Im so sick and tired of greedy artists trying to halt AI Art

[Millennial_KiwiGamer]

AI Art is the ultimate equalizer in the sense that it allows anyone to put in a description of what they want and then they get that, or something near enough.

It's fantastic for users. It gets rid of needing to commission every little thing saving $$ for the average bob. Not everyone is made of money to be paying artists tons of money for a picture that might take days to make when you can just roll the generator a few times and get something of equal if not better quality than the artist themselves.

The "compromise" argument is also hilarious. Anyone who pays an artist OR uses a generator is compromising because they're relying on a third party to make their vision.

AI Art Good. Greedy Artist bad. :)

[crunchyfrog]

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

artists want too much money.

I've seen some quotes for "art" from people... they include things like a box fan.

like where in that work of art is there a box fan? nowhere.

clearly billing customers for business expenses and people are just like "well the artist needs to get payed" and pay them w.e they want!

ridiculous. AI doesn't charge for a fan.

That's a poor argument.

Sure, some people ALWAYS overcharge for services or charge for POOR service in every trade. That doesn't mean one should dismantle their trade entirely.

AI would do that. So what about the majority of artists that don't overcharge and offer a reasonable product for a reasonable price?

[kingjames488]

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

artists want too much money.

I've seen some quotes for "art" from people... they include things like a box fan.

like where in that work of art is there a box fan? nowhere.

clearly billing customers for business expenses and people are just like "well the artist needs to get payed" and pay them w.e they want!

ridiculous. AI doesn't charge for a fan.

That's a poor argument.

Sure, some people ALWAYS overcharge for services or charge for POOR service in every trade. That doesn't mean one should dismantle their trade entirely.

AI would do that. So what about the majority of artists that don't overcharge and offer a reasonable product for a reasonable price?

AI wouldn't do that at all...

if that were the case mass markets and walmart would have already put artists out of business...

there's always going to be people willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for "the real deal".

[crunchyfrog]

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

That's a poor argument.

Sure, some people ALWAYS overcharge for services or charge for POOR service in every trade. That doesn't mean one should dismantle their trade entirely.

AI would do that. So what about the majority of artists that don't overcharge and offer a reasonable product for a reasonable price?

AI wouldn't do that at all...

if that were the case mass markets and walmart would have already put artists out of business...

there's always going to be people willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for "the real deal".

Oh cool, then please do demonstrate how it won't. You can't as that's a unfalsifiable claim.

AI WILL affect work because it's using the work illegally of the artists ALREADY. That's the point.

If you can't see how that directly affects work you aren't paying atention.

Many artists professionally do banal work like sign writing, graphic design, decorating and all sorts of other little things. Back when actual signwriters used paint and brushes (my dad was one), they got affected when things like vinyl transfers became a thing.

So absolutely it will be affected. If you think big businesses aren't going to just use AI and automatiion to do their work you don't understand business at all.

I personally know fo a few artists already affected by this. Glastonbury festival where I work employs a lot of artists and they've told me about it.

[kingjames488]

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

Many artists professionally do banal work like sign writing, graphic design, decorating and all sorts of other little things. Back when actual signwriters used paint and brushes (my dad was one), they got affected when things like vinyl transfers became a thing.

and the refrigerator killed the milk man and the ice boy...
and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8r-tXRLazs

and we're all better off for it...

do you suggest we should be paying someone to bring us ice on a regular basis to keep our food cold too?

[crunchyfrog]

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

Many artists professionally do banal work like sign writing, graphic design, decorating and all sorts of other little things. Back when actual signwriters used paint and brushes (my dad was one), they got affected when things like vinyl transfers became a thing.

and the refrigerator killed the milk man and the ice boy...
and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8r-tXRLazs

and we're all better off for it...

do you suggest we should be paying someone to bring us ice on a regular basis to keep our food cold too?

False equivalence. That's not how logic works.

There's direct correlation here as I've said.

So I'll ask again yoou claim AI won't do this, even though that claim is unfalsifiable. I'm keen to see your evidence.

Also, if your claims were analogous, then you would be showing how refrigeration copied the milkman and iceboy's work committing copyright fraud, and then reaplced their work with it made into their own.

