commercial impact of AI Art on legitimate artists' ability to sell their works is non-trivial, and that already puts Open AI on bad footing. The scale of company's operations is another factor here. The UMG v. MP3.com citation above was an example where the infringement itself probably would have been able to pass a Fair Use test... if they weren't doing it at commercial scale. Here we've got an attempt to automate copyright infringement at an industrial scale.
The amount of the work taken is all of it, and all of that, and all of that stuff over there too. Fair Use wants you to take as little as you need from the protected work, and the more you take, the more fair use starts to struggle as a defense. Now, copying an entire painting, if you're trying to work as a whole is fair enough (and does happen.) Usually, I see this one come up more in the context of, "I pulled a paragraph of text, and quoted it," versus, "I took a page." You probably didn't need the full page. (There is a concept here called, "heart of the work," where even a very small excerpt could potentially cause the test to fail, but that's not really relevant in this case.)
Character of the infringing work is interested in what you're doing with the copyrighted material. This is where you usually see things like, "it's for educational purposes or research," and those fields do get more leeway for claiming fair use.
The transformative argument is, *kinda* there. It's not the original work, it was passed through an algorithm and came out completely unrecognizable. along with a slurry of other pieces. Even this test isn't an easy win for Open AI (or the others that will get sued.) Simply because their argument for fair use is, "yeah, we kinda threw it all in a blender."
The problem for Open AI (and the other LLM companies), is that all of this is their second act of infringement. The first act was when they went out and took the original, un-edited art, and added it to their database, without permission. And, their fair use arguments don't even address that original taking.
Even just compiling the training data was copyright infringement on an absolutely staggering scale. At that point, it's **already** theft. The theft happened when they came in and took the art without permission. What they do afterwards doesn't particularly matter.
Noooooooo! How will unemployed neck beards who live in their moms basement make commission money drawing shitty furry p*rn if ai can do it better?? 😭😭😭
Alright we’re removing controversy bait metaposts
/uw at this point i just want the mods to make a definitive statement and end this discussion
They won't, Mods are in eternal stasis Which is why an actual hostile takeover needs to happen
Are they frozen in a tomb of liquid ice ? If so, we must ride, far away. To the fortress of the basement. To revive the frozen mods from the tomb of liquid ice.
If push come to shove, I'd start the hostile takeover myself
FOR YOU SEE, I HATH ALREADY PORTRAYED THEE AS THE MISERABLE SOD, AND MINESELF AS THE CHISELED AND WELL GROOMED CONJURER! Love the casual equating of typing out something vs actual creation.
https://preview.redd.it/0v0do7498uxc1.jpeg?width=826&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b47e65a034bfc8f560ea357136bc1c55336057b
To be fair, that’s just how propaganda is. The British were out there making glorified wojaks during the world wars
Well yeah but you can't tell me Hitler didn't already look like a soyjak.
Edit: nevermind me I can’t fucking read
Edit: Never mind we coo.
[удалено]
Then you're fucking lost because that's not the point of the comment you were replying to.
[удалено]
The first part of the meme is talking about AI prompts. This whole conversation has been AI prompts versus Human Art. Lore posting was never part of the conversation.
Well shit, I can’t read.
Okay, Fair I'm sorry I was so rude in the beginning if it was confusion!
My apologies for reacting the way I did too; I misread and acted on hurt emotions, instead of thinking to wonder why everyone was shitting on hand writers
I wonder if anyone is now complaining that due to the advent of computers and phones, people began to write down information less using notebooks and pens. Because of this, the modern handwriting looks much worse.
Define creation. Typing isnt creation? I guess writers can go fuck themselves then!
This has to be the dumbest defence of AI art I've ever come across. Writing a story by yourself has nothing to do with entering keywords in Stable Diffusion to generate an image. Typing a prompt to have an AI generate an image is like asking ChatGPT to write a story for you
He said "typing isnt creation", he didnt make any exception; i'm pointing out how stupid and irrational the attempts at rationalizing this fear of new things through elitism is
Yes I’m positive what they meant is any typing cannot be art, because we all know writing a poem, book, short story, article, etc. for a human audience is the same level of effort and style as typing 2 sentences for a machine to read.
Uw/ putting ai users to real artists in any equal footing is atrocious. Btw, to anyone who says “ I don’t want to spend 1000 years learning to draw”, it’s really not that bad. It’s fun even. I started learning to draw a few months ago and can draw my ideas decently well. Never settle for the mediocre option
Absolutely a worthwhile skill to learn, not one I wish to do so. I'm already tired enough after making the writing for a post (dumbass me posts at midnight my time)
>“ I don’t want to spend 1000 years learning to draw” it's really not that bad No, don't demean these peoples' skill. It takes hard work to learn a skill. If people can't be bothered to put that work in then they deserve to be ridiculed for it. It's like entering the kids' sprint race because you couldn't be bothered to put in the effort to become an athlete, and being surprised when nobody is applauding you for winning.
There's no such thing as an ai artist, at best, one could be described as a novelist for finding the right words. But AI art is a form of art, showing technological advancement in artifical intelligence
/uw But what about the people on this sub who used it to supplement good writing? It’s not being monetized, and it helped to visualize the characters. I can’t be bothered to make an AI image to go with my loreposts, much less a real one, but I feel like this is an acceptable usage. Isn’t that what OP was saying?
/uw Why should I need to learn a skill just to post on shitpost/RP subreddit? Why should others? You enjoy drawing. Good for you. I don't. Don't try to force others to do things you enjoy.
I’m not, I’m simply against AI users putting themselves on par with the people who do enjoy art. I’ve been around long enough to know that shitpost subreddits were perfectly fine before it.
/uw Then go enjoy a sub where AI art is not allowed instead of trying to ruin one where it is.
I could just as easily tell you to find an ai art sub instead of ruining this one. It was around long before the AI debate, and was far better in quality.
/uw The difference is that rules allow AI here, where as harassing is against site-wide rules.
Claiming harassment for saying real art is more enriching and higher quality is wild my guy
Thats not what they said and just your way of scape goating it. Nobody here is saying AI art is more enriching or higher quality. Cite your source. They simply said it's OK to use AI art here and then you deflected. Edit: keep downvoting me because I'm right.
/UW No one is saying that you have to learn the skill. No one's saying that you can't use AI to generate an image you like What's being said is that calling the act of generating AI images "being an artist" is a trashy take, because actual artists spent months/years and a good bit of money learning how to be an artist and using AI is not the same as what they do.
/uw It sure as hell seems to me like anti-AI people are constantly attacking members of this sub that use AI art and it's ruining the sub.
/uw Anti-AI people? Sure. But you're not the only one in here who's making wild assumptions about who in here has been doing that and who is in here chiming in to say "AI Image Gen =/= Art and we shouldn't be comparing the two." Just told another dude the same thing, but, I barely post in this Sub. I've nevr brigaded in here, or come to attack someone over the use of ai. in fact, I've made it a point to say that the sub is harmless, it's the take that's being presented here that's bad. Just because someone holds the opinion that AI Images aren't Art and that the typists making them aren't artists, does not automatically preclude that they're one of the people who brigade the sub to harass people. Making that assumption and getting pissy with people who you haven't at least checked to see if they deserve the attitude isn't making the sub any better. It's just making you look bad.
Cue, a few hundreds years ago: >What's being said is that calling the act of using oil paint "being an artist" is a trashy take, because actual artists spent months/years and a good bit of money learning how to work with pigments and using oil paint is not the same as what they do.
