This guy hit the nail on the head in regards to this whole AI art kerfuffle.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (52)
sorted by:
Where are all the artists backing factory workers put out of the job by machines?
Where are the artists backing ship crew put out of the job by better propulsion devices?
Where are the artsts...And so on.
Oh wait, they don't give a fuck, because they have no integrity.
Yup. They thought they would be “creating” indefinitely while every other occupation was put out of work by automation and AI. Turns out that the “creator” class is probably going to lose their jobs first. It’s hilarious.
Where were the ship crews when factory workers were put out of a job? Were they actually stolen from? You have no consistency.
Not to mention that these are examples of industries that were replaced by superior quality implementations - AI is not superior to the artists that it feeds upon, but it does pose a threat to industry standards and imperatives as stated above with sweeping societal implications, since art is such a broad field to be controlled and monopolized by one demographic of overgrown toddlers in programmer socks.
Artists, in this regard, have the right to protect themselves and I think that the zeigeist should be wary of the longterm implications of their entire psycho-socio-aesthetic biome being delegated by bunker pinkos, especially considering that kotaku in action was about gamergate - you are giving the creative seed to the people who ruined videogames AGAIN (videogames are born of concept art and writing as much as programming). You seem angry at the fact that they're actually succeeding in turning this around, even stranger, no one infringed upon you or asked for your help.
For the aforementioned "junk art" crowd, it is. Because it produces a similar enough product to satisfy the need for a fraction of the cost and time. Digital art was always going to end up devalued like this because it lacks the scarcity value a physical piece has to create an inherent worth.
This was always going to happen eventually, and you will never be able to stop technological progression over some huffing about ethics. So its an entirely moot point regardless.
I concern myself with how these things look further down the line, and I without a doubt think that establishing certain protections is absolutely necessary. I have warned my peers for years but nobody listened - they got off on platitudes "oh our work has soul!" - turns out, good work isn't as in demand as they thought. Cat is mostly out of the bag and they have been Johnny Come-Latelys' about it. I welcome the death of the casual smut artist.
Maybe. I think there are other ways to protect your work, or even collaborate in some way to feed a machine within one's own art collective and lease its use. As for junk art, I fear that junk art is king - it will continue to be king and the world will be uglier for it and I have my reasons for hating this.
I do sincerely believe that aesthetics have an effect on cohesion, and by proxy, epigenetics. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5599588/
Above is a study done adjacent to the rat utopia to give you a picture of what I mean, in that spiteful mutations when introduced to homogenous populations ruins social hierarchies - and likewise has numerous biochemical repercussions, such as the lowering of testosterone. It's a terrifying thing to know how these things interconnect and how little people actually care. Aesthetics make no small difference either because they are what we collectively value, we are in this sense under the indelible influence of our surroundings. Art is the thing that all kingdoms and empires have left behind as their greatest treasures - what succeeds us? Trash. I plan to dig up some papers on that tonight because there is something to be said about it in relation to this - namely the affect that hierarchies can have on the biochemistry of the individual. Context creates people, and I fear the affects of hierarchy created by a constant bombardment of junk and misappropriated skill. I fear the collective culture of art as a profession in the hands of an even nastier commercial gatekeeper.
It's just going to get worse.
About as much as a photo - which also have considerable legal protections and royalties behind them depending on where it is acquired. Also contributing to the inherent worth of a digital piece is the skill and demand of the artist himself, and this sets the stage for how you would arrange a contract. But by in large I think it is just as important to the value of your work that you protect your intellectual property - yet, artists have been foolhardy, posting their shit everywhere and wantonly skimming past the end user agreements. Fools, all of them.
Something like Discord could tomorrow pull the rug out from under them and say "hey, all this shit belongs to us - we're gonna use all of it to create promotional work and you won't see a red cent. Good'ay!" Facebook can do that with family photos if they had the itch, and I think everyone would feel weird about that.
Retard, support everyone or support no-one.
Its called being consistent, something a handshake wouldn't understand.
It's called a false equivalency. Retard. Protecting your intellectual property is very different from the examples given on its own, not only that but no one is asking for your support? Perhaps the argument can be made that it should concern you from my own perspective, but I reiterate, no one infringed upon you or asked for your help. The amount of kvetching your discord group does over this is priceless.
