AI Art Seething General

[linchan]

Can you really call yourself a creator if the computer did all the work for you?

You are right, but I find people saying this same thing infinitely funny when it comes from people who think that being a woman is as simple as calling yourself one.

And you know none of them care about what crimes may be committed with it. Hell, they’re such shut-in they/them children they think all it takes is video evidence to convince court of a crime. They don’t care about ‘misinformation’ when they parrot what someone else says without AI. They don’t care videos/photos get staged without AI. They don’t care about revenge porn because the attention whoring drives the need to share all their info to strangers online anyway.
Most of the arguments can really be dismissed if these retards learn, better late than never, that the internet is not their ‘safe space’. And stranger danger should absolutely return as a mindset.

People who show concern for fabricated evidence on Twitter are the exact kind of people who instantly get convinced by a couple of DM's and several pictures of out-of-context tweets. They are underestimating how redundant it is to fabricate video evidence to incriminate someone, if anything I'm sure the existence of AI will drag video evidence down to the level of text transcripts or eyewitness testimony. This will likely make it more difficult to incriminate someone than the opposite.

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

If you go down this line of argument to its inevitable conclusion, you have to concede that digital artists aren't creators as much as traditional artists are, because they have a computer helping them.

I use a tablet for the convenience, take that away and I can easily go back to paper. Take the paper away, and I can draw in the sand. I'm still the one pushing and pulling the stylus on glass, the computer is just converting that movement data to lines on a screen, the same movements I would make using a pencil and paper. The computer isn't helping me, it's just a medium I make stuff on.

You are right, but I find people saying this same thing infinitely funny when it comes from people who think that being a woman is as simple as calling yourself one.

If typing prompts in a computer makes you a true and honest artist, then I guess cutting your dick off does make you a woman!

 

[ShooterOfCum]

Can you really call yourself a creator if the computer did all the work for you?

People said the same exact thing you said 150 years ago, but about photography.

Photography was invented in the 1820s and though it remained a fledgling technology in the few decades thereafter, many artists and art critics still saw it as a threat, as the artist Henrietta Clopath voiced in a 1901 issue of Brush and Pencil:

The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing more to do.

When critics weren’t wringing their hands about photography, they were deriding it. They saw photography merely as a thoughtless mechanism for replication, one that lacked, “that refined feeling and sentiment which animate the productions of a man of genius,” as one expressed in an 1855 issue of The Crayon. As long as “invention and feeling constitute essential qualities in a work of Art,” the writer argued, “Photography can never assume a higher rank than engraving.”

 

[linchan]

People said the same exact thing you said 150 years ago, but about photography.

You don't even need to go back that far. https://archive.ph/81ldU

 

[ShooterOfCum]

You don't even need to go back that far.

Yes, but the point here is that this is all just a strain of juvenoia. People were shaking their fists at the sky over the magazine addicts, talking about them exactly how we today talk about smartphone addiction. I am sure monks and priests throughout Europe were deeply upset when the Gutenberg press came out because it took out the holiness out of books, and their social status as sole holders of information. Socrates didn't believe that writing stuff down was real learning or efficient transmission of knowledge.

Calling advancements "not real" is just an irrational fear of the new, even though things largely remain the same. People feared photography, derided it for being "not real", and what happened? Absolutely nothing. People just enjoy the new thing, other people enjoy the old thing, and old dogs die, as in this case. Calling AI art creators "not real" is just an exercise in insecurity and egoism, because AI art fundamentally does away with barriers to artistic expression, allowing more people to express themselves in ways they couldn't before. If you are against that then it simply means you are either elitist or are not confident in what you preach.

Sure, not everyone is an artist, and I laugh at Shadiversity for being so proud of his very badly composed images. He probably isn't a "real artist" because of his bull-headed attitude towards criticism of his work, meaning he is unlikely to ever create anything evocative, but I really do not understand why this qualification is important. This discussion is important only to someone who wants to be elite or lacks confidence in artistry. Regular people simply do not care. They just enjoy it when someone genuinely expresses themselves. AI art is one additional avenue of expressing yourself. If that bothers you, then you suffer from juvenoia, and should get on with the times.

Tweet 1 (A)
Tweet 2 (A)

Unfortunately Nitter has effectively died with recent Xitter changes, so it is no longer possible to view threads on Xitter.

 

[boofit]

if repost sorry not scanning 67 pages

 

[BirdUp]

Imagine this: if you wrote a novellas worth of prompts, and then you kept generating and regenerating it, and along the way you delicately adjust your prompt so that through trial and error you get it to look exactly as you imagined it, and you spent hours and hours on this, did you really create it?

i use AI as a co-writer because i'm better at proofreading and editing than writing creatively and i would be so pissed if i published a short story and everyone decided i'm a plagiarist because of some retarded Ship of Theseus argument

 

[Anti Snigger]

I've got to be honest, the whole theft/plagiarism critique really doesn't hold up. The underlying mechanism of NNs learning from data is pretty similar to how the human brain does as we presently understand it, so every artist crying about it on twitter is equally guilty by their own standards.
Of course, they don't know how ML works, so they probably couldn't understand that even if they tried.
That's not to say that I'm necessarily against these large AI companies having to actually get permission to use data, but the current talking points are pretty hyperbolic and ignorant.

 

[linchan]

I've got to be honest, the whole theft/plagiarism critique really doesn't hold up. The underlying mechanism of NNs learning from data is pretty similar to how the human brain does as we presently understand it, so every artist crying about it on twitter is equally guilty by their own standards.
Of course, they don't know how ML works, so they probably couldn't understand that even if they tried.
That's not to say that I'm necessarily against these large AI companies having to actually get permission to use data, but the current talking points are pretty hyperbolic and ignorant.

The only thing that holds any water is that AI does indeed intrude into their profit by being a direct competitor, something that copyright intends to quell. The problem is that it's really difficult to argue that it is or isn't transformative, and a lot of arguments saying it isn't transformative use comparison to photo bashing, a form of medium that historically has, albeit rare, instances of being fair use.

On the other hand, the same people defend remixed tracks or fan art as transformative, but those are heavily debated on whether or not it's not fair use. People severely underestimate how casually we violate fair use laws in the age of the internet. This is all coming from their ignorance of what fair use laws are in addition to having no basis in machine learning or the field of AI in general.

 

[Anti Snigger]

The only thing that holds any water is that AI does indeed intrude into their profit by being a direct competitor, something that copyright intends to quell. The problem is that it's really difficult to argue that it is or isn't transformative, and a lot of arguments saying it isn't transformative use comparison to photo bashing, a form of medium that historically has, albeit rare, instances of being fair use.

On the other hand, the same people defend remixed tracks or fan art as transformative, but those are heavily debated on whether or not it's not fair use. People severely underestimate how casually we violate fair use laws in the age of the internet. This is all coming from their ignorance of what fair use laws are in addition to having no basis in machine learning or the field of AI in general.

I mean, if I really wanna be a prick I could point out that copyright is a meritless system, and that only patents and trademarks should exist.
Idk, the big thing that annoys me about this whole discourse is how artists are having to deal with a new technology affecting their industry. This is something that has happened since the dawn of time, and they act like they're being pushed into train cars. It's woefully out of touch and histrionic.

 

[linchan]

I mean, if I really wanna be a prick I could point out that copyright is a meritless system, and that only patents and trademarks should exist.

I don't know how people would respond to being asked a question as to why copyright protection lasts a lifetime twice over, while patents only last at most 20 years, because it's clearly not because patents are less important.

If you invent something that solves world hunger you can support yourself and your kids, but if you invent Mickey Mouse you can feed yourself, your kids, your grandkids, and their kids, and potentially give birth to an entire empire.

 

[Anti Snigger]

I don't know how people would respond to being asked a question as to why copyright protection lasts a lifetime twice over, while patents only last at most 20 years, because it's clearly not because patents are less important.

If you invent something that solves world hunger you can support yourself and your kids, but if you invent Mickey Mouse you can feed yourself, your kids, your grandkids, and their kids, and potentially give birth to an entire empire.

Yeah, it's crazy how much more society values entertainment in the short-term. Though, thankfully, it seems that invention and innovation are remembered far longer.
Many of the most well remembered figures outside of world leaders and such are scientists.

 

[Roland TB-303]

I use a tablet for the convenience, take that away and I can easily go back to paper. Take the paper away, and I can draw in the sand. I'm still the one pushing and pulling the stylus on glass, the computer is just converting that movement data to lines on a screen, the same movements I would make using a pencil and paper. The computer isn't helping me, it's just a medium I make stuff on.

I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

AI artists are the trannies of art. Cope seethe type prompt. YWNBAA.

 

[Anti Snigger]

If you don't like AI art replacing you, you can always learn to code
Here, some resources you can probably get started with

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

If you don't like AI art replacing you, you can always learn to code
Here, some resources you can probably get started with

Why? I can just get AI to code for me.

 

[Anti Snigger]

Why? I can just get AI to code for me.

tech isn't there yet, as it turns out, art is far easier than coding, go figure

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

tech isn't there yet, as it turns out, art is far easier than coding, go figure

And when it does, I can say I'm a true and honest coder (while the AI did all the work).

 

[BirdUp]

Why? I can just get AI to code for me.

again AI is only a tool that helps you with stuff
removing the human element will result in indian-level code, just like how generating text without checking for errors or things you don't want will result in fanfiction-level stories, and how typing in prompts and right-clicking images without bothering to inpaint will result in unintentionally lovecraftian art

 

[Fluoxetine Man]

again AI is only a tool that helps you with stuff

I agree, and that's what it should be. But you know that corpos will use it as the entire process to save money.
Maybe I'm just being an old fart and yelling at kids on my lawn, but for me, creating and working things out is the fun part of drawing and animating, so maybe I just can't get my head around letting a computer do the fun stuff.