Hey artist what's is yall's opinion on A.I art?

clarissapattern 2025-02-26 15:07:28 UTC #41

I keep reading articles about how they're working on immortality...

KevinReijnders 2025-02-26 15:11:38 UTC #42

Guys, Gen AI isn't skynet, that's giving it waaay too much credit for what it actually is.

They may call it AI, but it is anything but intelligent. There's no thought, no reason behind the calculations. All it is is an extensive list of labeled input and an algorithm that can make an aggregate output based on that. It doesn't understand what it's doing like how a human understands.

These things aren't suddenly going to "wake up" and decide to launch all the world's nukes. They're single use machines that can only perform their one task. Pretending otherwise plays into the marketing spiel of these techcompanies, who can then pretend they have something more on their hands than just a plagiarism machine.

clarissapattern 2025-02-27 16:14:43 UTC #43

Everything starts somewhere...a logical thinking powerful machine will definitely think the human species is awful.

But on more practical concerns it's that the technology always is ahead of the ethics and no one wants to slow down and think about them because it's a capitalist race. Like you're referring to, AI has the ability to plagiarise every piece of art produced before someone puts in the laws to protect creators.
Or not getting to heavily into social politics, but the prejudices that have been found in face recognition technologies obviously programmed in from the society its created in.

lunamiibunny 2025-02-27 17:35:26 UTC #44

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

feuersichel 2025-02-27 18:02:07 UTC #45

I can kinda accept it, if you need an idea and only use it for inspiration. It's still not good, because you detrain your brain to be crearive... But okay.

Other than that, no thanks! My little sis experiments with AI generated music and yes, she puts a ton of work in it to get the right outcome... Still, it sounds so lifeless, I don't like to listen to it.

But what makes me angry, is when people sell AI generated stuff on little art and crafts markets... Gosh I was so pissed, when I figured out, I bought AI stuff! I GO to such markets to SPECIFICALLY help artists and not to buy lifeless art!

feuersichel 2025-02-27 18:07:24 UTC #46

This
I recently watched a video on why AI machines currently can't show a "to the rim filled glass of wine", it only knows what its training data shows it.

I think we need to sit this out. At some point AI is going to poisdon itself. But we will see.

miuthecat 2025-02-27 23:12:10 UTC #47

Don't know if you people are aware of how AI art is actually created, for example, if the engine needs to draw a curve, it simply resorts to a mathematical function to do it, computers can't draw at all, all you see is a complex set of analytic functions trying to mimick a form. It's common to see fractals and repeated patterns in that type of "ART". It's nothing but an ilusion, it aint art at all.
Real art is all about randomness and manual strokes, and computers totaly suck at it.

KevinReijnders 2025-02-28 00:59:25 UTC #48

Eeeh, I highly doubt it. It's not machines ruling over us that we should fear, rather the ones already in power using machines to make their control more absolute.

Why though? Why is it logical to think the human race is awful. There's nothing objective about it, even "logic" itself is not something that exists naturally in nature, it's a human invention. So a machine that would 'logically' conclude the human race is awful will do so based on the logic of the person or people that made it in the first place. And yeah, there are plenty people out there (including the most powerful amongst us) that think humanity is awful.

So again, it's not the machines that need to be feared, but the people that wield them against us.

Pretty much this.

The way I see it, the dystopia we are potentially barreling towards is not that of terminator, but a cyberpunk one.

Zhengo 2025-02-28 06:14:53 UTC #49

I do confused when some people seem to put a ton of work prompt engineering the AI to produce a desired outcome. That kind of defeats the supposed "convenience" the AI is supposed to bring, no? No one's forcing you to produce the result using AI. At that point, it might be a better use of time to just learn the skill yourself

incoMan 2025-02-28 07:14:30 UTC #50

meh... just an over glorified search engine, the hate for it is overexaggerated

rayrichardsauthor 2025-02-28 18:02:33 UTC #51

My hubby does a lot with AI and hangs out with a lot of professional graphic designers who use AI. The way they explained it to me that for good pictures, you're either spending thousands for the models and photographers, spending hours searching for the right elements online, or you're spending hours drawing to get the elements you need for the final project. AI lets them take like ten minutes to generate a dozen reference images they can harvest for the final piece.

