Submitted by razorbeamz t3_zf0q7a in singularity
MutualistSymbiosis t1_iza59hg wrote
People who say that 1. Don't understand how these AI's work and 2. Don't understand how art works. They are small minded and short-sighted. Luddites essentially.
Aquamarinemammal t1_izatfkv wrote
I tend to agree. People grandstanding about AI art “stealing” are either unable to appreciate how their use of artistic “influence” is fundamentally the same, or else they’re arguing disingenuously.
There is nothing new under the sun. What artist can point to any aspect of their work that cannot be broken down into a simple mishmash of things other people did before? The only thing “proprietary” about it is the set of weights: a pinch of Bosch’s religious macabre, a tbsp of Escherian perspectives, etc. Some of this is conscious; most is not. That doesn’t make it any less true.
At the risk of over-reduction, all creative endeavor can be viewed as the combination of pre-existing concepts or categories in a novel way. How well your art is received is a function of how cleverly you mix these ingredients and how well you disguise this “trick of the light” so that the whole is more apparent than its parts. If any sufficiently sized “chunk” of pure influence makes it through, you can be accused of plagiarism.
I’d argue the models we have are already playing the game better than a lot of human artists. Soon they’ll be irreproachable.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izb6e7a wrote
You clearly have no clue what youre talking about, and its even worse knowing youre talking so confidently that people who are against this have "dont understand how art works". Its ridiculous to call these people Luddites. Do you think anyone reacted like this when new tools for any sort of program release and make the artists life just a little bit easier? Or when vertex painting was introduced in Maya and Blender, or when Laserscanning was used to perfectly replicate a model through mechanical means? Every artist I talked to would happily use any new tool available to make an artists job easier. Its just that most people who arent as unaware as you can usually see the difference between a "tool", and a replacement. Do you think artists reacted like this when an AI was able to artificially light up drawn images from any angle possible? No, because thats a "true" tool. It's not a replacement.
If you were a worker on an assembly line, and were to complain about every new rivet gun, wrench and drill that would be given to you to make your life just a bit easier, youd have no reason to call these things a replacement. But once the business rolls in a robotic arm, youd have every reason to complain.
People who disagree, usually artists themselves, arent small minded and short-sighted. You however, are pretentious and intolerant of the gravity of automating something as delicate as human craftsmanship, you would happily throw your fellow colleagues under the bus to make your life just a little bit easier. You throw around baseless insults such as luddites in your reddit echochamber because the thought of combatting your arguements with people outside of your hugbox is unreal to you. Just remember, shouting "tool" multiple times wont change the fact its still a replacement.
Sieventer t1_izb840r wrote
Mr. the-sun-is-gone, basically they are scared of losing their source of income. Here we are all going to lose our jobs, not just artists. But thanks to that, we will be freed from slavery.
They are very comfortable with their meritocracy receiving $100 for each drawing. But they should not cry, the world has to move forward, they will not obstruct it.
EDIT: Also I add, this opens doors to many people who are artists 'mentally' but don't have the ability. I myself have created wonderful liminal scenarios thanks to AI. And no one has stolen anything.
The artists' process is "to steal" too, they are ALWAYS based on something else, someone else. No ones creates something from 0.
deltaback t1_izd0z1z wrote
Being able to create art “mentally” but not having the ability to physically do so is such a ridiculous concept.
Just being able to imagine something does not make you an artist.
Sieventer t1_izd1i6y wrote
The physical ability to create a piece is merely one aspect of artistic production. Another important skill is the capacity for creative thought; it can be viewed as a sort of art in and of itself. So it's not a crazy idea in my opinion.
deltaback t1_izd4pfa wrote
I can tell we won’t see eye to eye on this so I’m not trying to convince you or anything.
Creative thought is something essentially every human in the world has to some capacity, so sure everyone is an artist. It doesn’t make them an artist to the degree we are talking about though. I feel like the bare minimum required is being able to physically convey your idea yourself, no matter how good it bad it may be.