And again with the HURRRRR HANDSHAKE GOYS! I already slapped your shit on this. Keep downvoting pussy, I ain't looking for reddit gold.
Handshake.
i'm a writer, and theoretically i should feel threatened by stuff like ChatGPT, but i just kinda don't. not yet, anyway.
every idiot that wants to write yet another story about how the human and the elf save the planet with the help of the gods by killing the big bad goblin overlord is going to be shit out of business, yeah. and every idiot that wants to illustrate that, too.
the solution?
just get more creative, be more original. ChatGPT has a 600 "idea" limit per session. how many "ideas" does the average human draw upon when writing a story? probably a fuck of a lot more than 600, whether we realize it or not. same thing with visual art. right now, if you give Stable Diffusion a prompt that hasn't been done a million times before, chances are it's going to fuck it up and need human intervention. i don't think that's something that will be entirely solved within the decade.
funnily enough we might see a resurgence of real, meaningful art once the market for the unoriginal is flooded beyond belief...
Yeah that's really the biggest issue with AI in general, coherence. If you wanted a series of images or a long story, only people can really do that. AI's memory just doesn't work that well.
Could make a decent Marvel movie these days though.
The main way to get anything coherent is with embeddings on a specific character. From my playing around with it it seems to be the only way to make a character look consistent and even then some are hit or miss if you add any variable to it. It's worse for backgrounds, they're all just very random. Once they figure out how to make stuff more consistent is when a lot of artists will have to get a bit worried. But before? Nah, most people are good.
,The vast majority of coomer bait artists will suffer though, no need to pay 30 bucks for titties if AI makes them for free.
It can't write a whole book, but it can write 25 separate sections that I can mold into a book pretty easily.
Hell, as a writer you could draw inspiration from the generated stories into something more coherent. Artists can also. The "theft" can very well go both ways. How could you possibly prove you took from ai?
You should feel about half as threatened by GPT as you are by any other dimestore human author.
Sorry junk artists, no one's going to be featuring your vapid 'disney characters in modern clothes' or subscribe to your patreon for the umpteenth drawing of some uninspired flavor-of-month character. Guess you'll have to show some creativity!
Let's not get into the absolute pits of it, the complaints about AI art is hilarious when you can find examples as bad or worse in these communities for every other example than 'theft'.
Yet another person fails to unearth the intellectual property foundations of the matter. If this stuff can't get normies to think about IP as a concept, I don't think anything will.
Hell, no one even wants to address the floorboads of "what is art".
This stuff is so superficial it's becoming intellectually insulting.
Banana taped to a wall, jar of urine containing a crucifix, Basquiat's name spraypainted onto a door, the collected works of Jackson Pollack, everything Banksy's done, ALL OF THAT is considered art in good standing. Somehow AI is a bridge too far. I wonder if it's because it threatens the money laundering scheme with collapse.
A smart artist would make his own AI, train it in his style, and then use it to fill commissions.
Yep, those are some solid examples of how the definition of art has gotten deformed in modern times. A painting of those things, done by a human, I could perhaps count as art, but it's still pushing the line. I think that sort of stuff came out of the idea that art should make the audience uncomfortable, so people started shooting just for that.
It's hard for me to think of a negative outcome from this technology. Sure, some consumers will get exploited by a computer shitting out pictures, but those guys were really just begging to be exploited by chasing stupid commissions. So I'm alright with the "smart artist" you mention - they might use the extra free time to make real art.
I hate all the shit you listed and still think AI Art is creepy. But I think AI is creepy period. And it will do to art what already happened to music, and movies, and TV shows. Honestly it's probably what wrote the latest LOTR series and Black Panther 2. Everything is so fake these days, including food and grass.
I'm not sure I buy into the idea that the AI is violating anyone's IP, because it's basically just going into public spaces and memorizing pictures.
I've always had a problem with "intellectual property" because it doesn't actually conform to how normal property works. Especially in the digital age, it has a nasty habit of being inherently unlimited in supply, and therefore should be considered worthless because it has no scarcity.
Value has to be conferred by producing or doing something that is inherently exclusive to the people that purchase it. If it's not being purchased and given away publicly, then there's no value. If there's an unlimited supply of something and you're still charging money for it, it's effectively a monopoly of a worthless good, and is basically a market manipulation.
