This, everyone literally upset that a robot it’s doing pretty fucking well at generating stuff they do. More often than not the loudest yelling people know the least about the technology or the beautiful math behind how these models generate images from literal static and knowledge of other artists, techniques, styles, etc.
But it’s only natural I suppose. Some sort of defense mechanism toward outsiders. Not gonna let the ignorant and the greedy stop me from continuing on with the pace of the future while carving out nooks and crannies for other people who like doing this stuff too and find it just as beautiful and amazing as I do.
Right? Why are they fighting against being replaced by an uncaring soulless AI? What do they expect? Food shelter and security in exchange for all of their hard work and creativity?
This same argument can be used against any advancement of technology that puts any person out of work. It completely disregards the benefits that come from those technological advancements for other people. Should we have rejected the development of electrical lighting to protect the jobs of the lamplighters?
The solution to this is not to suppress the development of new technologies. It’s to try to build a society where “having a job” is not a prerequisite for food, shelter and security.
Everyone says the same shit every fucking decade about something new that comes out. It’s exhausting.
Go read How we got to now and recognize how common it is for everyone to worry about replacement when the reality is actually evolution and not just throwing things away.
Not to mention plenty of vintage concepts stayed around long past “great replacer” technology, especially in fucking art.
Did the camera get rid of the painter? Nope.
Did the oven get rid of the cook? Nope.
Did the TV get rid of the radio? Kinda! See now we just stream our music from the radio differently. Radio broadcast hosts switched to doin some podcasts, or running their own stations!
I am sick and tired of these lazy ass, sensationalist, panic-prone people stifling progress. Get the fuck out of the rest of our ways or actually take the time to learn about what we’re trying to do and accomplish and realize that scientists and developers only ever wanted to discover and create for the rest of the world.
AI artwork is a fun toy to play with. I’ve used it myself sometimes when I got bored. I can even see usefulness in it as a way to help people flesh out ideas. I would never generate an image using AI and claim that I “made” it though. I certainly wouldn’t be able to bring myself to charge money for it as if it were my own work.
That would be like if I opened a restaurant but only served burgers and fries that I ordered from the McDonald’s down the road and served it in the same wrappers with the name just crossed out. Sure, I told them exactly what I wanted, but I didn’t actually “make” anything.
GrubHub doesn’t claim that they make the food, they just deliver it.
What I’m describing would be more like if you went to the local foodie bistro down the road and ordered the house made lasagna and a craft beer, but then you were served a budget Michelina’s Lasagna With Meat Sauce and a Bud Light dressed up slightly on a plate.
my dearest brother, that comment was made with my tongue in my cheek… but i mean, it is something to do with what you said, but they don’t repackage it and claim responsibility for it…
well, although some, $500/plate restaurants actually do fun things like microwave michelinas… your analogy would be closer to stable diffusion “prompt engineers” if you took several well made meals, separated the components, gave it to a robot to reassemble into a new menu item that you described to it, and then said, “hey look, i’m a chef and i made this!”
or maybe a better one is if you were a restaurant owner, but couldn’t cook, and wrote out a menu with descriptions of the meals, handed the menu to the kitchen and told them to make it… and then said you invented the meals…
and although there are some pretty ridiculous poseur artists, it caaan be used by actual artists as part of their process…
and there’s a nifty greyzone craftsman-like process of feeding images back into it, erasing parts, or altering different parts, recombining images and tweaking parameters and whatnot…
Okay so should photographers stop taking photos because they didn’t make anything they took the pictures of? See for photography the product is literally a technology applied to an existing object.
AI Models produce new things from existing knowledge. It’s not copying. It’s not duplicating. It’s taking “inspiration” from and generating.
Not capturing.
Creating from.
You yourself could go out and take your own images and train your own model and generate unique content from that. You’re telling me you wouldn’t feel comfortable with that?
To be worried this stuff will “replace” a field it’s not even a part of makes 0 sense. People will still want photos of real people things for one reason or another.
No artist ever lost their fucking job in the history of art, and that’s pretty fucking clear considering we’re still painting all these years later.
Enough of the paranoia and stealing of power away from the public. People will continue spouting their paranoia until the government comes in and takes all the power away from people who could be making real money and a living off of 0% copywritten material
Why don’t you enlighten us then? What do image generation models do that is so important?