Asking an AI to make you something, that has been trained on millions of actual artists good images, doesn’t make you an artist in my opinion.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izd766l wrote
First of all, I‘m not your mister. Your foreseen outcome is not only cult-like, but also a short-sighted pipe dream, bound to blow up in anyones face pigheaded enough to truly believe this. Anyone who only believes that, just like the original poster, is either blissfully unaware or purposefully setting aside reality. These programs are backed by huge corporations, who, like corporations usually do, tread over anyone and everything to get their wanted results.
While this scenario is admittedly (and hopefully will be) still far away from reality, but certainly in it’s birthing stage; the end result will not be „being freed from slavery“, the end result will look dystopian, where a constant, ai-generated and curated feedback loop of your interests are fed back to you by a megacorporation, to distract you from working and contributing and making you a mindless blot that infinitely consumes media from a privately owned station at will. You are not in slavery for having to work, but ironically, you will be put into slavery by the very thing you attempt at trying to play off as a „good“ thing. The Bourgeoisie like the World Economic Forum have already made their intentions clear with statements like; „You will own nothing, and you will be happy.“
In a perfect world, AI could serve to improve the artists work, serve to aid them or prove to make certain tasks easier, possibly for handicapped or otherwise disabled people. But you and your peers do not aim for this sort of outlook. Like the original commentator, you also would tread over your own colleagues, blinded by the consequences of overindulgence, it is embarrassing, really.
What is more embarrassing however is your total lack of understanding what a meritocracy is, but trying to downplay an artists struggle. To view a „merit“ in arts is cynical at best, and in your case, downright malicious at worst. „Just as it is pointless to criticize people for their lack of meritocracy in choosing their lovers, merit has no place in fine arts. A price of an artwork does not point to anything but to itself.“ Art in its purest form is not meritocratic, it is the people around them who value art as it is. And more commonly now, in modern forms of social media like Twitter, art communities have formed creative fields, whose base is not on its merit, but because of its subjective beauty. Sure, you could argue that by gaining likes and followers through recognition this can also seen as a merit, but all it serves it to prove the talented craftsmanship of the artist. And also very often salesmanship, as artist usually are most aware, and get rewarded for being exceptionally well at something (as anyone with a talent should).
But to return to your previous statement about being unhappy about having to pay $100 for each drawing. This only goes to show that you are possibly either a child, or you have never had experience in working a real job in the first place, neither of which would surprise me considering how bafflingly egotistical and crude you have to be to make such a statement. Receiving personalized art is a luxury. There is no gain except personal gratification. This luxury also comes with the fact that mosts artists that charge these prices are spending more than several hours per piece, and most of the time are well open to changing particular things you might not enjoy. Paying $100 is not only acceptable for a personal luxury, but prices can differentiate per artist. However I know this comment came out of a point of malicious intent, so I don‘t blame you for trying to make something as basic as „being paid for your hard work“ seem ill-intentioned by the artists, especially since you probably have never worked a talent-oriented job yourself.
There is no such thing as „mentally“ being an artist, it just proves you are not only creatively, but also morally bankrupt, as you have never felt the rewarding review of your own art, and want to replace your lack of sense with a robot to generate a bunch of scenarios in brutalist architecture for you to call „liminal“, and for some reason, trying to desperately push this fake sense of completion onto everyone else. My personal recommendation to you, personally; pick up a pencil and just draw whatever is on your mind. It might not look as great as your little AI imagery, but it will certainly feel nice!
To imply that the artist „steals“ from others like the AI does is simply not true. The fact that nothing is created from 0 is infact true, it is a statement that can be made for any sort of scenario, whether it be technology or any other mechanical advancements. You however, fail to realize the fact that the profit organizations behind the AI programs are not using imagery in the same way an artist is possible to, legally or even virtually accessible to, as the datasets used have proven to have personal images of peoples faces, private medical images and pictures normally hidden in said datasets. But on an arts and nature based response, AI is only able to replicate images by its exact datasets and its nessecary references. The artist uses reference to collect and transform images and use it to create original pieces. No matter how many pieces of Picasso the artist has to look at, he will never be able to exactly recreate Picasso without confusion. AI is trained on this exactly, to replicate and memorize. Whilst the human artist uses other images to transform and create in their own very often original means. To call it „stealing“ is a disoriented statement on its own. Within context of your comment, it is once again demeaning.