That's what a false equivalence is.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

It's a really interesting discussion honestly, and I still - even now - am not sure how I feel about it. I can't articulate my thoughts/feelings about it any better than I did in another topic months ago, so I'll just paste that. But the TLDR for me is still: I'm not sure how I feel about the whole thing, from many different directions.

Originalmente postado por Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser:

It's a weird thing to think about. I go back and forth on it, honestly. Not so much about the quality or validity of AI generated images as they are today, but just the broader idea of what it means or implies about art and how we conceive of it going forward, if it continues to improve dramatically.

On the one hand, my ethics concerned, pro-actual-artist biased mind says:

Models that generate art from prompts aren't creating art per se because there's a gap between the person submitting prompts to them, and what's created, and that process of creation.

It's just someone trying to find the prompt that elicits the generative output closest to what they're hoping to see, and it's never exactly what they envision, so they didn't create it. The actual generation isn't being done by them, and that generation is also pulling from a vast training dataset comprised of already existing imagery and art made by other artists. (In many people's eyes, stolen art, too. Which is a huge ethical concern imo.)

As opposed to an actual artist who has intentionality and is mechanically, manually creating something themselves directly, guided by that conscious intentionality. And their intentionality can also change dynamically on the fly in real-time and they can choose what to create, change, scrap, etc. AI can't do that (yet) and there's no opportunity to do so during the generation process, either. You just get what you get, you have poor control over it, and it's entirely generative in nature.

So... not art. Right?

But see... then, on the other hand...

The devil's advocate, philosophically indifferent, non-prescriptive side of my mind says:

A brush, pen, pencil, stylus, or whatever, is also just a tool, as is an AI model. And our thoughts about what we choose to create with our own hands aren't so terribly different from prompts. They're concepts. They represent our intentionality.

It's just that instead of our "prompt" telling a trained model to generate something for us and then seeing the result, we dynamically and intentionally create it on our own - a sort of "continuous implementation of our own prompt in real time" if you will.

And how do we learn how to make art? We also learn by being "trained" by existing works of art by others our senses create models of in our own minds, that we see, copy, synthesize, recombine, and eventually - we hope - end up with something that is "ours" by combining until we attain creative autonomy and skill.

But just because we're capable of introspective and continuous though as opposed to unconscious, discrete, and episodic statistical inferences as in AI models, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're more "creatively valid" It just makes us consciously aware of and thus able to strategize about our creative goals and dynamically alter them on the fly.

Which seems like a fundamental distinction, right? Until we consider that we might eventually make models that are able to create exactly what we want in exacting detail, hypothetically. And let us amend them on the fly, through some sort of non-destructive prompt editing or something.

At that point, since we're the ones intentionally conceiving of what we want to see the AI generate, and it's doing that for us, instead of just kind of stochastically generating its best approximation ... if it gets good enough to truly create exactly what we want... is it art? Is it our art?

Is it just a more instant, less manual way of bringing our mental pictures to life? Or is the manual labor of doing it by hand (traditionally or digitally) a prerequisite for it being art? Does just being able to perfectly realize your vision, through any tool whatsoever, allow it to be art? Once that gap between conception and execution is closed fully, if that happens someday, do we arbitrary dismiss it as not art? Or is it just another tool?

Like... if I as a human study the works of 100 other artists, and slowly learn from them, and then try to make my own art, and decide "I want to make Y" and manage to make Y and it doesn't look like their art, it looks like something I created myself, and I'm not directly plagiarizing them, nobody really cares.

But if we train an AI model to do the same thing, and if they ever get good enough to precisely create exactly what I tell them to, with zero deviation... did I make art? Did I steal the art of those it was trained on? Why is that different than how I learned how to make my own art?

I don't know. And it bothers me that I don't know lol. Because the implications of that are kind of wild, imo. For all kinds of reasons.

[kingjames488]

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

So I'll ask again yoou claim AI won't do this, even though that claim is unfalsifiable. I'm keen to see your evidence.

people still buy ice...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D690hKaNgr8

they just aren't forced to do so to keep their food cold anymore.

people will still buy over-priced art... it's how the rich launder and obfuscate their money ffs... "art" isn't going anywhere.

the only thing going anywhere are all the people over-charging for average art.

edit: also leave it to "artists" to make a comment in the form of an essay... get to the point!

