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. :)

[The nameless Gamer]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย The nameless Commander:

Basically, challenging the idea of "what is art". So... isn't a banana on the wall belittling all the people who dedicate years of learning how to paint or sculpt to create actual masterwork?

You're confusing art with technique and they're not the same. And that's why AI is fooling so many people, because it can create complex images.

It's not much different than the old 'if it weights, it's expensive' you may have heard from your parents or grandparents.

It isn't fooling ME. I can distinguish them at a glance. AI "art" is expressionless. I used to date an artist. She was doing up to 400 sketches, drawings and paintings per MONTH. Art requires style, technique and expression. AI has none of the three.

[Itsme cs2cases.pro]

idk what to think of it

[kingjames488]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย crunchyfrog:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย kingjames488:

the man knows how to market a propane torch... among other things.

That's the thing - he knows how to market or speak ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

As long as there's rubes to believe him, it will continue.

BUt his stock market wealth means almost nothing. He can't immediately draw that money out as it doesn't work like that so this growth is nonsense.

For the alleged richest person in the world very little of his worth is in anything really tangible.

In fact, his worth of something like Tesla is only valuable because they magically got it registered on the stock market as a TECH company and not a CAR company. Otherwise it wouldn't be quite as good.

Plus the only reason he does well is because he LOVES socialism .... for him. ALL his projects get considerable government funding. He loves it.

none of these "new ideas" are new... star trek invented smart phones ffs...

[HypersleepyNaputunia]

image search 3 years from now: 90% generic similar ai pic style, 10% uniqueness

[KennyAtom]

me destroying over 30 rainforests and melting every single glacier in the world just to get a ai generated woman with 3 milkers and 4 feet

[kingjames488]

what if there was an AI that could generate any art you want, but with the stipulation that down in the corner where the artist usually signs it it says "generated by AI"?

like is this about AI taking your jobs or AI being better at it than you?

[Michanicks]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย kingjames488:

what if there was an AI that could generate any art you want, but with the stipulation that down in the corner where the artist usually signs it it says "generated by AI"?

like is this about AI taking your jobs or AI being better at it than you?

It's almost like there is multiple reasons, and for different people different reasons matter more.

[kingjames488]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Michanicks:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย kingjames488:

what if there was an AI that could generate any art you want, but with the stipulation that down in the corner where the artist usually signs it it says "generated by AI"?

like is this about AI taking your jobs or AI being better at it than you?

It's almost like there is multiple reasons, and for different people different reasons matter more.

generally for people who have some stake in the art industry, and the reasons are related to them personally.

and I mean, I get it... no one likes to be obsolete... but you can't stop the progress train unfortunately.

[Tito Shivan]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย The nameless Commander:

It isn't fooling ME. I can distinguish them at a glance. AI "art" is expressionless. I used to date an artist. She was doing up to 400 sketches, drawings and paintings per MONTH. Art requires style, technique and expression. AI has none of the three.

AI is a parrot. A repetition machine. A very convincing one, because it can say long sentences and draw complicated pics. But that's it

[The nameless Gamer]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย The nameless Commander:

It isn't fooling ME. I can distinguish them at a glance. AI "art" is expressionless. I used to date an artist. She was doing up to 400 sketches, drawings and paintings per MONTH. Art requires style, technique and expression. AI has none of the three.

AI is a parrot. A repetition machine. A very convincing one, because it can say long sentences and draw complicated pics. But that's it

I am not convinced. It took me 5 seconds to recognize that for the initial god portrait art for Age of Mythology Retold people used AI. And it's not just me. The developer and publisher received so much backlash, that they had to find an artist to replace those. The difference is awfully obvious.

[Polverrati]

Artists have developed insane egos and turned art into an expensive business model. Arguably, AI artists can make truer to art than a lot of modern artists do, because most AI artists do it as a hobby because they enjoy it, whereas the average artist only thinks of profits. It's also helpful for people like me that can't draw properly due to nerve issues.

And let's face it, at the end of the day, pandora's box is open and it's never closing. AI art will never go away, and all anyone who's upset by that can do is pointlessly scream into the void about it.

[kingjames488]

"and how dare AI make art in a style I post publicly for everyone to see... that's my advertising!!"

[The nameless Gamer]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Polverrati:

Artists have developed insane egos and turned art into an expensive business model. Arguably, AI artists can make truer to art than a lot of modern artists do, because most AI artists do it as a hobby because they enjoy it, whereas the average artist only thinks of profits. It's also helpful for people like me that can't draw properly due to nerve issues.

And let's face it, at the end of the day, pandora's box is open and it's never closing. AI art will never go away, and all anyone who's upset by that can do is pointlessly scream into the void about it.

AI and art are mutually exclusive terms. Art needs style, technique and expression to be created. The AI has no personality, thus has neither of these three requirements met. AI "art" will never be true art because it lacks impact. It's hollow and soulless. Not even pretty. It leaves no impression.

[crunchyfrog]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Polverrati:

Artists have developed insane egos and turned art into an expensive business model. Arguably, AI artists can make truer to art than a lot of modern artists do, because most AI artists do it as a hobby because they enjoy it, whereas the average artist only thinks of profits. It's also helpful for people like me that can't draw properly due to nerve issues.

And let's face it, at the end of the day, pandora's box is open and it's never closing. AI art will never go away, and all anyone who's upset by that can do is pointlessly scream into the void about it.

Absolute made up rubbish.

Whether some artists have egos (they always have - have you neer read any history?) has nothing to do with the point,.

You're doing the usual strawman of trying to cast doubt on modern or recent people in that sphere to devalue what they do.

The fact is whether you like it or not, people like Damian Hearst ARE artists. I don't like much of his stuff, very little in fact, but to say it's not art and then make up ♥♥♥♥ about it is not right.

AI isn't art. It's just randomly running exmaples based on selection it's learned all from human sources at first. As time goes on it worsense as the pool gets diluterd with it's own output.

And again it's of no value because it CANNOT be copyrighted so it's not going anywhere much.

[Michanicks]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Polverrati:

Artists have developed insane egos and turned art into an expensive business model. Arguably, AI artists can make truer to art than a lot of modern artists do, because most AI artists do it as a hobby because they enjoy it, whereas the average artist only thinks of profits. It's also helpful for people like me that can't draw properly due to nerve issues.

And let's face it, at the end of the day, pandora's box is open and it's never closing. AI art will never go away, and all anyone who's upset by that can do is pointlessly scream into the void about it.

Since you believe that all artists have inflated egos and do art fo business (generalizing both groups of people) and you opposing AI users and artists by saying that former do the art for hobby (??? artists don't draw for hobby?) it seems that you don't even really know about artists and just made up some strawman in your head, because majority of artists actually draw for hobby, some can sometimes to make little money and only tip of the artistsic iceberg is the businessmen you talking about.

It's like hating people who cook food in general because all you know is some top tier master chiefs who turned cooking food into business.

Also your tearjerker with nerve issues doesn't mean much to people who know that disabled artists with passion still were able to draw with their mouths or feet, i don't say that you have to do the same, but i want to note it's a solution to non-existant problem: being an artist is about the process (the "journey"), not about being the thing that that from time to time creates pictures. Printer is one of the things that "creates" the picture without putting anything into that.