It’s true. AI images ain’t art. It’s a best guess amalgamation by a computer, made with the stolen remnants of actual art created by actual artists, while not compensating them at all.
It runs on a platform none of us can even afford to run. Cost prohibitive and limits who has access to it.
It’s made by capitalists striving for profit and nothing else. So it’s built with the wrong intentions in mind. Intentions that are immediately at odds with what art is. Yet another limitation of who can participate in it.
Its current state can’t exist without the theft of tons of other actual art to try and imitate, while having no actual context or idea what anything is.
It’s not producing art; it’s producing a way for capitalists to fire and not hire artists so that they can pocket the extra money for their yachts and summer homes.
It’s absolutely everything art isn’t nor ever will be. Art is for everyone. AI is for rich, talentless corporate ghouls.
- That’s not how AI works.
- How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
- Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
- The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
- You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
- You don’t own the definition of art.
- AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online.
That’s not how AI works
How does it work then? I see lot’s pf people claiming to know how it works… only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.
How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.
Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
How so?
The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
- True. However, this argument should not be about semantics;
- I got news for ya.
You don’t own the definition of art.
This is not about definitions, I won’t spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?
AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online
Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.
The fact that you think humans don’t use neural networks trained by experience to generate art (or anything else we do) tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
4 Is definitely wrong
7 Yes
And I’m sure all the AI everyone gets to use, are “collateral” products, that were realized, while they keep the goal of creating the AI that will ultimately replace all the employees and make the rich independent of the very annoying human workforce in all areas.
Edit: lemmy kept converting the 4 and 7 to numbered bullet points, converting them to 1. And 2.
That’s why the formatting on the numbers is strange, using only blank spaces to separate.
- I wasn’t wrong but i should have qualified it. There are instances where companies have pirated art, but the majority is stuff you can freely access online. I agree that they shouldn’t have the pirated art that was behind pay walls. What they do with it isn’t the problem there, it is that they have it. I should have said that the pirating of art isn’t fundamental to the process and really probably was due to overzealous people tasked with finding data to train on and who, like most of us, grew up in the Naptster/limewire era.
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art. The Meta lawsuit comes to mind. The one where they were caught illegally training their LLM on authors’ works without their permission, using a pirated source, while still trying to argue that it was perfectly fair.
-
If I use computer software to type up a letter instead of writing it, I’m not benefiting off the backs of everyday joes
-
If I use a computer to calculate math, I’m not stealing a working Joe’s job
-
If I use a computer to type a prompt for an image generator and it spits out an image, I’m benefiting off the backs and the works of the unknowing artists the AI vacuumed up
-
If I use AI to write a book, I’m benefitting off of the authors’ works that Meta never paid any money to, while shadily downloading all of their books from torrent websites
Your comparison here falls flat because AI image generation is a unique scenario. Computers aren’t the issue; corporate AI is.
The AI community had an opportunity to be conflict-free and fair. A public utility that wasn’t created via theft and exploitation. Companies had an opportunity to ask the art community to willingly contribute to it and have something everyone can equally benefit from. Capitalists took that opportunity away and fucked up the entire thing.
Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
Edit: a wild article appears.
Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
Literally everything you just said to justify the position that “AI art ain’t art” depended either on money or on legal decisions.
Art is all about money? Laws dictate what is and is not art?
Don’t bother trying to use logic or the actual definition of art with these AntiAI cultists. “AI art isn’t art.” is more of a religious chant with them than a well thought out position. Their types also declaired photograpy as “not art” back in the day. The NeoLuddites of today don’t remember that and don’t even know that they are aping the same misdefinition of art for the same reasons. But they are. Educating them is sort of an uphill battle as it is with any kind of Luddite.
Photography is art. You have to have an eye for a shot. You capture a moment with a device you’ve spent time learning and adjusting to get it just right. Art takes time. Typing shit into a prompt field is not comparable. But okay.
The funny thing is I’ve been in tech for 20 years. I’m a digital and traditional artist that has been drawing in some form since I was a kid. My dad worked for NASA and was a big influence. I’ve built software that uses AI. So I’m not some dummy that is against all technological advancements. I’m against tech that is used to exploit artists, and tech bros that claim to be artists because they wrote a prompt in 5 minutes.
The word you are thinking of is not ‘art’ it’s ‘skill’. A stick man that takes 3 seconds is art. The person who sketched it is an ‘artist’. A painting a master works on for a decade is art and the guy who made it is an ‘artist’. One takes more skill than the other, but they both get to be called art. Nobody of note is claiming the skills are comparable, but you are trying to gate-keep the terms ‘art’ and ‘artist’ pretty hard-core. The same as the people who claimed photograpy wasn’t art because all the person did was “have an eye for the prompt… I mean shot. And curate a generated image, i mean capture an image on film and pass it off as their ‘art’.”
“Skill” is indeed better suited here. The problem is also who holds the keys. The current state of capitalism wants the shortest route to produced assets because it means they can cut even more costs and reduce headcount. Get rid of writers and now artists? That’s more money in their pockets. It’s amazing tech that has been created with the wrong goals in mind, by people that had these conversations behind closed doors, with all key figures excluded—and I haven’t even touched on the environmental impacts.
Art for me has always held unique power because I think of the steps the creator went through and the pivots they made. Why they decided with this color palette; what inspired them; what it means to them. All things that are devoid in AI-generated art. I’m also heavily biased as an artist and former graphic artist—both roles that are very quickly vanishing. I got lucky by pivoting to programming.
Marx predicted that automation would bring about an era where people would work alongside machines to maintain and keep them running smoothly. The human’s job would be made easier. Turns out the real capitalist desire is full on replacement of the worker in a lot of cases and IMO that has tainted the idea of modern day AI.
-
Yeah, that is pretty much how it goes. Some nice person shares a piece of AI art they find interesting and the AntiAI bros bully them nonstop and proceed to word vomit their nonsense for the next 3 years all over every site even when it isn’t relevant.
Careful now, Lemmy is the most anti AI echo chamber there is
Edit: case in point
People love it when they find something they can bully people with and feel self righteous about it. Especially when they feel like they have a big enough gang to back them up.
What’s it like not being creative? Must suck.
You’d know.
Even your reply was AI generated from stolen replies. Amazing!
Yes, my brain was trained on many sources and that was the reply that was generated. Now you are getting the hang of how AI works. Congrats. Take your new knowledge and go do great things in the world.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}