[crunchyfrog]

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

So I'll ask again yoou claim AI won't do this, even though that claim is unfalsifiable. I'm keen to see your evidence.

people still buy ice...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D690hKaNgr8

they just aren't forced to do so to keep their food cold anymore.

people will still buy over-priced art... it's how the rich launder and obfuscate their money ffs... "art" isn't going anywhere.

the only thing going anywhere are all the people over-charging for average art.

edit: also leave it to "artists" to make a comment in the form of an essay... get to the point!

Still no evidence fior your claim then. You need to show evidence to show how AI CANNOT take the work away - that was your claim.

Again talking about what you've said with refrigerators is FALSE EQUIVALENCE. It's not even remotely analogous for the reason I told you. They are not being trained on stolen work are they?

And you're strawmanning too.

As I clearly said I'm not referring to people who overcharge art. There's scammers and sheisters in ALL business. I'm talking about regular normal artists who do the work I detailed - sign wrinting, design, logo work, artwork, decoration and so on.

I repreat, I work at Glastonbury Festival every year. We employ an awful lot of artists not just to pain bits in the place and make it look nice, but design gardens, build the nightclubs and sculptures in the nightclub areas, decorate the campsites and so on. I've got to know quite a few of these artists as we work there together before the festival starts. They have directly already been affected as I've said - they've seen commissions from businesses where a logo might need to be designed, or paperwork be designed, or some promotional work, banners, advertising,etc.

These are REGULAR honest, normal artists, not ripoffs. And they are being affected. And more, their artowrk is being illegally used to train the AI, just to add instult to injury.

Now ask yourself - how would YOU feel if your employer sacked you on Monday because he managed to make some way of getting your job automated cheaper? Could we strawman and call your job a ripoff too?

[kingjames488]

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

people still buy ice...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D690hKaNgr8

they just aren't forced to do so to keep their food cold anymore.

people will still buy over-priced art... it's how the rich launder and obfuscate their money ffs... "art" isn't going anywhere.

the only thing going anywhere are all the people over-charging for average art.

edit: also leave it to "artists" to make a comment in the form of an essay... get to the point!

Still no evidence fior your claim then. You need to show evidence to show how AI CANNOT take the work away - that was your claim.

Again talking about what you've said with refrigerators is FALSE EQUIVALENCE. It's not even remotely analogous for the reason I told you. They are not being trained on stolen work are they?

I didn't say It "CANNOT", I said it won't... for the reasons mentioned.

art will always be a thing as a concept... like swiss bank accounts.

[☯ Icy ᚱᛖᛞ ᛊᛟᛞᚨ▲]

At least AI doesn't have a bloody ego and that it doesn't charge absurd amounts of money, however having said that. Human artists are still superior imo, after trying many Art AI's

[Kiddiec͕̤̱͋̿͑͠at 🃏]

Originalmente postado por maja blast:

using AI for propaganda is crazy

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

And impossible.

What is it that you're always saying? About burden of proof and then also unfalsifiable claims?
(For quite a while now, you've been doing the very things that you preach against.)

You need to show evidence to show how AI CANNOT be used for propaganda.

This has already happened / been happening, far more than the examples that I currently have on-hand since I didn't create a ready-to-use database indexing & ordering every single example that I've come across so far.

There's also the issue of deepfake porn of real people, which is directly relevant to the subject of AI propaganda due to its high similarity of ability to deceive and misrepresent, and which is a far greater issue than anything with this "art stuff" (but directly related due to being applications of neural networks to generate images and audio).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZCHQkMsxM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LZQ60p4ZNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2jmWj4OfW0

There's been countless stories on this from various sources :
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deepfake+porn+news
(The results are not of the actual thing but rather incidents of it happening and how it has impacted people.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_2V-SDJk0U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GDvuMkMOXM

I even say that claiming that AI propaganda is supposedly impossible, is a statement that, whether you meant it to be or not, is itself, propaganda -- as is any statement that amounts to,
"all of {A} are {B}"
which in this case, the A variable is:"AI generatoins" and the B variable is:"NOT propaganda".