Is it that they democratize art by making it so that people who don’t have access to pencil and paper and downtime with which to practice drawing, but do have access to an extremely powerful graphics card, can finally unleash the creativity trapped in their souls by describing the image they want to see to a computer, having it create a collage of the works of existing artists who actually put in the decades worth of time and effort, and claiming they made it from scratch and that that makes them an artist? Is it that these people are now empowered to make a living by charging people to create images for them at the same rates traditional artists charge, using the skill they honed over about a half dozen weekends?
I make shit for other people all the time for free. Stop generalizing a global population based on capitalist assumptions. Even if you were trying to be a business person with your work, you’d charge what people are willing to pay and at a price that holds demand. Which would probably mean cheaper than an artist. (And if you really wanna talk about prices let’s talk about regular art prices and how subjective that is…)
Why would my unrelated attempts to explain why people would see AI art as valuable, or explain that there is only one computer in the world right now powerful enough to run Midjourney (and no, the much-less-capable local models don’t count) matter to this discussion at all?
State your counterargument to my claim that AI art serves no purpose other than to let people who don’t want to put in the effort to get good at art “create” art by stealing art from other people, or admit that you have none.
The maths technology behind AI generated stuff is indeed impressive and beautiful. But people are mostly against the way it’s being used in the real world.
Big companies like Microsoft are using it to make profit off of the back of creative types. They’re going to force non-AI art out of the market to make quick short term profit at the cost of the entire creative industry.
It may be “progress”, but it’s progress in the same way that social media platforms restricting their consumers to increase roi is progress.
Not every model uses copywritten work though. And the underlying technology had nothing to do with it.
It’s fear mongering to keep the populace away from making money like the dot com bubble people did. I won’t fall for paranoia and fear mongering, but I will always be willing to discuss these things and hear people out. I hope you aren’t mistaking my passion and love for this stuff to be anger or hostility toward anyone, especially artists who are likely somewhat scared.
I know some people are working on open models trained with consent, but they are in the minority. Most people are angry with the large scraping model which plays no heed towards copyright and ethics. Maybe the language could be more nuanced, sure, but that’s not the world we live in.
As for stopping people making money from it… As far as I can tell the only people making money from genai are:
Large megacorps that can easily throw up some hosting, throw a model on it and charge money for access to it.
Companies backed by venture capitalists looking for innovative applications of AI to find a gap in the market.
People who don’t create things of artistic merit. For example, by writing a prompt, getting some art and putting it on a t-shirt.
I’d consider the second one to be the only “good” one. And hey, if you can make something cool out of things that you have explicit consent to use, go for it. But the other two I don’t think are good for society.
And this is a zero sum game, so money that people are spending on AI are directly coming out of artist’s hypothetical pockets. Which is a problem nowadays given the recent NFT stuff, worldwide economic problems and collapse of vast parts of their marketing and marketplace spaces.
The technology is cool, it’s just grossly misused by people that are abusing it.
Where are you getting any of your data for this? We keep talking specifics about general statements.
Which models are people upset with? There was some talk specifically against OpenAi and their LLM model but the only case I had hear of with image models that went to court just came back and weren’t able to prosecute because the models don’t generate copywritten material. Because that’s not how the tech works. These models are literally learning from others artwork. I don’t know how much more plainly I can put this stuff, I feel like I’m not being understood here.
You’re trying to tell me we’re not allowed to even learn from others work anymore? I hate capitalism in that case. Why should humans be allowed to go and learn from a bunch of their favorite artists, mimicking their style while young and improving as they get older diversifying what they’re looking at and trying to gain skill from practicing with. Are you gonna say that because my artwork is derivative it should be outlawed?
The message in this comic strip is that if you use advanced tools to produce a good result, you’re doing it right.
You’re old, if you don’t recognize AI as a great tool to solve some problems. It’s the same kind of old as old people who said “we never used a calculator when I was at school”.
This, everyone literally upset that a robot it’s doing pretty fucking well at generating stuff they do. More often than not the loudest yelling people know the least about the technology or the beautiful math behind how these models generate images from literal static and knowledge of other artists, techniques, styles, etc.
