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

[skullforceagents]

Yeah that’s been the hardest part. There are people who built their whole lives around this career only for it to be heavily devalued in the market.

I feel for these people. ️

[Tubacabra]

A.I. has its place: 2 million light years away from anything that even remotely resembles art.

[The_Chosen_Z]

Something very baddd

[CarltonIsaac]

The father of modern fantasy warned us a hundred years ago about this.

[Tursastheeternal]

I hate it.

I hate it with a burning passion.

It was developed with mass scale exploitation and it only exists to make the world a worse place.

[Steffie_Musings]

Don't like it at all. I also don't like the idea of people's art being used without permission either.

I also don't like how we just can't seem to be able to get away from it either.

[mrbrown2350]

Hey everyone!

Personally, I see AI art as a tricky topic. On one hand, it can be a useful tool for brainstorming ideas or generating quick concepts. But on the other hand, most AI models have been trained on artworks without artists' permission, and that raises serious ethical concerns.

It’s frustrating to think that real artists’ work gets used without credit, while AI-generated images are sometimes passed off as original. Plus, beginner artists now risk being accused of using AI just because of small mistakes in their drawings.

I do believe AI can have a place in creative workflow, but only if it's transparent, respectful of original creators, and never used to replace human effort or emotion.

What do you all think? Is there a way to use AI responsibly, or does it cause more harm than good in the long run?

[Lensing]

Gen AI wouldn´t exist without breaking copyright and without taking without permission (aka stealing)
how can the use of it be responsible?

[cherrystark]

Courts have dubbed it fair use, so generations can be used like any other stock image. The only exceptions being that use of an actual person's image or a licensed character require written consent. The argument about AI equals theft is really tired when you actually consider how much "theft" has been linked to art since the very beginning.

In terms how it's useful, it depends on the user. I know graphic designers cut 30+ minutes off their projects by using AI tools. It all depends

[Lensing]

Gen AI equals theft, sorry for boring you

[migxmeg]

Source? My understanding is that there was a ruling that specifically Anthropic's use was transformative (though they're probably going to get smashed for pirating the training material) but that the legislation is pretty complicated and ongoing. But I'm not as up to date these days .

Edit: gotta add that I get a bit confused whenever anyone claims it is or isn't a copyright violation. Aside from the ethical debate, copyright is a legal construct (that definitely wasn't put together with this in mind) and I thought it was still very much in the air how they're going to rule on it - pretty interested to learn if there were new developments!

[Lensing]

In Germany they are working very hard on that subject to protect our copyright.
They all agree that it´s theft , it´s just too complicated right now to stop them

[cherrystark]

Yeah. Here's a link of one I found quickly link. *I did a Google search and there were links for the EU basically stating the same thing - if a human makes changes to it - fair use.

The Anthropic case isn't the first case where it's been rules fair use. I know others who are WAY more literate in US copyright law than I am and follow this faithfully. They all come back saying the same thing - fair use.

Edit: gotta add that I get a bit confused whenever anyone claims it is or isn't a copyright violation. Aside from the ethical debate, copyright is a legal construct (that definitely wasn't put together with this in mind) and I thought it was still very much in the air how they're going to rule on it - pretty interested to learn if there were new developments!

So what I'm learning (aside from getting your work legally protected in your country), is that for something to actually violate copyright, it has to be blatantly obvious that someone was trying to profit/replicate your work. For example, when Vella was like, someone stole Twilight fan fiction, changed the names and uploaded it word for word onto Vella. Aside from the legal gray area of selling fan fiction, anyone with a brain could tell they had copied the other writer's work.

With LLMs, I could definitely use it to write a Twilight inspired novel but I'm driving the car through the entire process. So it ultimately becomes no different than any other writer's process. We learn from viral omegaverse lawsuit that you can't own ideas. So you and I could both write a story from the same prompt and get two completely different pieces.

I have a long rant about art and theft, but ultimately, it's starting to sound like people complaining about owning pixels. Someone literally shared a video of a Korean studio using AI because the original artist was getting older and couldn't keep drawing by hand. He was still involved in the process, they could just keep up with the production demands.

[KevinReijnders]

Instead of using AI, why not get a lobotomy? Both destroy your brain, but in the latter case at least you aren't allowing a parasitic company make millions if not billions of dollars on stolen labour and you won't ruin the environment nor poison poor people's drinking water. It's a win-win really.

[cherrystark]

You're probably a blast at parties. I bet all your art made with handmade paints on handmade canvases with locally sourced materials sure look great. Or do you cave paint? Art and technology are can never, ever co-mingle.

[KevinReijnders]

Ah the classic "b-but it's like photoshop" argument. No, no it isn't. Photoshop (and the like) is a substitute for pencil and paper, or paints and canvas. Gen AI seeks to replace you. It's not a tool, it's a parasite.

[Lensing]

I don´t steal stuff, if this makes me a party pooper for you then I can live with it

[migxmeg]

Hmmm, interesting thanks! Hadn't read about the Meta one being done. The article you linked does quote the judge of that case stating that their ruling isn't to claim that it was lawful but rather that the plaintiffs in the case made bad arguments so I'm not sure that leaves me thinking the law is clear but will keep an eye on it I guess .

[cherrystark]

Ah the classic "b-but it's like photoshop" argument. No, no it isn't. Photoshop (and the like) is a substitute for pencil and paper, or paints and canvas. Gen AI seeks to replace you. It's not a tool, it's a parasite.

Oh, it's not "like" Photoshop, it's just heavily built into the software and all editing software. I don't give two shucks who uses AI, but it's not going anywhere. If you want to avoid it, you literally have to stop using the internet. I get annoyed when people badger others for using it. If someone uses Grammerly, a word doesn't magically disappear from your word doc.

I don´t steal stuff

Okay. Cool. It doesn't make the argument any less tired, though. Digital art piracy has been happening since the beginning of the Internet; GenAI didn't invent it. If someone has a legitimate claim where they were frauded using AI images, I'll be right there arguing for justice. But when the argument is "a computer learned from my work without my consent," all the while, people are learning to draw by replicating other artists' styles and characters to share online - I don't have sympathy. Learning from other people's work is part of the learning process.

[KevinReijnders]

My guy, these models are literally built on scrapping the internet off copyrighted material. You can find the argument tired all you like, doesn't make it any less true that these things are built on pure and simple theft.

So unless for some reason you are against the entire concept of copyright (which would be wild considering you're an author), you simply cannot deny it.

There is still a difference between a human being reading something and getting inspired and feeding millions of books into this plagiarism machine.

Quite frankly, I find the whole idea of a creative advocating and defending this shit repulsive and sickening. You are fucking over yourself and you don't even seem to realize it. Like a pig on a soapbox, trying to leads others to the slaughter.