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw9r8CL98N0
[15:48 - 16:33]

Originalmente postado por Robert Miles during the Computerphile GAN video:

"The generator gets better at producing cat looking things, and the discriminator gets better and better at identifying them, until eventually, in principle, - if you run this for long enough, [then] theoretically you end up with a situation where the Generator is creating images that look exactly indistinguishable from images from the real data set and the discriminator -- [so then] if it's given a real image, or a fake image always outputs 0.5
(ie. 50 / 50 - [it says] : "I don't know; could be either. These things are literally indistinguishable.")
Then you pretty much can throw away the discriminator."

The thing is, though, that when dealing with humans, the generated data doesn't need to be "exactly indistinguishable" to each the point where the human trying to determine if its real or not is always stuck at 50% certain whether something is real or fake -- in fact, it gets worse than that because humans are not great at discerning things, therefore the fakes can get so good that real humans can sometimes begin to say that the fake image is real more often than 50% of the time and / or that the real images are fake also more often than 50% of the time, thus being wrong about what is real or fake more often than not.

...and that becomes a lot more grim when you consider that we consider the A.I. discriminator (the machine discerning whether an image is real or fake) useless and worth throwing away once it only does only as good as 50% - because... these tools have the capacity to get so good at generating fakes someday (and to some extent we already see some examples of it) that human beings wind up not even being able to determine correctly if something is real or not, even LESS than the A.I. discriminator can. It's a good thing that determining whether something is true or not is not our only valuable trait, nor our purpose, otherwise it would be off to the dismantling bin for all of us for being so easily deceived, someday in the not too distant future.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2YAIk0vSc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LRfOyO17co

"Department of Homeland Security : Increasing Threat of DeepFake Identities"
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/increasing_threats_of_deepfake_identities_0.pdf

[Michanicks]

Originalmente postado por kingjames488:

Originalmente postado por crunchyfrog:

Many artists professionally do banal work like sign writing, graphic design, decorating and all sorts of other little things. Back when actual signwriters used paint and brushes (my dad was one), they got affected when things like vinyl transfers became a thing.

and the refrigerator killed the milk man and the ice boy...
and...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8r-tXRLazs

and we're all better off for it...

do you suggest we should be paying someone to bring us ice on a regular basis to keep our food cold too?

Does having a fresh food always aviable helps person to survive?
Does watching/owning artworks helps person to survive?

Art is not the thing that needs to be optimized.

[Michanicks]

Originalmente postado por ☯ Icy ᛁᚾᚲᚨᚱᚾᚨ ▲:

At least AI doesn't have a bloody ego and that it doesn't charge absurd amounts of money, however having said that. Human artists are still superior imo, after trying many Art AI's

It's not like AI needs to pay bills, clothings, food and cool stuff.
And running AI still uses a lot of resources, like NFTs did.

Anyway, artists are different, not everyone is overpayed snob.

[Tito Shivan]

Originalmente postado por Michanicks:

It's not like AI needs to pay bills, clothings, food and cool stuff.
And running AI still uses a lot of resources, like NFTs did.

The AI of today is the blockchain of yesteryear.

[crunchyfrog]

Originalmente postado por Tito Shivan:

Originalmente postado por Michanicks:

It's not like AI needs to pay bills, clothings, food and cool stuff.
And running AI still uses a lot of resources, like NFTs did.

The AI of today is the blockchain of yesteryear.

Yup, absolutely agree and in so many ways.

It's a buzzword that people blanket apply to anything without understanding what the hell it is. It's also misapplied by people who employ it, and will burn out through overuse or attempts when people realise it doesn't perform how they expected it too.

Anyone who actually uses AI in any way other than some consumer quickly realises it's only good for REALLY niche focused repetitive jobs.

It's great for things like sorting. It's also great for use with something I love to do - demixing songs so you can pull the individual instruments from a track and separate them.

but when people try to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ their way into thinking it's going to understand language or humour or be able to replace more complex jobs, it exposes their ignorance.

It cannot.

One thing I love to demonstrate to people how it doesn't work well is to get something like ChatGPT, which claims to be able to read your request and compile a good response.

Ask it something like this:

"provide the guitar chords and tabs for <insert your favourite song>"

Then try to play the results. It's a fabulous disaster as it's NEVER anything like right. I have no idea how it compiles this answer but it's not even anything like accurate.