But it’s only natural I suppose. Some sort of defense mechanism toward outsiders. Not gonna let the ignorant and the greedy stop me from continuing on with the pace of the future while carving out nooks and crannies for other people who like doing this stuff too and find it just as beautiful and amazing as I do.
Right? Why are they fighting against being replaced by an uncaring soulless AI? What do they expect? Food shelter and security in exchange for all of their hard work and creativity?
What a bunch of crybabies!
This same argument can be used against any advancement of technology that puts any person out of work. It completely disregards the benefits that come from those technological advancements for other people. Should we have rejected the development of electrical lighting to protect the jobs of the lamplighters?
The solution to this is not to suppress the development of new technologies. It’s to try to build a society where “having a job” is not a prerequisite for food, shelter and security.
False implication but okay.
Everyone says the same shit every fucking decade about something new that comes out. It’s exhausting.
Go read How we got to now and recognize how common it is for everyone to worry about replacement when the reality is actually evolution and not just throwing things away.
Not to mention plenty of vintage concepts stayed around long past “great replacer” technology, especially in fucking art.
Did the camera get rid of the painter? Nope.
Did the oven get rid of the cook? Nope.
Did the TV get rid of the radio? Kinda! See now we just stream our music from the radio differently. Radio broadcast hosts switched to doin some podcasts, or running their own stations!
I am sick and tired of these lazy ass, sensationalist, panic-prone people stifling progress. Get the fuck out of the rest of our ways or actually take the time to learn about what we’re trying to do and accomplish and realize that scientists and developers only ever wanted to discover and create for the rest of the world.
AI artwork is a fun toy to play with. I’ve used it myself sometimes when I got bored. I can even see usefulness in it as a way to help people flesh out ideas. I would never generate an image using AI and claim that I “made” it though. I certainly wouldn’t be able to bring myself to charge money for it as if it were my own work.
That would be like if I opened a restaurant but only served burgers and fries that I ordered from the McDonald’s down the road and served it in the same wrappers with the name just crossed out. Sure, I told them exactly what I wanted, but I didn’t actually “make” anything.
well, you just invented grub hub/ uber eats…
That has literally nothing to do with what I said
GrubHub doesn’t claim that they make the food, they just deliver it.
What I’m describing would be more like if you went to the local foodie bistro down the road and ordered the house made lasagna and a craft beer, but then you were served a budget Michelina’s Lasagna With Meat Sauce and a Bud Light dressed up slightly on a plate.
my dearest brother, that comment was made with my tongue in my cheek… but i mean, it is something to do with what you said, but they don’t repackage it and claim responsibility for it…
well, although some, $500/plate restaurants actually do fun things like microwave michelinas… your analogy would be closer to stable diffusion “prompt engineers” if you took several well made meals, separated the components, gave it to a robot to reassemble into a new menu item that you described to it, and then said, “hey look, i’m a chef and i made this!”
or maybe a better one is if you were a restaurant owner, but couldn’t cook, and wrote out a menu with descriptions of the meals, handed the menu to the kitchen and told them to make it… and then said you invented the meals…
and although there are some pretty ridiculous poseur artists, it caaan be used by actual artists as part of their process…
and there’s a nifty greyzone craftsman-like process of feeding images back into it, erasing parts, or altering different parts, recombining images and tweaking parameters and whatnot…
Okay so should photographers stop taking photos because they didn’t make anything they took the pictures of? See for photography the product is literally a technology applied to an existing object.
AI Models produce new things from existing knowledge. It’s not copying. It’s not duplicating. It’s taking “inspiration” from and generating.
Not capturing.
Creating from.
You yourself could go out and take your own images and train your own model and generate unique content from that. You’re telling me you wouldn’t feel comfortable with that?
To be worried this stuff will “replace” a field it’s not even a part of makes 0 sense. People will still want photos of real people things for one reason or another.
No artist ever lost their fucking job in the history of art, and that’s pretty fucking clear considering we’re still painting all these years later.
Enough of the paranoia and stealing of power away from the public. People will continue spouting their paranoia until the government comes in and takes all the power away from people who could be making real money and a living off of 0% copywritten material
Why don’t you enlighten us then? What do image generation models do that is so important?
Is it that they democratize art by making it so that people who don’t have access to pencil and paper and downtime with which to practice drawing, but do have access to an extremely powerful graphics card, can finally unleash the creativity trapped in their souls by describing the image they want to see to a computer, having it create a collage of the works of existing artists who actually put in the decades worth of time and effort, and claiming they made it from scratch and that that makes them an artist? Is it that these people are now empowered to make a living by charging people to create images for them at the same rates traditional artists charge, using the skill they honed over about a half dozen weekends?
Was the price the art sells for seriously the only part of my argument you could find a problem with? If so, that says a lot about yours.
Considering I responded to your three comments?? No, it wasn’t but good try at trying to insult me lmao.
At least I can pay attention who I’m talking to in a thread if you wanna start throwing stones 😂
Why would my unrelated attempts to explain why people would see AI art as valuable, or explain that there is only one computer in the world right now powerful enough to run Midjourney (and no, the much-less-capable local models don’t count) matter to this discussion at all?
State your counterargument to my claim that AI art serves no purpose other than to let people who don’t want to put in the effort to get good at art “create” art by stealing art from other people, or admit that you have none.
You’re purposefully downplaying and over simplifying what AI models do. I’m not going to continue arguing with someone who can’t debate fairly.
Learning models don’t fucking collage shit. That’s not how the tech works.
I’m not going to debate this shit with someone who’s this blatant with their bad faith argumentation as you are being, good bye.
Anyone else wants to actually discuss or learn more about the tech in a civil way, lmk.
The maths technology behind AI generated stuff is indeed impressive and beautiful. But people are mostly against the way it’s being used in the real world.
Big companies like Microsoft are using it to make profit off of the back of creative types. They’re going to force non-AI art out of the market to make quick short term profit at the cost of the entire creative industry.
It may be “progress”, but it’s progress in the same way that social media platforms restricting their consumers to increase roi is progress.
Not every model uses copywritten work though. And the underlying technology had nothing to do with it.
It’s fear mongering to keep the populace away from making money like the dot com bubble people did. I won’t fall for paranoia and fear mongering, but I will always be willing to discuss these things and hear people out. I hope you aren’t mistaking my passion and love for this stuff to be anger or hostility toward anyone, especially artists who are likely somewhat scared.
I know some people are working on open models trained with consent, but they are in the minority. Most people are angry with the large scraping model which plays no heed towards copyright and ethics. Maybe the language could be more nuanced, sure, but that’s not the world we live in.
As for stopping people making money from it… As far as I can tell the only people making money from genai are:
I’d consider the second one to be the only “good” one. And hey, if you can make something cool out of things that you have explicit consent to use, go for it. But the other two I don’t think are good for society.
And this is a zero sum game, so money that people are spending on AI are directly coming out of artist’s hypothetical pockets. Which is a problem nowadays given the recent NFT stuff, worldwide economic problems and collapse of vast parts of their marketing and marketplace spaces.
The technology is cool, it’s just grossly misused by people that are abusing it.
Where are you getting any of your data for this? We keep talking specifics about general statements.
Which models are people upset with? There was some talk specifically against OpenAi and their LLM model but the only case I had hear of with image models that went to court just came back and weren’t able to prosecute because the models don’t generate copywritten material. Because that’s not how the tech works. These models are literally learning from others artwork. I don’t know how much more plainly I can put this stuff, I feel like I’m not being understood here.
You’re trying to tell me we’re not allowed to even learn from others work anymore? I hate capitalism in that case. Why should humans be allowed to go and learn from a bunch of their favorite artists, mimicking their style while young and improving as they get older diversifying what they’re looking at and trying to gain skill from practicing with. Are you gonna say that because my artwork is derivative it should be outlawed?
Ahh, no. Most AI generated art, or text for that matter, is utter garbage.
You had to dilute my claim just to get this to fit.
Image generators are doing incredibly and are progressing just as if not faster than LLMs are.
The message in this comic strip is that if you use advanced tools to produce a good result, you’re doing it right.
You’re old, if you don’t recognize AI as a great tool to solve some problems. It’s the same kind of old as old people who said “we never used a calculator when I was at school”.
I hope you realize I was arguing for AI and not against