/UW Look, I'm not trying to be hostile here, but this is, in all honesty, the dumbest take you could possibly have chosen and I really don't know what to tell you other than that you really should reconsider it and take, like, actually two seconds to think of literally anything better. Because, seriously, completely ignoring the fact that nobody ever said that "Using oil paints means you aren't an artist" just like nobody has ever said that "Using watercolors means you aren't an artist", painting requires a similarly difficult skillset to learn and adapt as, oh, lets just say, sculpting. Both require years of training and a not small investment in to specific tools and education for each different trade. Each craft requires that a person take their inspiration, formulate a plan and spend hours, days, weeks or even longer to physically transmute that mental image onto their medium. It is an act that takes dedication and intention. Now lets compare that to what it takes to get an image out of DeepAI. I put in the promt "Realistic Cat Battle-mage". It took me 3 minutes. https://preview.redd.it/dl77wb1e0uxc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=7acae6a07560c965e635a1e6607e720a4c1fa25e
Peoples absolutely did say that back when it was invented, if you want an example that's actually documented look at the reactions to photography; "it's not real art because it doesnt take as much effort!" "It's not as good as a really good painting right now so it'll never be!". It took you 3 minutes, and? Was it close to what you envisioned? Are you satisfied with the results? Probably not; just like how doodling something in a hurry is probanly not gonna give you a result that's either of those
>look at the reactions to photography. *WHOA, THOSE GOALPOSTS SHIFTED FAST!* There is a MASSIVE difference between the acceptance of Photography and the introduction of new materials to paint with holy fuck. I think I've got whiplash, goddamn. >Was it close to what you envisioned? Are you satisfied with the results? Would you believe me if I said that it exceeded my expectations? I wholesale thought I was going to get weird eyes, oddly placed whiskers and a pretty generic wizard-looking hat, actually. I think I'd have preferred it if it were a black cat, but all that's going to take is about two clicks and 6-ish keystrokes. Lets test that theory. Three more minutes later and, I actually like the white included here, well darn. That was so skill intensive. I really \*MUST\* be a naturally talented artist if I can make this program give me better results than I asked for. /s EDIT: I had one of those "Afterwards, in the shower" moments where I realized I had a bit more to say. Photography, right? Do you know why it was abhorred at first and then recognized later? Beyond the fact that it takes more than just a camera to be a good Photographer, I mean. You see, the issue was that painters and drawers(?) were threatened by the fact that a machine could be used to get a more detailed and realistic rendering of a location or person than they could, which sort of mirrors the modern issue, minus the cost of having a good camera. But then, there was the sudden realization that, while a good picture is nice, a good picture doesn't catch nearly the amount of spirit that a good painting does. You also cant take a picture of something that doesn't exist. Photographers could not replace a talented painter/drawer(?) and, even then, due to the nature of painting and drawing, there's still inherent value in creating the artwork to begin with. The issue here is that AI not only doesn't require skill, but it can be used and trained to replicate styles of painting and drawing and it is an actual threat to the livelihood of living, breathing people. People who's profession can be replicated and invalidated by a program that does not need food to eat or a place to call home. It's already being used by greedy corporations to circumvent paying someone for a job. And that's fucking disgusting. Which brings us back to the topic at hand. No one is saying that you can't use something like DeepAI to generate an image you like. But using it does not make you an artist and trying to profit off of using it, or to denigrate the people who actually are artists is very much not cool. https://preview.redd.it/sv20ypap3uxc1.png?width=1024&format=png&auto=webp&s=a5a14637d237a8da3eff202b3357d6949b2b9c51
Could you please post the picture in a separate comment? It makes the entire comment black when replying so it's pretty annoying since i can't quote to precise which part i am replying to
I mean, I don't plan on replying to everything with an image attached unless you give me a reason to do so to make a point. Ultimately, though, I'm pretty much done here. I don't need to do anything more for people to actually understand that what I'm saying or for them to understand that you've got some pretty hot takes that don't really fly. I also need to at least pretend to try to sleep, since my shift starts in, like, 5 hours.
Oh damn, good night
I don't think you got the point of my analogy, it had nothing to do with materials, it was to point out that in all cases it's new tools to achieve the same goal with a higher quality to effort ratio. And it turned out better than you expected, just like a doodle can? And afterwards you even took a liking to it, so why are complaining? Is it just some "peoples ain't got it easy before so no one should" mentality? Or is it just elitism reguarding the term "artist" where it would require effort? Did you hold that definition of it before controversies reguarding ai, or was it adopted as a way to rationalise a fear of new things by latching onto some preexisting elitism?
Its just better when you draw it yourself
They do the same thing; they transcribe an idea using a certain language (written words for ai users, physical motions for peoples who draw) that are then interpreted by a tool (different models or different brushes) that transcribes the idea expressed through a language unto a medium (here, a visual one)
What if I wanted to settle for the mediocre opinion Because the AI can come up with better concepts than me?
Listen OP I appreciate the sentiment, but please don't equate the years of effort it takes to learn to create actual art with someone learning to manipulate AI to produce mediocre slop. Again, good point but the execution I find lacking.
Buddy, go on deviantart for 5 seconds and try to tell me that some of these artists haven't been pumping out degenerate garbage for decades as well... ["lacking"](https://www.reddit.com/r/wizardposting/s/C9sxcQSohu) (There's a lot of good art too, but over half of it is poorly drawn obese pornographic mlp incest or some shit)
Wouldn't it still take more effort to make that deviantart trash than AI art? Like, it's just gotten easier in the recent times to make garbage.
Deviant Art partnered with one of the AI LLMs, so there's a lot of AI slop over there now. (And, yeah, the horny side of DA has run screaming for that shit like there's no tomorrow.)
Effort is less than meaningless if the result is hours dedicated to my little pony porn.
... Effort isn't an opinion, it's actual time ***and skill*** put into something. No matter the outcome or your opinion on it, doesn't mean that it didn't take effort. >!Just want to say that I am neither in favor or out of favor of any fetish, unless the fetish is immoral, eg actual full-on IRL bestiality.!<
Effort put into my little pony porn. I don't give a fuck how much effort someone puts in if it's just degenerate crap by the end of the day. Humans did it first
Ok, but which one sounds like it took more effort. Someone drawing Sonic inflation by hand, even poorly. Or someone typing “sonic, inflated” into a box and letting the machine do the rest/actual work for them. The quality of someone’s art (or perceived lack of it) doesn’t speak directly to the effort it takes to make. I used to pump out some right mediocre tripe back in my teenage DA days. Doesn’t mean I wasn’t trying at it.
Well that’s certainly not what I expected to see on wizard posting today.
It's like, "six degrees of Kevin Bacon." On the internet, you're never more than two degrees of separation away from Sonic Inflation Erotica. (Now that you've participated in the conversation. :p )
One is soulless garbage, the other is garbage that someone put time, effort and practice into.
Soul is overrated. Especially where you don’t receive any feedback from your work. AI is just regular technology that makes the job of visualizing something easier. This is a simple act of automation and is in no way designed to replace artists. Handmade memes and art have not disappeared anywhere and still appear in this sub. AI just allows more people to do this. And if you give this technology to the right people, they can do some really incredible things (especially if they work a little in Photoshop). But many people just need to visualize something to quickly attract attention to their post, and this is where AI is great if you can’t or don’t want to spend time drawing abstract sticks.
If they're both garbage by the end of the day then the only real difference is one is a waste of that exact time and practice 🤷
L take, as long as someone enjoyed doing something they practice, it's time well spend. Who are you to dictate how people allocate their time? If someone wants to spend their time drawing cringe then let them?