As for the issue of "what is art?". I don't accept than AI can make art. I don't think computers can make art at all. Artistry is not about reproducing an accurate depiction. To produce art, one must be able to confer some metaphysical conceptualization to the audience, no matter what it is, whether it is "meaning", or "emotion", or "story", or "narrative", or "symbolism", etc.
Computers, by their nature, are perfectly materialist and exclusively quantifiable. No metaphysical concepts can exist or be conferred by the machine that has no capacity to understand them. The best a coder can do is make a machine mimic something it has no capacity to understand. The most an audience can do is deceive itself into finding a metaphysical expression, where there is none.
Put it like this: a sunrise or a sunset has been depicted in art many times because of the metaphysical expressions humans interpret from this daily event. However, the sunsets and sunrises themselves are not art. They can't be. They are merely the regular motion of our planet combined with atmospheric and weather conditions. It is the presentation and interpretation of the event by humans that begins to create art for humans. Because art can't even exist without humans.
Similarly off of IP, it is not the idea which has any value. It is the production of that idea that confers any value.
You're fairly close to my own definition of art, which I'd summarize as: a product of self-expression that is not shallow. Since computers cannot have a "self", they cannot express themselves, and so cannot make art.
Though I have argued with some artists about this, and their definitions sounded a little better than mine, objectively. It was something about how art is composed of both self expression (which they consider guaranteed when a human creates anything) and the skills of a medium (the skills differ by medium, and different portions of the "idea" are brought forth because of that). I liked my definition more because I've seen a lot of "art" that is depressingly soul-less or shallow. It is a natural response to the demand for art-like products, to strip some of that depth. But the common consumer loves the idea that they are consuming art, because art appreciation is sophisticated while product enjoyment is philistine.
Intellectual property, I have settled on being largely nonsense, by trying to treat it like property; that one can only own an idea if they never share it with anyone. While I'm not sure if property rights must be inherently exclusive, it makes a lot of sense here, with ideas.
Perhaps we could have some freedom of creative sharing (allowing derivatives of stories and characters, etc) while still having some protection for small-time producers who can't compete with the material processing of corporations. If we can't have both, I say fuck it, let's get rid of IP laws altogether.
Any artist who wishes to protect the ideas present in their art (as one would wish to protect their physical property) may do so easily: just keep it locked in the attic. By sharing art/ideas, it gets interpreted and copied to each other person sort of automatically. If one of those people then makes a derivative work or further pursues the ideas, then that's just a net positive. Trying to forbid this process is foolish and likely evidence that the source creators are unable to compete with their past selves. We may never be allowed to have a free market, but let's at least get a free market of ideas, damn.
This is far too technical of a definition. Humans don't consciously try to express themselves in things they create. However, you the care someone puts into their work is demonstrable, and if that desire to do good work is an element of self-expression, then so be it. But that doesn't make it actually art. This would include things that are clearly not art, like q-tips, well-written lecture notes, and speed-runs.
When you're only adding skills in the medium, you've now asserted that low skilled people aren't capable of art. That's utter nonsense, and wreaks of artistic intellectualism. "Children's art" becomes a literal impossibility.
They are trying to express that the metaphysical element of the art (the idea) has to be brought forward from the skill of the artist, but this has never been true. It helps to be skilled, but skill is not necessarily part of it. In fact, part of the problem is how you would even begin to try measuring skill in artistry.
I think there's a huge problem between art and design. Graphic Designers are not the same as a Graphic Artist, in my mind. Humans like aesthetics without caring much about art. Technically excellent design is what most consumer's buy: see wolf t-shirts. They look fine, but they actually express nothing metaphysically. They're not designed to. They are just designed to be mildly aesthetically pleasing to someone who likes wolves. This is not art. In fact, it's the lowest possible form of philosophical aesthetics that you can have. But it is graphic design. There is genuine technical sophistication and skill required into making those t-shirts, but there is no aesthetic or metaphysical quality (until you go onto Amazon's review page and see people inserting metaphysical qualities via the reviews)
I think your artist friends were probably being trained as designers in college, and that's how they got to that perception (that and the likelihood of having a Leftist materials underlying philosophy). Art is different.