Your techno-utopian future is one that is held by companies, shady businessmen and „capped profit“ organizations, who when given an inch, will take a mile. You see artmakimg as this tedious, expensive chore, however anyone with enough experience understands that it is not. You are distracting yourself with the impossible idea of a future where people have to suffer so YOU can get what you want. But in the end, it is not ever about the replacement, it is about the people behind the replacement. and their agendas.
Many forms of media like Wall-E and Cyberpunk 2077 (to name the most well known ones) have already proven technological overadvancements lead by ill-intentioned corporations and its dystopian consequences. You should brief these medias before making badly thought out statements, or sign Equity‘s petition to make AI an even playing field for everyone, hopefully in the future aswell.
[deleted] t1_izeni3y wrote
Your rants are very long, authoritative and filled with insults. But convincing? Not at all. Least of all your description of how AI art models work and how this tech is actually being deployed in the real world.
You talk about evil megacorporations, I'm here using my free copies of Stable Diffusion and GPT-JT. You talk about shady businessmen, I'm listening to the scientists who are actually building this future. You talk about the rationale of paying $100 for an art piece, I'm already living in a world where the price of art is dropping close to zero.
And before you ask, yes, I've seen Wall-E and Cyberpunk 2077. I assume most people here are familiar with dystopian sci-fi. You're not bringing up anything new.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izeztv6 wrote
Here we have another example of someone actively avoiding any and all of my statements to subside in a reality to comfort himself with his own preposterous future.
I can promise you very much, in an echochamber like this subreddit, full of self-gratifiying hacks, I dont write these to convince anyone, because I know I wont. The idea of challenging someone elses warped beliefs in an uneven playing field is thrilling, and I already take enough enjoyment out of that alone. If there is anyone who I've convinced with this, I would be extremely happy.
You choose to purposefully avoid any and all of my claims, only to attempt to debunk my claims with a "gotcha" like, "Oh, well it is free so there is not any monetary incentive from it, right?". Take a moment to research the foundations behind these AI creators, you like to willingly avoid seeing them because it shatters your profound reality, but no matter how "free" your copies are of your AI program, their plan is not to create an open source option for users. They are for-profit organizations that reap the rewards of non-profit judistrictional and tax exemptions, whose "capped profits" are baffingly high. But hey thats alright with you I guess, because atleast ITS FREE!
You see your free copies of Stable Diffusion and GPT-JT, I see a honeypot for gullible viewers to get entranced into the beauty of automation without realizing the immediate consequences that happen behind the scenes, away from prying eyes. You listen to "scientists who are actually building this future", I'm listening to a corporates mouthpiece to lull viewers into a dark-age of hyperconsumption, making dream-like promises of a better future. I live in a world where workers should be paid for their work, you live in one where you, like the others, avoid seeing the harsh reality to live in a world where your obligations are passed to a lifeless bot. This song and dance between you and me can continue, but I'd rather you research about the people you vehemently support as if they were your own flesh and blood;
Open AI explaining how they invented their own legal structure because nothing else worked for them: https://openai.com/blog/openai-lp/
Stable Diffusion release info with no mention of “artists”: https://stability.ai/blog/stable-diffusion-announcement
A great article summarizing the data laundering techniques of AI companies: https://waxy.org/2022/09/ai-data-laundering-how-academic-and-nonprofit-researchers-shield-tech-companies-from-accountability/
Of course, in my naturally "authorative" and "insulting" fashion I could also call you a fruitfly-like person and assume you wont read into any of these, but I'd atleast like to see you try.