And with AI music, it doesn't really bother me. Musicians sample other musicians all the time and even big name composers are composing masterpieces on an IPad. If AI can help songwriters get more songs out so they can sell them to record labels, why not?

Krysteena 2025-03-01 01:16:11 UTC #52

I have been accused of AI art to the point I had to take down all my pieces that I did not show full process of creation from beginning to end. I never did a timeline before cause I didn't get into digital art until the most recent years.

EncryptedWriting 2025-03-01 03:01:11 UTC #53

You're kidding me. The hate for it is well in range. People use Ai art more and more, using people's literal work to create something that isn't really theirs.

incoMan 2025-03-01 05:07:00 UTC #54

AI is just regurgitated information it still can't reach human creativity, and it probably never will

EncryptedWriting 2025-03-01 06:36:08 UTC #55

It lacks the humanity of a drawing but its creative bounds can grow. It doesn't have emotion or errors or anything of the sort. But its learning how to.

NickRowler 2025-03-01 10:25:44 UTC #56

I saw some ad for some AI app on YouTube and the examples it gave were literally just Anne Hathaway from The Princess Diaries. The app was trying to claim they generated it but it was obviously just stolen.

I often wonder if some AI images are mostly just putting a filter over an image instead of making something new.

jwabeasley 2025-03-01 14:34:04 UTC #57

It can't and it's awful, but since it's currently cheap and fast, it's a flood of garbage that makes it much harder to find anything worthwhile and funding that goes into AI productions could've been spent on artists or at least humans who aren't scammers.

KevinReijnders 2025-03-01 14:54:57 UTC #58

It's definitely not a search engine. Search engines... search. What gen AI does is construct text, images or sound by pulling from a large database/training set.

If I use a search engine to find out something about a specific historical event, ideally, that search engine will provide me with a number of websites/webpages dealing with that topic. It literally searches the web and finds them.

Gen AI on the other hand would not go and search the web, it would "hallucinate" you an answer. Now could it be that there is factual information in there. Sure, but because of how GenAI works, there's no guarantee that what it tells you is even actually true. That's because it doesn't search the web and deliver you websites based on your ask, no, it tries to construct it's own answer based on your input.

Hard disagree. It is trying to solve a problem no one has, and using an enormous amount of resources, both economic and natural, to do so. Millions and billions of dollars are being wasted on this nonsense, it's putting people out of a job and effectively making us dumber in the process. All the while being sold as the next Industrial Revolution. So no, I think the hate for it, and the people pushing it, is wholly justified.

Except it's not just regurgitated information. It chops up the information it's been fed and trained on and recombines it into content slop. The output is unreliable and more often than not becomes misinformation.

Yeah, and those musicians are compensated for it when samples are used. That doesn't happen with ai. Kinda a problem wouldn't you agree? Especially if it gets sold in turn.

rayrichardsauthor 2025-03-01 18:47:02 UTC #59

Actually no. Chords, tropes, style, etc aren't copyrightable. From what I've been told, the only times copyright becomes an issue is if someone is trying to deliberately trying to pass someone else's work off as their own or are trying to pass themselves off as another artist, like mimicry. Miley Cyrus's "Flowers" caused problems because she was directly referencing lyrics from "When I was Your Man". YouTuber Yuyi Chua is another example of someone trying to pass off someone else's content as their own. If I decided to record and post covers of Taylor Swift songs on my YouTube channel, I don't owe her anything. My covers would be protected under the general umbrella of Fair Use.

So sampling someone else's song is no different that learning to draw from art books or drawing your favorite cartoon character. As long as it's not an exact dup of someone's copyrighted work or a person isn't trying to profit off someone else's name, you are pretty open to do whatever you want creatively.

KevinReijnders 2025-03-01 19:02:08 UTC #60

I don't think you know what sampling is.

When you sample something, you take the copyrighted work or generally a piece of it, and rework it into a new work. The original copyright holder, however, is actually compensated for the sample used.

This isn't the same as making a reference to, or using a similar chord progression.

Gen ai, which is build on copyrighted material, churns out slob build from that copyrighted material without compensating the original copyright holder.