Yeah, to correspond with that, I don't think "intellectual property" is property in and of itself, and it actually relies on the establishment of a regulatory structure to invent the property by recognizing that it exists. Normal property, and property rights, appear to be natural rights that people tend to simply assume. They assume ownership of objects they create, as well as other people understanding the concepts of these assumptions. Other implicitly understand that it's your bowl, certainly while you are eating from it. The fact that the idea hasn't actually been manifested into a material form, means that it's not really a property. That's why the government doesn't just innately accept intellectual property rights and regulate arguments between property owners who's contracts and obligations seem violated. Instead, intellectual property has to be asserted by the state in order for those property rights to exist, meaning that intellectual property is a positive right.
At least when you create a song or something like that, there is an expression that brings the idea into the material world from the metaphysical. The manifestation of ideas into property makes sense to me, but I don't think that ideas themselves are property.
I did try to address this with them, but it did not get resolved. The direction they were going had to do with critique, and how one should strive to give criticism of art that follows specific guidelines of medium and asthetic. Kinda reinforces what you say about it being "artistic intellectualism"; buncha fancy theories and words when it really is fine to give simplistic criticism, and that the most an artist should expect is for critique to come with an explanation of some kind. Ironic, since they bemoaned academic gatekeeping.
I might even go as far as to say that low skill art is a little more artistic. If I go on Deviantart, it's not very interesting, but it's a bunch of technically good pictures. If I look at some literal children's drawings, sometimes it's very interesting. I wonder if some capacity for creative self expression might be sacrificed during the pursuit of technical skill. At the least, a person with low skill will be forced to lean on creativity and innovation, where a high skill person would just use a polished technique.
Hahaha, this example troubles me. I consider those to be cringey because of the people who get really enthusiastic about like, the spiritual significance of wolves and such. I understand your point, though, I think. Some of the base terms I still haven't really internalized/memorized, like "aesthetic". Probably gonna have to refresh some philosophy stuff to get that done. So I can't really agree or disagree with the part where you say design can be good while having no asthetic.
Hmm. Is there some way to determine whether something is a right? If government support of IP magically vanished right now, we'd definitely still have people who believe it's a real right. I am also reminded that whenever lefty slogans pull out the "human rights" card, that it's very unclear what rights are being referenced.
There's a, uh, large esoteric essay I'm working on that asserts a lot of things about the properties of ideas. So I can't agree, but I can't really make a coherent argument against it. I realize now that my hobbies are leaking out a bit, so to speak. I will need to be more mindful of this in the future, as opportunities to discuss IP as a concept come up.
The value of IP is protected only by judicial fiat, legions of corporate attorneys, and the government's monopoly on force.
I don't entirely agree on the definition of art. My variation would be that yes there has to be some "metaphysical conceptualization", but it is entirely in the eye of the beholder. No intent by the artist/algorithm is required. In fact even if the artists intends to invoke deep themes in his work, it isn't really art if everyone else only sees it as a banana taped to a wall. I apply the same consumer-rule to canon in fictional works. Ultimately we the audience decide what derived works are canon, not the author.
I can't help but notice that 90% of the people arguing - And it is mostly just screeching and hurling childish insults than actually formulating coherent arguments against AI - have pronouns and fag flags in their bios.
I make money through art myself. I am not stupid enough to snub a tool that allows me to work faster and achieve more impressive results in the same timeframe than I otherwise would.
Its hilarious too, because suddenly they all have these massively deep philosophical and ethical stands against automation and the loss of work from it.
Yet their entire lives are built upon people who already suffered that, but it wasn't them and was in the past so they don't care. I'm a woodworker by hobby, and 200 years ago I could have had an entire career off my okay skills before the EVIL AND OPPRESSIVE advancements of technology made it mostly obsolete by building 400 sets of shelves by the time the glue dries on my first one.
It sounds like you are someone who appreciates creativity and the value of artistry while also having a business sense.
These are "artistes" who hate businessmen and despise the fact that they have to convince an audience to buy their works to make a living. (yet many of them have the grift down to a science)
I can understand why artists are angry, as I would be if my job, part or full time, was threatened. However I don't want to pay $25 for a single piece of concept art that I can't produce myself because I can't draw to save a life.