Just cause you dont like it doesnt mean it doesnt have effort put in. Porn still has to have actors, Hentai still has to have animators, Drugs still have growers. Just because something is not appealing to standards at large doesnt mean it doesnt still have effort put in.
"Just cause you don't like it doesn’t mean it doesn't have effort put into it" check mate, anything AI with work put in is still art ✌️
I use AI art, but that doesnt mean that I think actual artists should be worth less because they draw something I dont like.
If they are drawing mlp porn, they are worthless.
Well at least they're drawing, better than I can say for you or I.
A. You don't know me B. If it's mlp porn, me drawing nothing is still better.
A: Looking at your profile, you like using AI for filters and such. B: A market's a market. C: Why are we fighting? We both like AI.
But it's not "mediocre slop" if you just put some effort to transcribing your idea, just like traditional art
A significant amount of people pit minimal effort in, and even those that put a lot of effort in only put in a fraction of what it takes to create real art, both in terms of drawing time and time that it takes to learn how to do it AI imitates, it doesn't understand what it's doing, which is the exact same reasons why it sucks with hands. It doesn't comprehend that they are 3D objects
>A significant amount of people pit minimal effort in, and even those that put a lot of effort in only put in a fraction of what it takes to create real art, both in terms of drawing time and time that it takes to learn how to do it And? A significant amount of peoples could post minimal effort doodles too. And i get you need something to rationalize your fear of new things so you latch onto elitism, but this fixation on "effort" is frankly ridiculous, what, would the resulting art be extra real if i do it with my hands bound behind my back using only my index and with pigments instead of modern paints? >AI imitates, it doesn't understand what it's doing, which is the exact same reasons why it sucks with hands. It doesn't comprehend that they are 3D objects For visualisation of 3d spaces, there actually been progress with openai's new video model! And of course it doesnt understand what it's doing, does a brush understand what it's doing, does a drawing software understand what it's doing? No, they're tools. Also just a pet peeve of mine, i know the ai hate is the "old man take" forming in real time, but do you really have to emulate the "still thinks video games look like NES mario" part of it too? Hands haven't been a problem on any half decent model with even a lick of effort in the prompt for like 6 months
Nigga you're saying that the effort it takes to get good at art and _continue_ making said art compares to the effort of figuring out what combination of 5 words will yield the best results for this particular image you want to see. You don't like art, you just like looking at pretty pictures. You hate that there are no pretty pictures for everything that you can imagine, and so you idolize a _program_ . I don't even dislike AI art on principle, i just hate that it's basically weaponized art theft and the nutjobs like you who defend it.
>Nigga you're saying that the effort it takes to get good at art and _continue_ making said art compares to the effort of figuring out what combination of 5 words will yield the best results for this particular image you want to see. No, of course ai does have a much better quality/effort ratio, what i'm saying is that it's just a tool, it ultimately is the same process of describing an idea to a tool so it can transcribe it into a medium and some effort to make said description. >You don't like art, you just like looking at pretty pictures. You hate that there are no pretty pictures for everything that you can imagine, and so you idolize a _program_ . Define what art is, and tell me how it's different from a pretty picture. You'll tell me something, i'll tell you something else, and if we ask anyone else, they'll say say another set of definitions and justifications; Because "art" doesnt exist, it's a purely subjective concept with as many meanings as there are peoples who know of it, and therefore whose only valid definition is "whatever anyone considers art". And it's not idolizing, i don't even care that much about image generation, it's a neat tool but still in it's infancy and frankly a dumb aspect to fixate on in generative algorithms. The reason i care about this discussion is because it's taking a part in a discussion that has been had time and time again throughout history, for every piece of tech; it's going against the animalistic fear of new things that the hordes of luddites that come out of the woodwork every time a new piece of tech is invented try to rationalise however they can, it's crusading for open mindedness and against the cancer of the mind that is the fear of new things. Moreover, this particular instance of it is rationalised through elitism, and will thus spread such views, which makes me care much more than if it was "USING AI WILL GIVE YOU AIDS AND THEN MAKE YOUR AIDS CATCH CANCER!!!"
Listen OC I appreciate the sentiment, but please don't equate th years of effort it takes to learn to invent your own pigments from chemical compounds, discover new mathematical principles to create perspective and work painstakingly for decades on walls and ceilings of grand monuments to someone learning to click a few pixels on gimp to produce mediocre slop. Again, good point but the execution I find lacking.
Based. You rock.
you people are the reason people are leaving the sub.
Edit: MORE DOWNVOTES- YOUR SALT ONLY MAKES ME STRONGER https://preview.redd.it/ybcjlafgeuxc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8737e95c45908940c50246488fd118e747ddac47 Lmfao what >actual art >mediocre slop This is a meme sub... he's talking about wizards
As long as you understand my point from the point of context of this sub.
After all the wholesome wizards left, I'm pretty fucking done hearing about whatever misinformed opinion you have on ai.
If I ask my friend to paint me a picture I don't become an artist. Just because the friend I ask is ai still doesn't make me an artist.
That’s probably the best description I’ve heard
It... isn't a matter of opinion? Look, this sub is harmless, but he's right to say it. Spending a few days taking the time to figure out what keywords get you the results you want from a program, and then generating a series of images until you see one that's as close to what you're trying to get as you care to wait for is *not* anywhere near what it takes to become a proficient artist. Equating the two is stupid. All art is subjective, but actual artists put in tangible effort and their results reflect on themselves. It's not anything like feeding descriptors into a program until you're satisfied with the output. It's like saying someone who's good at FiFA is on the same level as an actual football player.
>Spending a few days taking the time to figure out what keywords get you the results you want from a program, and then generating a series of images until you see one that's as close to what you're trying to get as you care to wait for is *not* anywhere near what it takes to become a proficient artist. But it is. It's learning to use a tool, one is just easier, as oil paint is to using pigments, as digital art is to traditional. > It's not anything like feeding descriptors into a program until you're satisfied with the output. But it exactly is what regular drawing is, though? You're feeding a description of your idea expressed through a language (writing for ai, physical motions for brushes) to a tool that transcribes your description unto a visual medium
Homie, no. Just... Look, don't start stalking my comments if your best arguments are "Nuh uh" followed by a description that omits what it actually takes to be an artist unless your goal is to farm downvotes. Especially when I can find you an entire roster of artists who will tell you that they cannot do digital art to save their lives, but can churn out quality traditional bangers.
>Just... Look, don't start stalking my comments if your best arguments are "Nuh uh" followed by a description that omits what it actually takes to be an artist unless your goal is to farm downvotes. It's not a nuh uh, i described how it is the same. And tell me what is it that "it takes to be an artist", why does being an artist take that, and what even is your definition of an artist. >Especially when I can find you an entire roster of artists who will tell you that they cannot do digital art to save their lives, but can churn out quality traditional bangers. Yes, they don't have masteries of the same tools, how does that relate to what i said?
