I will just list more benefits on why AI communication is superior and you will list more benefits on why human communication is superior, we can go in circle till eternity
Although I will add I’m not talking about replacing all human communication, people can still cook when they can’t farm, no?
But yeah, it’s not really an disagreement about AI, but fundamentally a disagreement about our core values, so agree to disagree is wise
Although the physicality of AI might be a solve problem in our future, Google already is combining robotics with large language models
I still need to read more into it, but that video is already outdated when it’s out, so the field is advancing pretty fast
Answering as an artist. I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding when art is commissioned. An assumption that the person who commissioned it owns the piece 100% and can do with it whatever they want. In a way they can, but it doesn’t automatically mean “free use”. That’s why licensing is so important to artists. The use beyond personal means is something that has to be negotiated because the artist still retains copyright of the art itself, regardless of subject. If someone who commissions a piece then decides to upload it the art to do further work, this becomes problematic. While not illegal, it is unethical.
The ethical part comes in is important for artists. While not illegal, artists (in general) will not copy the style of another artist. Maybe for their personal use (such as fanart), but not for commission purposes. Not to be confused with overall style copies such as anime/Disney/Comic, but specific artists. This is akin to stealing. If you like that artist’s work, buy their work. Don’t go run to a cheaper artist to copy them. Sure this isn’t illegal to do. People are absolutely free to do it. But it’s crappy to do to artists. It leaves a feeling of devaluing their work. Regardless of your personal ability to pay for it.
While I feel badly for people who may not have money, artists have bills to pay too. If you’re in another country that has an issue with currency conversion, maybe supporting local artists and finding one who you like the style of is a solution vs snagging art from other artists to seed into an AI.
I do think AI has a wonderful ability to perhaps bridge a gap in communicating what a person wants from an artist. Giving a better feel for the art you want an artist to create. A unique new way to provide references. Making it easier on the artist and increases their ability to capture what it is you want from them.
I don’t think AI has a place for replacing artists. Artists make design choices actively as they work. An AI does not do this. They don’t have the flexibility to plan creativity. It’s “random” generation based on variables inputted. In design, you go to an artist for their answer to your question.
I would like to add for those that are so in love with AIs like Lensa. Educate yourself on these AIs. If you have any respect for artists, do not use AIs that actively steal art to feed. Every time I see a Lensa portrait, I assume the person hates artists, doesn’t support them, and doesn’t care if artists are dealing with art thieves. Having watched friends of mine find out their art has been used thousands of times to train the AI is heartbreaking. It’s literally supporting a company, paying a company, to step on individual creators.
Reading this thread has really changed my look at the AI and its practices.
Like imagine spending years of your life honing and improving your skills, putting in the work, learning, growing, and spending hours upon hours to produce beautiful art, only for a shady company to appear and steal your work and then feed it to the algorithm without even telling you so.
You then start to see art that resembles yours made with only a few clicks, and you cannot do shit about it.
From now on, I will just use the portraits I made as a placeholder and reference until I can either afford a real artist or find a local one that accepts the same currency, hopefully.
TLDR: Someone decided to use AI to generate concept art/mock ups of a video game project. And in a thread decides to feed an artist’s work to an AI generator to make a point or something. With the artist present mind you (so now they know someone has fed a work of theirs to a machine without their consent)
Unironically, this protest gave AI material to create an art, the protest looks like shooting in own leg for me now.
While it is true that using “stolen” art is a very controversial act at best, I wonder if inspiration from other media is an act of thievery by artists/writers/musicians/etc. AI cannot generate an art from nothing (at least now), but it’s same for humans. (obliviously am not a human, am chicken)
Time wait for no one. The industry is changing once more, right now. The AI is a tool, and those who learn how to use it will succeed. Am about commercialized part of art industry, of course. Those who choose art as a hobby are safe, I guess.
I wonder, when this drama repeats in writing industry. In this decade? Next one? Later maybe?
Urrgh, those people who think that digital art doesn’t require the same level of talent as traditional art.
With photoshop, the artist is still making all the artistic decisions, every little part is intentional. And art is all about the intentions, the thought-process, the communication of ideas through choices and symbolic shorthand.
Even the most low-skilled photo-manipulation art requires more talent and artistic process than making an AI produce a picture.
Claiming that you made the AI picture, is a lot like claiming that you made a picture you commissioned, just because you gave a line or two of description of what you wanted.
I really wish that the AI process would move more towards being a collaborative effort, so the AI becomes another tool in the artists’ toolbox, instead of what it is now.
I’d rather describe it as a self-drawing pen (that draws without you directing it), because it’s another human being doing the art in the case of commission, but I get what you mean.
Yeah, that’s why I didn’t say that making AI pics is like commissioning art, but just that you have about the same level of input in the process.
And that only if you give very little direction to the artist, and just accept whatever they make, without approving sketches or giving feedback after they’ve started.