I'm more sympathetic to the artists, but I'm not convinced that AI art is theft.
I grant that they are concerned with competition. However, art is not made for the purposes of generating the most pictures, or the most accurate reproductions.
Clay works still exist, pencil drawings still exist, humans still work in technologically primitive mediums because art is not really like other industries, because old technologies that are technically obsolete, still get used for centuries.
I definitely get that there are some small-time nobody digital artists who are trying to get into art and visual design and feel threatened by this, but I'm not entirely convinced that they'll actually be pushed out of the market. At such a small level, I feel like the art and the artist are a selling point.
If anything, this seems to be a fight between the artist and coder, and I think in the future, those skills are just going to have to be shared between the two. Artist must be a minor coder, and the coder a minor artist.
AI art is no different to any other form of industrialisation, and not one of these artists really gives a shit about giving up other industrialisation (and the accompanying comfort and luxury at affordable prices) in an effort to keep jobs.
Not that most of these artists do art as a job. Most of it is side hustle stuff for some extra cash.
And it should be said, it's not like I don't feel sorry for them. It sucks learning a skill only to have it replaced by machines. But that's been the status quo of blue collar workers for decades if not centuries. It's only now deemed a "problem" because it's effecting people who are overwhelmingly white collar.
So which way is it gonna be: suck it up princess, or Doctor Theodore Kaczynski was right?
He really doesn't, he has disposable a normie non-opinion like the rest of you. Real question is what the fuck is this investment you clowns have in this. I doubt you have to search far and wide to stick it to the libs, why the fuck does this consist 5 different threads? Why must this have countless threads on /pol/? Why, months before any of this picked up, were there dozens upon dozens of demoralization threads in /ic/? I imagine it is completely flooded now. Why were known infiltrators on ConsumeProduct hyping this up out of nowhere? None of you gave a shit about art before any of this for me to believe that any of you are this invested to keep bringing it up where no one is asking for your help or your well-wishes. It almost seems to come out of nowhere that a lot of you suspiciously infrequent posters and unfamiliar names are upset about artists protecting themselves where there is no imperative at all to feel anything but complete ambivalence, maybe a shrug or a "ha" at worst. Who thrives off fomenting these aggravations and the subsequent demoralization? Who benefits most from artists hanging their head in a frump and just giving their art out to be used for free? Who created stable diffusion?
(Watch a bunch of sleepers swarm this post taking disproportionate personal offense like I just suggested selling drugs to the community. I have said far more controversial things, but this one seems to be the hot button for some reason... hmmm?!)
That's right, these motherfuckers wear programmer socks. Trannies. This is their modus operandi, they are the bulk of programmers behind bots in general, it is fucking discord trannies pushing this agenda. They're just like the ones who have a monopoly over the art world in general except they cut their psyop teeth on /r9k/ and /g/, and now they hold the keys to the citadel. This has a lot more implications for entry level jobs and up the pipeline than you might think as work revolves around money, industries revolve around money; which is to say if you were previously an artist, you're now a turd polisher with zero creative input even at higher levels and the entry point will be completely destroyed, making actual artists drop off and turning commercial art into another adult daycare with no possibility of extra-vocational reach, since the other fields of illustration will no doubt be bastardized aswell. On a widespread level quality doesn't matter as much as you'd suspect and you basically just gave complete control to the hands of even worse LEFTIES than who you think you're sticking it to, with complete and meticulous control over the parameters of creative generation and it will infect everything they touch, which is the seed of full societal artistic control down to the line of code. To even compete on a cultural level, as say a company, you will have to use AI by their design AND in accordance with ESG scores, nothing built from the ground up by anyone even slightly right leaning will take off. You will drown in a world of aesthetic dogshit because it is cheaper, under their complete political control because it is cheaper. That isn't to mention the bigger picture of totalitarian encroachment that we've seen so far. The bunker pinko contingent chose to appropriate art because of its industry-wide naivety and lack of protection.
The artists bemoan the non-consentual sampling of their work, but the reality is much more grave and you're cheering for it. But hey, atleast you were able to make pepe the frog from classical pieces for a little bit.
Modern architecture, but more pervasive.