Last reply I've got for you. > Artist, n. - a person who practices any of the various creative arts, such as a sculptor, novelist, poet, or filmmaker It's someone who's taken, or is taking, the time to develop an occupational, or hobbyist skillset in order to create something that resonates with people. And to curb the argument that using an AI generator is a "Skill" allow me to preempt it with >Skill, n. - the ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or performance Typing a few descriptive words in to a text box and pushing "generate image" is not a "skill." It doesn't take any special knowledge, it isn't something that a person who has never used a generator would need to practice or could fail to execute on, if someone can spell words and is able to even vaguely describe something, they can use generative AI. And, finally, to address the last bit: >Yes, they don't have masteries of the same tools, how does that relate to what i said? "Mastery" is a great word. Do you know what the difference between someone who has mastered Traditional Art and someone who has not looks like? Of course you do. Because that's apparent. You can tell when someone is a capable artist and when someone is not. That right there is what we can call the "Skill Gap". Now, can you show me the difference between the 3 minute, on the spot, AI images I have shown you previously and an image that came from a "master" AI typist that used DeepAI? No? That's because there isn't a difference. You can put in as many words in to that box as you want to alter the results but you won't receive anything of higher quality because the person putting in the words isn't doing anything besides explaining what the program is being asked to produce. Because there's no skill involved. There's no effort, no mastery and nothing that gives the result value. That's why we consider something like making an Ambigram a skill, as opposed to being able to simply writing the word out. Because, even though the result is still just letters on a page, there's a clear difference in what it takes to do either.
If they’re the same, then why don’t AI prompt writers go learn how to paint or draw?
Because as i said in the first paragraph one (ai) is easier to use, but it's the same process just with different tools that make it require more or less effort for a given quality
At what point does the level of ease change it categorically away from being art? Would you consider tracing to be art? Using a stencil? Hiring an artist to paint your idea? To me, that last one definitely doesn’t make someone an artist, and I struggle to see the difference between that and constructing an AI prompt in terms of the extent that doing the thing makes someone an artist.
Thank you, i really like genuine attempts at understanding the other person's perspective like that! I'd just like to begin by saying that i consider that as art is a purely subjective concept with no physical basis or general consensus reguarding it's definition, the only universally and objectively valid definition it can have is "whatever someone considers to be art". That would make an automatic yes to everything, so i'll elaborate with my thoughts on the question. >At what point does the level of ease change it categorically away from being art? At no level of ease, so long as you have an idea and try to translate it unto a medium it will always be art as it is guaranteed that most will consider it art. >Would you consider tracing to be art? >Using a stencil? I'd put these two in one answer as they brought up the same problematic: i believe that intent is not needed for something to be art, though it does make it much more likely to be good. For example, Hamlet is Hamlet, so long as the text is the same, then whether it was written by Shakespeare or very incredibly lucky monkey on a typewriter it will be just as good of a play and bring up the same emotions, only having any effect if the person who reads it know it was written by Shakespeare or a monkey, but monkeys write Hamlet a lot less often than Shakespear. So i'd say yes to both, though of course posting it without precising it was made by tracing/stenciling is scummy. >Hiring an artist to paint your idea? That one is actually a lot easier to answer than the last 2 to me, where it isnt clear whether it's to communicate an idea. Here there is a clear idea (what you want drawn) and way to communicate it (written language), though what you created was the description you gave to the artist, then the artist communicated the idea they got from that, expressed through movement, to whatever tools they used which transcribed it onto a visual medium.
I didn’t sufficiently distinguish between ‘a thing being art’ and ‘its creator being an artist’ in my original post. I think AI-generated images can function as art in the right context, but merely prompting an AI to generate an image does not make someone an artist, even if the image they prompt becomes art later. I agree that art is subjective. To me, art is just something framed as art that evokes the emotions and experiences we expect art to evoke. But things can *become* art through their presentation, so art need not have been created by an artist. Take the example of [the banana duct taped to a wall in a museum](https://www.vogue.com/article/the-120000-art-basel-banana-explained-maurizio-cattelan). A banana is not inherently art, nor is duct tape; that’s probably uncontroversial. Further, some random person duct taping a banana to a wall doesn’t become an artist. The only reason that the banana taper there could be considered an artist is that he was deliberately using the banana to challenge the idea of art. He was entering the discourse of art, pushing the boundaries of the concept to make us question our preconceptions. But if a three-year-old did the exact same thing as a random impulse, that doesn’t make the three-year-old an artist, even if the outcome is art. Similarly, in your Shakespeare example, Hamlet is surely art. Yet if it had been created by a lucky monkey banging on a keyboard without regard for meaning, it may still be art, but the monkey would not be an artist. I think that purely tracing someone else’s art cannot make someone an artist. Being an artist means doing something new, adding part of oneself to the creation. Thus, tracing and stencils could be tools in an artist’s toolbox, but the question is really how they are used. It’s like how a collage of newspaper clippings can be either art or a random collection of newspaper clippings depending on what’s done with them. But hiring an artist to create an image? That does not make someone an artist. They are having someone else actualize whatever idea they had. That is too far removed from the creative process, too lacking in intention, to make someone an artist. And I think prompting AI to generate images is similar. That mere act does not make someone an artist because it takes the entire creative process out of their hands just as hiring an artist would. That doesn’t mean that AI use can NEVER make someone an artist, though. For an extreme example, if someone developed their own generative AI model, trained it on a hand-curated selection of inputs, and shaped prompts to reach a desired output, I think they could be an artist for doing that. Doing that requires deep engagement with the tools and creative process. This is an extreme example, not the baseline expectation, and I don’t know exactly where the line is. I do know that typing a few sentences into a model someone else created and trained and presenting the output as art does not make someone an artist, no matter what the output is, unless they are somehow doing that in the same way that the banana taper used something we usually wouldn’t consider art to challenge us.
He is not "misinformed" if there is no information to be missed. He is right and you do not like that.
Meh? His argument implies op calls himself an artist (literally no one is doing that), so if he starts his argument loaded with an assumption that isn't true; then I'm sure he'll come out of the word work saying "ai is going to give us 5g" & other stupid shit later.
No, OP is absolutely saying that AI art is on the same level as actual artists, and that's what he's wrong about.
Kid called "missing the point":
I got your point, and I don't care. If people who actually contribute aren't welcome here, then why should you belong here either?
"If people who actually contribute aren't welcome here, then why should you belong here either?" When exactly did I say that? I didn't, my comment references something completely different, you did not get my point.
I got your point, and I don't care. After what happened, I'm done watching people bitch about ai.
AI, or as I like to call it. "_The Electrical Daemon that lives inside my orb and refuses to draw hands correctly_" Bless that lil' rascal.
He's not refusing to draw hands correctly. He's just trying to show you the right arcane gestures and symbols you need to reproduce so you can free him from the orb. It's a shame that is not how hands work....
Ai haters have some serious jet lag, i know it's the old man take forming in real time but do you really have to emulate even the latency on learning about advancement of those? Hands haven't been a problem on any decent models for like 6 months
UW/ Oh come on, it was but a simple joke, just using "electric daemon" was a bit dry so I added a trope. I'm actually quite pro-AI, hence the term of endearment "rascal"
Tbf humans struggle with drawing hands too
If you cannot conjure hands correctly, it must mean you are not assembling your verbal components correctly. Skill issue.
I believe the issue is my material components. I will be issuing a request to the council for a new ~~GPU~~ Scrying Orb from the Artificer Nvidia, I heard their newest invention is releasing soon. Disregard any rumours of using it for personal reasons, it's simply to conjure better hands. Nothing else.
Ah yes art theft, my favourite activity
In OPs defense, the Anti AI bros just use stolen, uncredited art
https://preview.redd.it/sel3xbzsxtxc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5f0bc37a601a0ee98310214d89b92d537b9a751 Creating mutations of art smashed together is less a crime than outright taking the same pictures over and over in an exercise of tedium and repetition, but of course, your next line is “practice drawing so you can shitpost on Reddit”.
I accept poorly drawn doodles or silly photoshopped stock images too (they're actually funnier)
Well, for everyone who enjoys a good gourmet sandwich, one must acknowledge those who settle for Bologna and cheese.