I mean, the AI can have the images, no big loss.
The reason why the stop signs can distort AI images is because plenty of prompts include “artstation” keyword (talking about Dreamstudio) or are just connected to artstation and actively stealing from it.
It’s not. When a human artist takes inspiration from media or other artists they transform it, if they do it 1:1 they are called out on it. Industry pros consciously choose their style, they choose which elements they want to keep and which aren’t working, they don’t just monkey other artists (how many times have you seen a piece of media be accused of “ripping off” another? It’s not considered a good thing, right? Why would that be a good thing because a machine does it instead?).
What AI does is more akin to photobashing: mashing pieces of someone else’s artwork together. It doesn’t really “learn” anything the same way we learn.
AI doesn’t “learn”. It won’t gain consciousness or start a revolution for its rights. It’s just a collection of scripts.
The people who are very pro-AI seem to be looking at it in a very business-mindset way where eliminating the process of making art and learning to make art can only be good, because that’s just wasted time, right? Now you can get art instantly! Efficient!
But the more I think about this the more I think there that the process itself involved has value that no one seems to be talking about. Learning to paint doesn’t just teach you how to paint, it develops your colour perception, your spatial awareness, pushes you to think harder about what appeals visually to you and why. Getting better at writing means you have to learn to read critically, which tends to make it easier for you to identify bias or emotional apppeals in media.
There’s people who say, ‘well now this means that anyone with an idea can realize it!’ but (and this may be where I sound like a snob ) those people aren’t going to learn how to have better ideas. The stuff I came up with when I was 12 is bad for more reasons than undeveloped skills!
Well, it’s mostly was a joke, since protest is more expression collective frustration rather try to screw up AI’s algorithms. But hey, those two look nice.
Well, it’s debatable since what is “consciousness” and such, but yeah, in short AI learning and Human learning is not the same. I need my anti-philosophy pills.
About “ripping off”. Oh I saw this and this is not always was bad. Considering that I love fanfiction, I consume a lot “copyright violation”. Sometimes it was better that original work imo.
Thought am more pro-AI, I see reasons why so many people unhappy about it. I just keep my hopes, that AI became more accessible and intelligent without hurting artist too much.
This kind of ignores a lot of things. There is no “stolen” art. It’s stolen. It’s not hypothetical or maybe or maybe not. It is. Theft is theft. Very simple concept. Artist says “don’t use my stuff”, you do it anyway, it’s theft.
Inspired is completely different than copied. Just like referencing isn’t copying. Copyright laws are very clear even in the use of sampling and collage work. The industry does adapt to these things. Just as the music industry adapted to the rise of the digital age. Both in copyright and fair use. AI will end up strapped in order to preserve copyright.
Which is another point, AI art cannot be copyrighted at the moment as it is not created by a human. A person putting in prompts is no different than someone putting in a commission with an artist. Said person cannot take it and copyright the image. This will adversely effect businesses. Businesses need trademarks and copyrights for their IPs, and subsequently the images they use. As misuse can cause problems for their company. Especially in today’s social climate.
Companies that make the shortcuts (as the companies that relied on clip art) will find themselves not memorable (because the images are overused) and thus not profitable in their marketing. Or worse yet, they will find themselves thrust into the public eye for art theft. This happens with or without AI. AI is just a different flavor of this.
Recognizing the issues that will come up, Stable Diffusion (which Lensa uses) is already making strides with HaveIbeenseeded to protect artists until law can catch up. Which it will. Companies who rely on artistic work/trademarks/copyrights will protect their IP. Even against AI.
There are absolutely ways for AI to develop in more ethical ways. Including opt ins for artists. Artists subs for use. There are a variety of ways to make art more accessible without destroying the very reason anyone would even want to use an AI that takes from artists. How idiotic and shortsighted is it to love the work an artist does and then go and ensure they stop creating because they either cannot afford to do it anymore or have been made to feel so devalued their soul is not longer in it.
AI does not do photo bashing, and yes it’s learning the association between prompt and image, it doesn’t learn in the same way we do, but it still learns.
you can’t be more accessible than stable diffusion, it’s open source so you could literally run it on a mediocre consumer level computer locally, unlike large language models.
There’s a lot of good tutorials on how to run it, and it’s really a miracle how little hardware rescource it needs
I know it’s not photobashing but it’s closer to photobashing than it is to painting - matching text to images and mixing elements up, creating variations.
By saying it doesn’t learn I wanted to bash the image of recreating a human brain in a computer, which looks at images and learns how to draw. Every time AI comes up there’s already an existing association with sci-fi.
For a detailed explanation this is a good article about DALL-E:
I mean, the AI can have the 
images, no big loss.
Thank you for your concern.
) those people aren’t going to learn how to have better ideas. The stuff I came up with when I was 12 is bad for more reasons than undeveloped skills!