It's not like modern art is worth saving or anything. Cartoons and video games both look horrid in comparison to their predecessors.
99% agreed. But there's a baby drowning in that bathwater
Your argument completely fails because you can still draw whatever the hell you want, AI around or not.
HANDSHAKE.
Not only handshake. His account is TWO HOURS OLD.
He's a SPY.
A spy for whom? At the expense of whom? I have seen people come here with brand new accounts trying to seed things into the zeitgeist by volume, with almost overt incentive, which seems to be a lot more line with this current topical fixation on AI and getting pissy at artists for defending themselves - all I've offered is argumentation on the basis of personal experience and I again, point to the testimony of my previous account wherein which I offer commentary on a broad set of topics not just this one, where my contributions are often well regarded. Every single one of my points align with pinpoint accuity down to my obssessive compulsive edits.
u/greenmfkerfrmtenesee/
You are incredibly naive.
Not if there is an industry wide ripple affect destroying its commercial viability, the incentive to get good is then diminished ("talent" doesn't not make up for consistency and study), people who previously aspired have their lives swallowed and any residual desire for personal progress bogged down to a halt. Independently, good luck competing with algorithmically perfected turnout - some people out there already don't even get seen despite being pretty damn good, especially if they're a bit slower to post or live in an inopportune timezone. Becoming a hobbyist is an option, but in relation to the ecosystem that I previously described that is not preferable for a higher societal reverence for aesthetic and frankly, I don't like the idea of my profession being ripped away from me, and really the whole art world being torn asunder because some commie trannies decided to just take it.
I'm no handshake, I am a few people - namely and recently u/greenmfkerfrmtenesee/, however I don't remember my password so fuck that.
Handshake.
Countless jobs throughout history have been obsoleted by technology. The sour grapes from the artists are just particularly sweet because they never thought it would happen to them.
As far as your personal stake in the profession is concerned, some people love journalism, too. They should still have enough self-awareness to understand why the profession is now widely despised. The radical leftist art industry is similarly obnoxious. You know why.
The relentless gatekeeping that has been done on a higher level is unforgivable, it kept me blackballed for years. I have more reasons to hate the industry than anyone, but I can't condemn an artist for wanting to protect themselves. Not all of them are radical leftists either.
No one could have anticipated it, however I don't think this renders the artist obsolete in a very constructive way or in a way that betters our condition as the politically dissident right, it just further ingratiates culture to an even more malignant set of gatekeepers.
AI is gonna have two effects - it's going to put unoriginal artists out of business, and it'll give the powers that shouldn't be an unfathomable force multiplier in propaganda and misinfo.
you're right that the former is hardly important or indeed funny anymore when we are faced with the latter. these are not going to be pretty times. i fear the worst of the kali-yuga will rear its ugly head soon.
Indeed.
I wish it were the case that only unoriginal artists would be affected, but there are so many fragile contingencies that even the better among us with their own IPs will have their legs kicked out from under them. Then comes a deluge of AI art that completely drowns their reach.
I've been around for a long time, and I have seen what even small changes does to art as a commercial organism. From the Conceptart.org days onward into the advent of social media, changing so many faces with how one makes their living from their cultivated skillset. It used to be a meritocracy, now I am not so sure.
Sometimes I wish it would fall - even right now, if you don't include your pronouns that's a net loss; follow Rush Limbaugh and Wizards of the Coast is closed off to you - fledgling artists, even now, don't get the mentorship they need unless they are groomed because those jobs place you under the wing of the best in the industry so it's likely we're in the last days of what might be considered skillful or original.
You just described why the industry should burn to the ground. I’m here for it.
https://www.mentalhealth.gov/get-help/immediate-help
Smells like axewound in here.
I’m cheering for clown world to go down in flames. The fact that gay retard artists are the first ones into the fire is just an awesome bonus.
Almost. I almost agree.
I fucking hate what many of them (or rather "us") are and I've written of it at length under other names - the political nepotism and pruning and all that, but I don't think the world is going to go down in flames. The biggest fear that I have is that none of it ends with a bang, but as a miasmic wall of confused clown noises that only gets louder and more and more ridiculous.
No ashes to build ontop of. "Confusion" will be our epitaph.