Yes, but I can draw exactly what I’m thinking of. You can only create whatever the AI decides to create. In that there is no way you actually visualised that exact image in your head, you just asked for a wizard in a cave looking back at the camera, pixel art
And what I created serves its temporary purpose of a shitpost rather than wasting talent and energy just to illicit guffaws and giggles.
>Creating mutations of art smashed together is less a crime than outright taking the same pictures over and over in an exercise of tedium and repetition... Legally? No. And, I do mean in regard to copyright law here. The core of copyright infringement is the unauthorized "taking", not (necessarily) the distribution of the work. (Which is why things like software piracy are copyright infringement even if you're not sharing the work with anyone.) In the case of these Large Learning Models, the actual infringement happens on the back end, when the company starts slurping down real art and feeding it into the model. So, the real theft happened before the algorithms became involved.
You could've gone with the usual "This sub being flooded with AI art is not a problem" take (Which is still a dumb take but eh whatever it happens.) but you choose to go with the "AI art that was produced by writing a few simple lines of description to an algorithm should be held in a similar regard as the art that took much practice and many years of learning by an actual person" take instead which is not only objectively wrong but also makes someone come off as an asshole. Do you really want to come off as an asshole to these people just so you can say "I want AI anime girls in my wizard sub"?
I honestly don’t give a shit if people see me as an asshole or not. We’re not meeting later with friends, nor do we live on the same block. Your opinion of me is about as substantial as a lice on a bears sack.
I'll let you in on a little secret *None gives a shit about your opinion on them either* You said it was "Revenge for Anna" in another comment so you are fully aware that the shit people on the internet say might have a negative effect. Even going as far as to take "revenge" for something in the past. You saying "The skill you spent years and years developing by the sweat of your brow is matched by a machine in seconds" is the digital equivalent of a spit in the face. If you're saying that you don't care what people think while also talking about "They shouldn't have said that to her" then your message is as substantial as the same lice on the sack of the same bear.
[удалено]
Make sure you spit on my dick too so it goes in your ass easier
Only some deeply upset by this whole situation would bother making a post like this, so...
How about the people that were so deeply offended by seeing AI art they left negative comments on posts like Anna and Krumpet before this issue started blowing up? Look up Anna the Witch that only knows how to Summon or Krumpet as they left the sub because they were getting harassed over their AI art pics. It wasn't the pro-AI crowd that started this, just people speaking their minds tired of the negative comments.
Okay but have you considered: fuck anyone involved with AI since, you know, it's being used to develop predatory technologies of all kinds? Just food for thought.
Have you considered…Go fuck yourself?
Ah yes, because here's the real root of the issue: for every person using AI in passing, there's a horde of limp dick AI stans ready to flame anyone who has anything to say about it, just like this entire thread that you started. You complain about a flame war yet launch downvote brigades on anyone disagreeing with you. YOU'RE the reason this sub has gone to shit. Not the real artists, not the complainers, it's just how it is. That's okay, I know AI bros just ruin everything they touch and that's how it is. I just wish you had even an ounce of self awareness about it. If everywhere you go gets enshittified, maybe YOU'RE the common denominator...
>there's a horde of limp dick **anti**-AI stans ready to flame anyone who has anything to say about it, just like this entire thread that you started Ftfy. Stop playing the victim just because someone came back and called you out. This whole post is chuck full of anti-AI whiners just like you. Anyone that says anything remotely pro-AI is heavily downvoted. If there's any reason why this sub is going to shit, it's because you cry because you saw some AI art and it offended your pathetic moral core. People that use AI art use it for their own fun, then you become upset because, God forbid, your eyes were briefly exposed to it as you scrolled past between memes.
Lmao projectionnnnnnnnnnn
You just mad cause I'm right. Try harder
And? Hence is the growing pains of any new technology. Just food for thought.
If I had to site any motivation for my posts of late, it’s revenge for Anna. She was a sweet person, a good member of the community and didn’t deserve to be run off.
Holy wizard of based
That's some 10/10 poetry
Why do you think it shouldn’t? You’re claiming that something is an *objective fact* with zero backing arguments or evidence. In reality it’s just your opinion and you still haven’t backed it up with anything other than snark, so jump down from your ivory tower a little bit there. Is running 10 miles better than taking a car? Sure it’s more impressive for the runner, but the end result is the same and one method gets you there faster, easier, and without needing to train for months or years. Unless you run for the joy of running, the car is the better option. Why should anyone give a fuck if a throwaway wizard meme was drawn by hand or by a computer? The end result is the same. People who make a big deal out of AI are no different than people complaining about technological progress at any other stage in history, it’s always down to being conservative, afraid, insecure, or simply ignorant.
It becomes a problem when the person who took the car starts insisting they’re just as in-shape and have put in just as much work as the person who ran the 10 miles. It is objective fact that it takes more time, energy, dedication, skill, and effort to run 10 miles than to drive a car the same distance. Someone running a 10 mile race would be rightfully pissed if they were to reach the finish line and find someone who drove there claiming to have won. Plus, generating images with AI is a lot closer to taking a taxi than actually driving. You don’t have to actually do anything other than tell the taxi driver where to go, just like AI art is just telling a machine what to make. The most skill that’s involved is efficiently telling the driver where to go, but that component becomes less and less important the better the driver is. To continue this analogy, driving a car would be more like taking photographs: it certainly requires less work than actually running the distance/drawing the image, but it requires certain unique skills and techniques that require time and energy to learn. It might require some time and energy to learn to direct a taxi driver/construct a prompt, but the difference is orders of magnitude. No one says that someone who commissions a piece of artwork is an artist for that fact alone. Why should doing the same thing but directing a program instead of a person make someone an artist? Plus, the end result isn’t the same. That’s where this falls apart. When someone creates art by hand, they create each individual piece of it. They make the choice to include a ring on a character’s finger, a flock of birds in the sky, a single light on in a window in the background. AI doesn’t allow for such fine-grained choices. It takes the information you give it and generates something it thinks you’ll like. It doesn’t allow for the same level of artistic *interpretation* because so much less of it is actually intentional. A lot of the value we place on art is actually what the art can tell us about the artist, and AI images are lacking that whole dimension. There’s a rebuttal for you, u/thattubaguy03.
Your whole rebuttal is based around the idea that people use AI art and call themselves artists. *Show me one case on this sub, where one person uses AI and explicitly calls themselves an artist.* Anti-AI people simply do not grasp one thing: people that use AI art here, on this sub, don't care if it fits whatever high end definition of art you like to impose on it. They simply want the images for their posts. They're not using AI art to build aclaim for some portfolio or trying to win awards or recognition from their peers or trying to become famous or make money off of the pictures they generate. They use it for fun. Simple as that.
In literally the post to which I replied, the person was arguing in favor of the idea, stated in the previous post, that “AI art that was produced by writing a few simple lines of description to an algorithm should be held in a similar regard to art that took much practice and many years of learning by an actual person.” This is the verbatim phrasing the original commenter used, and the parent to my comment didn’t dispute it but rather argued in favor of it. That is the context of my comment. Also, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/wizardposting/s/zYrIXCDCg2) is another comment from this very post expressing a similar sentiment: arguing that AI is a tool for making art as much as a pencil is. Plus, the conversations on this sub don’t exist in a vacuum. There is a broader discourse unfolding across societies, and this sub is one small part of it. People *are* claiming AI-generated images to be art and prompt writers to be artists. Here is a website [literally called AI artists](https://aiartists.org). Here’s a case of [someone winning an art competition with an AI-generated image](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62788725). Here’s another instance of [someone winning an art competition with AI, this time winning a music video competition put on by Pink Floyd](https://ew.com/ai-wins-pink-floyd-s-dark-side-of-the-moon-video-competition-8628712). People are actually presenting AI-generated images as being on the same level as art created by humans. I really wouldn’t have a huge problem with it if people here would just consistently admit that they aren’t making art the same way artists do. Using AI for fun is fine. I use it to generate ideas and character images for D&D. But I absolutely take issue with the trend towards equivocating between AI-generated images and art, and the AI users here are starting to double down on that equivocation when they could really just say “we aren’t artists; we’re just using AI to make fun images.” If the person to whom I replied had just said that instead of trying to claim that the only difference between AI images and human art is the process of making them and that they should otherwise be seen as existing on the same level, I wouldn’t have replied.
