• Riskable@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    We are merely at the beginning of this revolution! Soon AI artists will be generating whole gifs of Sonic giving birth to Borat and eventually, feature-length movies!

    What a wonderful future awaits us!

  • renzev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t mind people making and sharing AI pictures for fun, but if you sell those pictures, that’s kinda cringe tbh.

    • Beldarofremulak@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      Everyone can write a prompt. Not everyone can write a prompt that gets around vulgarity filters and outputs an image of Jesus twerking. That’s where the real value is IMHO.

    • yboutros@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I sort of agree, but I think it depends on effort.

      Type one word in and try and sell the easiest generated image? Low value.

      But typing the right combo to create assets to create something larger than the model is capable of? That’s more valuable.

      Criticizing AI or artists that leverage AI is like criticizing an artist for using a printer instead of drawing by hand

      Or saying someone’s digital work is inferior because they used a tool to help make their image…

      On that note, when working on a large project, is an AI artist as pretentious as the artist in the comic because they got some help generating the project from an AI instead of another human? Or is someone’s work ethic less credible for Google searching instead of asking a person? Are works of art valuable because they’re entirely original and uninfluenced by anything else but the artist themself? Because with that metric no artists are valuable since nothing is entirely original anyways

    • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I honestly think if an artist makes their own model based on only their own work and then use that model to create more of their work, then it’s completely fine if they want to sell it. I imagine if there’s future for AI art then that’s probably the best future, one where the AI creates most of the image and then the artist does some touching up where AI wasn’t good enough.

    • BabyVi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If AI prompting is the only tool involved I agree. If it’s being used as just another tool in the artists toolkit it’s a different matter. For example I’ve seen people combining their photography with AI via masking and it’s about as respectable as collage art in my opinion.

    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t oppose AI pictures at all. However, considering that all generative image models have been trained on human generated data, it is only fair that these models and art created by them be under copyleft licenses.

    • TehBamski@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      What’s more cringe though? Selling off the wall AI generated images or selling pictures of your butthole? (Asking for a friend.)