Hot mess of anti-“AI” slop…
- First and foremost, “AI” doesn’t exist.
- Secondly people complaining about “IP” are missing the point. We shouldn’t be fighting to maintain a capitalist system of oppression. We should be fighting for a world where artists don’t need to sell themselves in order to survive.
- Complaints about the environment are legit.
- You don’t have to embrace all new technology, but you don’t have to hate it either. The value of technology is determined by its use. The problem is that R&D is entirely driven by profits and the violent enforcement of privilege.
- Worries about “skynet” are just phony hype that promotes the “AI” bubble.
- The idea that “AI” art is somehow inherently worse than “human” art is extremely suspect, not to mention it being a false dichotomy. People who make “objective” statements about the extremely subjective quality of art are epistemologically fucked. TBH I think lots of generated art is pretty cool.
- Apart from this guy, nobody actually cares if people use “AI” art in the right context. People won’t think you’re unoriginal, unsympathetic, etc. They’ll just think that you needed an image quick and aren’t an artist.
First and foremost, “AI” doesn’t exist.
Generative models are known as AI colloquially, if you’re trying to communicate something to a wider audience, it’s better to use a known term for the sake of communication.
Secondly people complaining about “IP” are missing the point. We shouldn’t be fighting to maintain a capitalist system of oppression. We should be fighting for a world where artists don’t need to sell themselves in order to survive.
You need to start somewhere, and smaller scale advocacy like this can be used to push for further change.
Yes, I don’t like capitalism but we’re living under it for the foreseeable future. Ceding any protections for smaller artists because capitalists also benefit from it sounds like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You don’t have to embrace all new technology, but you don’t have to hate it either. The value of technology is determined by its use. The problem is that R&D is entirely driven by profits and the violent enforcement of privilege.
Can I hate some new technology? As a treat? 🥺
Generative models generally suck at what they do. They suck for the users, they suck for people who have to then read and see the shitty outputs, they suck for the environment, etc.
Worries about “skynet” are just phony hype that promotes the “AI” bubble.
It’s pretty clear that that part is an exaggeration for comedic value. The impact on jobs is real, and again bad for everyone except capitalists.
The idea that “AI” art is somehow inherently worse than “human” art is extremely suspect
Generative models by definition cannot make art, as art is by definition made by humans.
You don’t go look at a sunset and think about how great art is, or what the sunset might mean. In the same way, there is nothing behind a generated image.
Apart from this guy, nobody actually cares if people use “AI” art in the right context.
I care, it’s fucking ugly, and it makes me think you’re at the very least lazy and don’t care about the thing you’re putting out.
Copyright can be a problem but they showed The Scream which isn’t copyrighted.
The rest is wrong. I’m not paying an illustrator to make a meme. I used Gimp for my last shitpost. I didn’t pay a professional oil painter.
The pollution claim is way off. You can run Stable Diffusion at home on your GPU for the same energy as playing a game.
No you do not have to embrace everything new. That’s not a counterpoint.
Jobs. See Gimp comment above. Photography put millions of hard working portrait painters out of business. The world ended in 1865, you just didn’t notice.
Using AI doesn’t need to be done on corporate hosts. You can run AI on a home built server.
My hand made art looks ugly. My Photoshopping is garbage.
Using AI is lazy. As is Photoshop. As is photography. You want human touch, hire an actual artist. Don’t digitize art because that uses electricity, is lazy, and puts artists out of work. Definitely don’t use lithography or other photo mechanical copying methods like printing presses. Hand draw each and every comic you distribute.
The argument AI fanboys make that it’s the same creative effort as directing or photography is absolutely insane and falls flat with even a tiny bit of critical thinking. Anyone can plug in a prompt. People study and work hard their entire lives to become good photographers and directors. Being able to take a decent picture is not the same AT ALL as a professional photographer, especially one of the successful ones, like all art. It takes incredible patience, timing, creativity, and technical knowledge. It’s an accessible art form, like most forms of art, but doing it at the highest level takes a lot of skill. You need to select and know a great deal about your subject in order to capture it well, and timing is often incredibly important. There are people that spend their entire professional lives pursuing one shot, and when they finally get it, the photo is priceless and nearly impossible to replicate. The idea that an art form people get degrees and spend years pursuing is the same as typing a prompt is crazy. Just because anyone can pick up a camera (or a pen, or a paintbrush, etc) does not make the art form that simple.
Directing is an art form too, and there’s a very good reason the art of great directors is immediately attributable to them on viewing, even with no context. Anyone making that argument has no idea what it means to direct. Just because some directors might be lazy or uncreative doesn’t mean the artform doesn’t exist. AI could never replace it.
Like I said I tried AI art once to see what it was about. I did not get anything good but I’ve seen AI art that looks good so I know it is possible with experience in prompting.
Getting the right prompts can be done by anyone in the same way anyone can take a photo. I expect people will spend time learning how to prompt in the same way people learn the knobs and lenses on their camera. Anyone can take a photo. It takes skill to take a good one. Anyone can generate an AI image but it takes skill (less skill but skill nonetheless) to create a good one.
The skill and knowledge to create an oil painting is several orders of magnitude greater than taking a photo. The only reason photography is defended is because everyone grew up with photography slop. Today phone cameras make it even more automated with their automated bokeh and red eye removal.
I cannot disagree more, as someone that paints with multiple mediums, including oil. It may be much more time consuming, but most of the art is in learning how the human eye views images, how to make the eye be drawn around the image in the order you want, and many other technical and artistic details. I can’t even begin to discuss it here, it’s a field of professional art like any other. Frequently, it intersects with sculpture and other physical and digital mediums. There are colleges of photography that offer the same level and quantity of schooling that other artistic studies do. The skill in art is not in the fine motor controls and techniques, though they are important to learn. Much harder is learning about forms, color, values, how to arrange artwork to be pleasing to the eye (or discordant, like a tritone), and all the other multitude of steps in arranging and capturing the message the artist is trying to convey.
You’re just wrong and misinformed. I’m an artist, and every professional artist I know and went to school with shares my opinion. You have a very limited view of what photography can be, and it shows.
Edit: To be clear, professional photographers can spend huge amounts of time applying the knowledge they’ve learned through study and practice to arrange their subject, which is not simply “point and click.” Look at the work of professional modern photographers. Photography is accessible like a set of cheap acrylics is accessible. High level art of all mediums takes far more study and skill to do well than AI art.