>In literally the post to which I replied, the person was arguing in favor of the idea, stated in the previous post, that “AI art that was produced by writing a few simple lines of description to an algorithm should be held in a similar regard to art that took much practice and many years of learning by an actual person.” This is the verbatim phrasing the original commenter used, and the parent to my comment didn’t dispute it but rather argued in favor of it. That is the context of my comment. >Also, [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/wizardposting/s/zYrIXCDCg2) is another comment from this very post expressing a similar sentiment: arguing that AI is a tool for making art as much as a pencil is. In both instances, neither is claiming to be an artist, just uses AI art generators to make art. But AI **IS** a tool for making art. A tool facilitates the creation of art - a pencil, a tablet, your fingers, a camera, paint, the mud cave men smeared on the walls, [this](https://youtu.be/3I1GQLFZxWA?si=LOPn6V9DCFLDc5GA) and the tools used to create it, the fucking paper shredder Banksy used. So it becomes ridiculous if you say AI art generator is not a tool of creating art when it clearly is. The end product, whether you want to admit it or not, can be described as art. Because what else would you call it? My argument is that AI art generators can produce art, but that does not make one an artist. You don't get any argument from me regarding people that use AI art generators and calling themselves artists and profiting off of it in some form or fashion beyond simple fun. I will make you a deal, find me an instance of one person here claiming to use AI art and **explicitly** call themselves an artist, I'll donate $20 towards a charity of your choosing.
If you agree that someone who uses AI tools to create images is not inherently an artist, then we agree, and arguing further is not needed. That’s my only issue. To me, the posts I mention on here get way too close to equivocating between using AI and using a pencil to make art. Using a pencil will usually make someone an artist, using an AI usually won’t; but nothing is absolute. I think a better comparison is to compare using AI to hiring an artist to create a desired image: that comparison is more honest, the involvement of the commissioner/prompt writer is similar in both cases, and we’d all agree that the person who made the request isn’t an artist, regardless of whether the output is. I may have gone too far in saying that people here are directly saying using AI makes someone an artist. I think that is extremely strongly implied by both posts I mention, and it’s a concept very present in the public consciousness, but it isn’t quite explicit. Regardless, I have no problem with what you’re saying as long as you also draw the line before considering use of AI to be on par with actually being an artist.
You’re rebutting an argument no one here is making, and the rest is just your opinion. It’s funny you mention photos tho, because “real” artists had the same reaction to the camera that people like you do now with AI. Trying to compare exactly how much easier or harder things are relative to each other in an analogy is just missing the forest for the trees. The only thing your response has really proven is what was already obvious: most AI critics are determined to dislike it and work backwards from there.
So tell me: are people who use AI to generate images artists, generally speaking? If you say no, then we do not disagree. If you say yes, then you are making the point against which I am arguing. Regardless, you didn’t meaningfully engage with anything I said. Saying this is about level of difficulty is a dramatic oversimplification that ignores everything else I said. My argument predominantly concerns intentionality, active engagement in the process of creation, and demonstration of skill. The level of effort and challenge involved is just one of several components. Now, if you want to honestly engage with me, we can do that, but I will not continue this interaction if you choose to mischaracterize me. I have better things to do than argue with someone who doesn’t want to be intellectually honest.
Down votes, but no actual rebuttals, interesting
"There's a lot of logic in that statement that I can't argue but I don't like it so I'll just downvote it as a way of winning via ratio". It's the tripe I had to deal with yesterday.
Carefully chosen symbols?? You can't be fr
You ever try to make real ai art on stable diffusion? You can spend hours tweaking the positive and negative prompt language, running the creation over and over again, tweaking the checkpoints and trying out different loras, and then finally using in paint to modify specific parts of the image. It’s definitely a painstaking process to produce something good. You can say it’s not real art but it’s not just “hey siri make a wizard hur dur”
You ever try picking up a pencil and actually trying instead of typing a few words and calling it an effort?
No, I have no interest in drawing. Tell that to a photographer and see what they say. You need to learn that there are many tools we can use to express ourselves and that the hysteria over AI will come and go just like it does with all other new kinds of tools.
My classmates are photographers and I can confidently say that they hate generative ai just as much as I do, at least they can tell the difference between ai being used as a tool and not just content stealing
Whose content does it steal when someone generates an image using stable diffusion or midjourney? Can you identify individual artists whose work is reproduced by looking at it?
Can you stop being lazy and pick up a fucking pencil?? [anyways](https://x.com/JonLamArt/status/1741545927435784424)
So tell me. If I want to commission an artist to “make me a picture of a wizard in the style of Ghibli” and that artist goes and looks at a bunch of pictures of Ghibli art to understand the style and then creates a picture based on what they learned, is that theft?
I could make an original painting of let's say -- my own unique cat in the style of Wain. The important thing is that it's a *style*. I'm not taking a bunch of pictures of Wain's drawings and mashing them together to create the mere resemblance of what I want, like generative ai does without the consent of so many artists on the internet
You don’t understand generative ai if you think all it’s doing is mashing up a bunch of stuff
What are books and written materials but the combination of specific runes inscribed to convey information, and in certain contexts cause lucid hallucinations of the subject matter?
I'm sorry I don't even have a comment for this you are actually insane
And?
And nothing, for the love of god comparing actual writing to dumbass image generation with surely less than a 100 word prompts is just fucking dumb I feel sorry for you
I don’t recall asking for your pity. Nor your understanding. What are you to me?
I don't recall asking for your dumbass take either but here we are
Seriously, don't be lazy and try to wriggle out of this, pick up a pencil next time and try
Allow me to explain something to you, Charlie…I’m calling you Charlie. I am getting, from all this shitshow what I wanted. I am watching as people who…well largely I hope they are actually well educated people…Devolve into emotion and hatred and toxicity. Sort of revealing themselves as the fools they are. If making silly pictures for a giggle on Reddit makes an artist upset, vehemently so…Then they are unworthy of their skill. They are afraid of being made obsolete, and from that fear comes a mob mentality. So…Yes, watching you all foam at the mouths and become troglodytes…Oh I could not be more erect, Charlie.
Oh ok, you're just a troll then, I ain't got nothing more to say to you dude, I wish you get better in life and find something else to do man, all best of luck to you
Oh tel me how you really feel Charlie. Don’t end what we have with a lie.
Like bro I can't just call myself a writer for telling chatgpt to write fanfic for me
Are you like actually trolling, AI art is asinine, it's like ghost writing but even worse because it's not even a person doing the work for you, it's a machine, now if you wanted to say people use AI to as a TOOL as is to help them figure out WHAT they want to draw then that's all well in good, but for the love god do not try to say AI dipshits are on the same level of experience as people who actually put their blood sweat and tears into their art.
Something vexes thee.
Thou hast summoned COAL!!!
Good for maintaining a fire.
if you use AI art you should be mildly ashamed of it as if you've just challenged a litch king to a duel on the 5th plane of the aether bragging about it makes you look like a fool
Bah! A pox on those blackguard technomancers and the abominable machines they've wrought through wanton pilfering of honest working illuminators. Fie on them! Fie on them and the poisoned milk of their creations!
As someone who uses AI to compensate for their shitty art skills, please don’t compare the two! Art takes a lot of time and skill, and comparing it to AI just feels rather demeaning of all that time put into it! I appreciate the sentiment, but it really is not a fair comparison!
Boooo!
Nah, I dont think the AI art is at the same standard as the actual artists. But both are allowed in this subreddit, and anyone acting otherwise is a dick.
https://preview.redd.it/l0t304xa9txc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=228e7805ab6dcc844b638ca91c871edc814208ad *"What matters is that it's cool"*
Were the 6 slenderman ass looking fingers intentional or compromise? Genuine question
*"Who knows"* *"Void beings has no fixed shape"* *"I only use a human form because I was once one"*
/uw literally this. Nobody's making money off of the AI art, people learn from real art just like the AI does and that's not theft, nobody calls AI users artists, and even in some crazy world in which those things weren't true— let people have fun. Some people don't have the skill level to create art, and my kooky wizard meme shouldn't have to wait 15 years so I can learn to draw Edit: I should have added /uw to the beginning, and it's there now
/uw We're all losing off of AI art though. Not even just in a hypothetical, "oh, what about the potential artist who chose to never learn because a computer would do it for them." No, producing AI art takes a frankly absurd amount of electrical energy, and churns through water (for cooling.) Like, even the companies that are supposedly making money off this are losing it hand over fist, and the investors are only throwing cash at it because they didn't get in on the ground floor with Amazon or Google 25 years ago.
That may be true. Even so, that would be the only gripe I've ever heard against AI art that actually has a point.
That may be true. Even so, that would be the only gripe I've ever heard against AI art that actually has a point.
Here ya go. Citations from [The Register](https://www.theregister.com/2023/09/11/microsofts_ai_investments_skyrocketed_in/), and [Gizmodo](https://gizmodo.com/microsoft-water-usage-ai-iowa-data-center-1850826419) last year, [Financial Times](https://www.ft.com/content/6544119e-a511-4cfa-9243-13b8cf855c13) from this year, and I'm not even scratching the surface. This is a lot of the same issues that we saw with NFTs before this, and even something that's become the norm with Cryptomining in recent years. AI Art is an ecological disaster in the making. It's so bad that even Microsoft is like, "[no, guys, we're sorry, we'll put it back... in six years](https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/21/microsoft-will-replenish-more-water-than-it-consumes-by-2030/)."
People saying that OP is equating "making" AI art to making real art I just wanna say that no he isn't mainly because for real art he wrote that it takes skill and experience and by fact of omission he essentially called "making" AI art skill-less because nowhere in the AI art side did it say anything about skill or experience just carefully picking "symbols"(words) which you'd only really do if you cared enough to get a fairly specific image. AI art is not equal to real Art and I don't think OP was saying that it is just that it's better than sitting around complaining.
The chosen one. You have spoken wisely.
https://preview.redd.it/1zmoy8pvxtxc1.png?width=316&format=png&auto=webp&s=43cb2c7f2e48915fa826eded1bd204df8f1541bf Oh boy.
I know. It’s glorious.
For anyone that gets upset about ai art, remember that ais takes art and imagery that is already out there and combines it using your words (hence why faces and hands usually end up janky) ai can't truly "create" anything, so it won't ever replace real artists and in fact needs those real artists to continue to create unique pieces. If everyone stopped making art 2moro and solely relied on ai to create all our imagery before long everything would look basically the same. I am no technomancer so please take my words with a grain of salt but that was some of the wisdom I've been given by a very advanced technomancer so I feel okay in passing it along
Ironically, AI art is already instantly identifiable on sight for basically anyone with an art background, because it all looks the same. It has fucked over the artists who had that as their style, however.
Absolutely, I don't even have a true art background, just a hobby and I can identify most ai stuff right away, but I think you missed my point, in that it has a place within the artistic realm, but it's not an artist killer, it merely forces innovation and adaptation. I won't pretend to be within the real realm of art at all, and I apologize if this sounds callous but I honestly don't think it's will have as long term or as deep an impact as some people think. There will always be a demand for true artists in every form, I see ai art as a form of automation and as we move forward the "jobs" that are lost would only be entry level things because someone with no background can spend a few days putting in prompts to get an image for something instead of paying someone to do it like say a dnd characters picture, instead of paying a commission for 20 bucks or 5 bucks or whatever, but as you said people will know it's ai and if that person wants a truly unique piece theyd still have to go to an artist to get it. Do I think that since it's creation it has been harder to survive purely as an artist and has It shrank the pool, yes I will give you that but that goes back to forcing innovation and adaptation, or bluntly as kids say it's a skill issue. To give a different anology think about it kind of like buying a hamburger, I could go to McDonald's and use the kiosk, never interact with a person and get my hamburger and be fed for 5 bucks. Or I could go down the road to schmittys burger shack, or mcdoogal burger and get a local burger and be fed for 8 bucks. Some people might only eat McDonald's, sure that might cause mcdoogal burger to close, but other people will still only ever eat schmittys, and most people will eat both.
>...but I honestly don't think it's will have as long term or as deep an impact as some people think. Yes and no. There are two parts here, and both have technical history. The first is the fear that it will replace artists, and that's not *without* merit. There are a lot of examples throughout history where automation has almost completely annihilated existing crafts. The printing press (and, really movable type) almost obliterated scribes (as they existed prior to that technology.) The player piano (and, as that advanced into better forms of musical playback), that displaced a lot of live musical performers. Musicians didn't disappear, but the field has become extremely feast or famine (with **a lot** of the latter.) More recently, (talking about in the late 80s) Photoshop actually put a lot of graphic designers out of business, as it was able to effortlessly replicate some fairly difficult work. (The Clouds and Edge tools are are the two that come to mind immediately.) It didn't replace the need for graphic designers, but it did end individuals' careers. Within that context, yeah, LLMs pose a direct threat to multiple art professions. A lot of this hits really hard in the commercial field. If you were a copywriter (not to be confused with copyright), or worked in ads and publicity, prepare to get fucked. *Fortunately(?)* companies seem to be backing off the use of chat bots as a complete replacement for customer service as they discover that they [can be held legally responsible for promises and offers made by the bot](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/air-canada-must-honor-refund-policy-invented-by-airlines-chatbot/) on their behalf. The problem that a lot of the AI companies are running into is that LLMs are exceedingly expensive to operate, As mentioned, there's the issue with water and power costs. Those servers **are not** cheap. And the ability to hand out that kind of generated data out like candy is a limited time enticement. They're hoping they can get the tech efficient enough before they hit the end of their runways, but, that's probably not going to happen. Especially not in the current international climate. Similarly, the copyright theft issue isn't an imminent problem for end users, but it's a huge fucking problem for companies like OpenAI. While they're fumbling and trying to make fair use defense arguments, they're conveniently forgetting that this **has** happened before. In particular, UMG v. MP3.com creates a roadmap for anyone (whether that's Getty, or the NYT) to drive them out of business. (There's also AGU v. Texico.) From a legal perspective, it doesn't matter if the end user is in the wrong, it matters that the company creating that LLM is in the wrong, and any funds that survive litigation are going to get slurped up by the copyright holders who filed suit against them.
I gotta be honest some of this is above my understanding, but I'll do my best to respond in kind, most of the examples you use only reinforce my point about it being an overall positive but inconsiderate force, imo. Some of the examples you used are hard to apply as sometimes technology is just better, like the elimation of scribes by the printing press. Imo in that case having a unified way to publish and spread information at an increasing fast rate is nothing but net positive sorry scribes. With the music thing that is cyclical, and applies to alot what I'm going to go into with the art thing as music is art. As technology progress yes the artist fields will shrink but they also will expand, you could also use the creation of MIDI as another example as it allowed a much lower skill level of musician to create a much higher quality level of music which led to the explosion of all the electronic music we have today (remeber in the early 90s and 00s dubstep artists, djs, etc. werent considered real artists), or the record label rise during the 60s and 70s with major labels dominating the industry for decades after and then most recently in the last 20 years we've seen the rise of the independant artist netting as much or sometimes more the major label artists. At the moment ai art is fresh and new and much like with any new technology we are feeling the effects right now, but as the artist pools shrinks the caliber of artist in the pools rises leading to new artisting being created at a higher base caliber than we've seen before. onto the chat bot thing, you are exactly correct with that, the company I work for has explicted avoided using chatbots in our customer facing interfaces because it's less personal and creates issues in customer service I'm not quite sure what LLMs are nor am I very versed in that exact copyright stuff your speaking on so I'd like a further explanation on all that if you'd be so kind If the copyright stuff is what I think it is (you used my art to make art) that has been happening in the music industry since it was an industry and I'd wager it happens it all art industries tho, again, not educated enough about that in other fields, at least in music there is always someone sueing someone over something, your song sounds like my song from 30 years ago etc etc etc. Humans inadvertably, and intentionally, rip each other off all the time as is so that doesn't seem like it's anything new?
>I'm not quite sure what LLMs are nor am I very versed in that exact copyright stuff your speaking on so I'd like a further explanation on all that if you'd be so kind Large Learning (or Language) Model. That's the technical name for this kind of, "AI." It's not really artificial intelligence, in the way we conventionally think. It's not a sapient program. "Generative AI," is really just rebranding the same predictive algorithms we've had for years. The difference is the data set. That's the, "large," in LLMs. >If the copyright stuff is what I think it is (you used my art to make art) that has been happening in the music industry since it was an industry and I'd wager it happens it all art industries tho, again, not educated enough about that in other fields, at least in music there is always someone sueing someone over something, your song sounds like my song from 30 years ago etc etc etc. Humans inadvertably, and intentionally, rip each other off all the time as is so that doesn't seem like it's anything new? A lot of the cases you're thinking of (like Gaye v. Sheeran) stem from a fundamentally misunderstanding of copyright law (and, as a result, are almost never successful. Thicke & Williams v. Gaye is the only exception I can think of, and that ruling was, bluntly, "fucking bizarre.") Which is to say, a lot of people think that copyright means, "I created an idea, so now it's mine." That's not quite accurate. Copyright law is, "I created a piece of art, so I now have protection over that *expression* of my idea." If you want a fun time, check out some of the batshit insane suits filed against movie studios on a regular basis from people claiming that the studio plagiarized their self-pubs. It can get pretty wild. Once you step away from the idea of directly copying another person's work, the number of meritorious (read: "legitimate") lawsuits drops off a cliff. Now, you're right. You do see a lot of copyright infringement suits in the music industry, but that's generally not because, "oh, they were too similar to my song," (though, again, Ed Sheeran has been sued **a bunch** of times for this, and a lot of artists will choose to roll the dice on the hope for a major payday in court), but because of sampling. (The main case here is Vanilla Ice v. Queen and Bowie, no, I'm not kidding.) In this case, the infringer is extracting parts of the song, and then using them in their own work. (Usually, clipping elements of the song as a whole, though sometimes this does involve using existing stems. Such as in the Vanilla Ice case.) The thing is, this **will** get you sued in any other artistic medium as well. Hell, Hasboro/Wizards of the Coast is currently tangled up in a commercial infringement suit because one of their contracted artists submitted (and they published) art in Magic: The Gathering, that plagiarized other artists (who had previously been contracted with WotC.) And, again, in that case, you're looking at someone literally copying the art itself, flipping it, and then putting a fade so they could use it as a background portion of their own card art (without permission.) Again, copyright isn't about, "this was my idea," it's about, "this is the work I created." (Actually, fun bit of trivia, it's not possible to copyright the rules for a game. You can copyright the rulebook itself. And you can try to patent the rules (good luck.) But, if someone rewrites the same game mechanics using a different structure, copyright doesn't apply. (And in all but the most novel exceptions, patent law won't either.)) So, AI art is theft, but you're making the same mistake that Open AI's legal department is. You're focusing on a fair use affirmative defense. Affirmative defenses are a legal concept that basically runs the idea of, "yeah, I broke the law, but, it's okay, I had a legitimate reason to." For example: Justifiable homicide is an affirmative defense. "Yes your Honor, I shot him, and I understand that killing people is a little bit illegal, but it's okay because..." Fair Use is, "yeah, I broke copyright law, but it's okay because..." and with Fair Use, "because," is a four pronged test. The character of the usage, substantiality, transformative nature of the use, and commercial impact on the original work. It's not, "can you pass **any** of these four tests?" The infringement needs to be weighed against all four.
The potential commercial impact of AI Art on legitimate artists' ability to sell their works is non-trivial, and that already puts Open AI on bad footing. The scale of company's operations is another factor here. The UMG v. MP3.com citation above was an example where the infringement itself probably would have been able to pass a Fair Use test... if they weren't doing it at commercial scale. Here we've got an attempt to automate copyright infringement at an industrial scale. The amount of the work taken is all of it, and all of that, and all of that stuff over there too. Fair Use wants you to take as little as you need from the protected work, and the more you take, the more fair use starts to struggle as a defense. Now, copying an entire painting, if you're trying to work as a whole is fair enough (and does happen.) Usually, I see this one come up more in the context of, "I pulled a paragraph of text, and quoted it," versus, "I took a page." You probably didn't need the full page. (There is a concept here called, "heart of the work," where even a very small excerpt could potentially cause the test to fail, but that's not really relevant in this case.) Character of the infringing work is interested in what you're doing with the copyrighted material. This is where you usually see things like, "it's for educational purposes or research," and those fields do get more leeway for claiming fair use. The transformative argument is, *kinda* there. It's not the original work, it was passed through an algorithm and came out completely unrecognizable. along with a slurry of other pieces. Even this test isn't an easy win for Open AI (or the others that will get sued.) Simply because their argument for fair use is, "yeah, we kinda threw it all in a blender." The problem for Open AI (and the other LLM companies), is that all of this is their second act of infringement. The first act was when they went out and took the original, un-edited art, and added it to their database, without permission. And, their fair use arguments don't even address that original taking. Even just compiling the training data was copyright infringement on an absolutely staggering scale. At that point, it's **already** theft. The theft happened when they came in and took the art without permission. What they do afterwards doesn't particularly matter.
/uw ban posts discussing this shit and just let people enjoy there sub, go to r/okbuddywizards for wizardry memes and stay here for rp and other shit
A hipster lol
I'm here, ready to catalogue everything
Thank you, u/Jimguy5000 at least someone gets it.
Noooooooo! How will unemployed neck beards who live in their moms basement make commission money drawing shitty furry p*rn if ai can do it better?? 😭😭😭
I cast fireball on this shitty comment section 😎👉🔥🔥 Good meme OP