[deleted] t1_izf9ohp wrote
>comfort himself with his own preposterous future
>echochamber
>self-gratifiying hacks
>warped beliefs
>your profound reality
>gullible
>fruitfly-like person
Fascinating. I took a quick glance at your profile. Noticed that "k--- yourself" is also among your repertoire.
Tell me again why anyone should listen to you?
>assume you wont read into any of these
I am very familiar with what Stability AI and OpenAI are doing, both in research and policy. Suffice to say, I'm not interested in being lectured about stuff that I've been following since day one. I'm also not interested in hearing made-up stories about what I believe or who I support.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izff6mb wrote
Thanks for not only once more avoiding to refute any of the sources to back up my claim, but also for scowering through my reddit history to disprove my point by citing my post responding to a literal void for hating on coleslaw.
But I also appreciate for avoiding anything of the statements I made.
Your "made-up stories" are cited right there in my previous response, but that isnt as important to you right? Carry on living in your technocratic-utopian loopyland, and try not to respond to me again. Maybe deconstructing a few more ad-hominems without elaborating on any of your disagreements will totally help you and your point when youre arguing with someone else who is not as close minded as you. I would have had more respect for you if you just outright admitted that you are a corporate apologist.
[deleted] t1_izfj6ri wrote
>technocratic-utopian loopyland
>close minded as you
>corporate apologist
That "k--- yourself" says everything I need to know about you as a person.
And here I see an endless barrage of insults and straw-men. This has nothing to do with me. I'm currently reading this, in a universe utterly disconnected from whatever the hell you're saying about me.
PS: Unless you didn't know, GPT-JT isn't by OpenAI.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izflntb wrote
Theres only one thing I can tell you, cope. I'm sure you have a great little quip to end your sentence off of to weasel yourself out of any attempt of responding to anything I said, mostly because you know im right one way or another.
Edit: Still didnt respond to any of my statements, good work soldier!
[deleted] t1_izfz98r wrote
I draw a hard limit with people who say things like that. Most do.
Over and out.
Sieventer t1_izsvd7y wrote
Honestly, I wish I'd able to respond to all your arguments. But you have made such a massive text that it is a very arduous task to have to answer one by one.
I would like to chat with you about this, but in a more interactive way, because reading such a great book is hard to digest
NightmareOmega t1_izcpz30 wrote
You are absolutely correct. The luddites are the ones who have zero understanding of how an AI works while shouting down those that do. Sadly I'm not sure right and wrong are going to matter much. This is a battle of money and power, both of which are in short supply among starving artists.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izd7z6k wrote
Im glad you can agree. I went into this subreddit not expecting anybody to agree with me. But Im glad theres atleast fairly sensible people like you who can atleast back me up. Even though it might be grim, theres atleast trending hashtags like #HumanArtists on twitter that show that theres still an overwhelming amount of support for art created by companies that arent performing shady business practices. Honestly id recommend you check out this:
https://www.equity.org.uk/getting-involved/campaigns/stop-ai-stealing-the-show/
Its really informative, and I feel like letting someone atleast know that people are unhappy about this atleast helps a little bit.
edit cuz i didnt like the way the comment got embedded
Agreeable_Bid7037 t1_izdlpbu wrote
they can complain, but people will still use A.I. to generate art, myself included, and I am an artist.
Adapt.
the-sun-is-gone t1_izehxnu wrote
Then youve just proven yourself to be a part of the problem. Probably only reliant on asset-flipped meshes you found on sketchfab before AI took the limelight.
Your warped idea of "adaption" is the absurd equivalent of the aforementioned human laborers on an assembly line outworking the robotic arm.
If you're an artist yourself, you most likely have no problem posting artwork youve made before? Right?
Agreeable_Bid7037 t1_izepndo wrote
Technology will advance that is inevitable, so you can keep using the typewriter, or move to the computer. People will use the tool which is more efficient regardless of the fact that anyone feels its "unfair".
You can still express yourself in an artistic way, there are just more tools available now.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments