What is your opinion on Generative AI?

[Stargazer31]

Useless, rotten, plagiarism machine that spews generic creations with two many fingers. Used up far too many resources and could override the energy grid if everyone used it due to how much energy and water it uses. It puts artists out of a job and steals the work we spent hours on to create useless slop that kills creativity. AI usage in academia will kill your critical thinking skills if you rely on the content spewer rather than your own intellect to think of answers. I create art and write because I like to make things, there'd be no satisfaction or enjoyment if you could just push a button to spew out a plagiarised lump of crap.

You could use AI to search for tumours or aid doctors in curing cancer but people use it to generate photorealistic pictures of children and famous women being gang raped. The images it feeds off to generate this have to come from somewhere! It feeds off CSAM to kill ingenuity.
Absolute no. Sarah Connor was right when it comes to this.

[Stargazer31]

AI impacts on Aboriginal Art Industry — Bay Gallery Home - Aboriginal Art...

Another reason I don't like it

[abigaillmartin]

It makes me sad. It just makes me sad.

AI chat made me sad. As instant and pleasurable it was at times it made me sad.

It makes me sad that I had to read this.

Bless you John Cox

Bless you John Cox

I was absolutely GOBSMACKED by this

Cila’s Magical Tendencies

AI “art” is absolute crap!

Cila’s Magical Tendencies

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. microphone rings

cries in the dressing room

[ThunderChicken]

I hate AI so much that I resent the fact that Facebook has replaced the “search” button with “ask Meta”.

I can’t stand AI generated art. It gets right in my mouth.

I can’t stand AI generated “content” such as websites. They have a long way to go to bridge the uncanny valley. Thankfully they are usually just clickbait bullshit websites that I avoid anyway.

And I can’t stand AI generated commenting on those stupid reel videos that show up in my Facebook feed. The voices, accents, speech patterns, all sound so unnatural. As soon as I hear it I’m out.

If I am ever dragged onto the AI bandwagon it will be kicking and screaming (and I fear I will be forced eventually, as it’s only a matter of time before phones, computers, and even cars fully integrate it). Even then I will never, ever, use AI for creating.

[supriyashukla2398]

Actually, AI doesn't help much. I mean, writing a whole story can never help you. But yes, it can help you generate novel names. it can also help you use some advanced words, but writing a whole story—no, it doesn't help.

[iamanerd]

I agree that at one point we will need to use it one day. One of my professors discussed the controversy behind AI and told us straight out that we should learn how to use it since eventually it may be a part of daily life :c

[abigaillmartin]

Well said, @supriyashukla2398 well said.

[iamanerd]

Yeah, it helps with name ideas and just something to talk to about ideas!

[abigaillmartin]

It’s soulless, tasteless, predictable, repetitive, fun at first and it can’t actually hold me and kiss me and cuddle me so I wanted to give it up. I’d rather be addicted to Minecraft again than to AI chat.

I deleted my app, account, everything. I couldn’t take it anymore it was making me feel so sad.

[AmysGames]

I brace for impact whenever I see one of these threads pop up.

Most people here don't like it, and it's banned on Tapas anyway.

[MelancholicOtaku]

Generative Ai isn’t the problem,I can’t have an issue with a nonliving being. My issue lies in how the individual uses the tool. Just like Ai has its negatives,I’m sure it has its positives as well.

[NickRowler]

I have only used AI for grammar editing but that's not really generative AI. It doesn't write for me, it's more to tell me that I forgot a comma. If that is what you mean as "AI can assist anyone with writing" then I agree with that.

But I don't like when people just write a prompt and just let AI write the rest. Beyond the ethics, it comes out formulaic, way too wordy, unfocused, and will sometimes loop in on itself. I don't think it makes quality writing.

[joannekwan]

Generative AI is completely unnecessary, unethical, and destructive toward the environment. Image creation, word creation, there is no need for a computer to do any of that when people can do that themselves. If only the masses were educated about the effects then perhaps they'd reconsider having a laugh with ChatGPT.

AI can be used for good like pattern recognition in the medical field and assistive AI is great for spelling and grammar checks. That type of AI actually helps people. But generative AI is only helpful for the lazy.

[KevinReijnders]

I think your professor is flat out wrong. Just because the desperate millionaires and billionaires over at silicon valley are pushing this shit, doesn't mean it's this revolutionary tech that everyone will end up using and become a standard.

NFT's were here to stay too, they're all dead and as worthless as they should have been.

The metaverse was the next revolution. It was laughed out the door.

Cryptocurrency was going to replace our regular fiat currency. It's become nothing more than a pump-and-dump scheme for the stock market casino.

AI is just another fad.

[thepenmonster]

I agree with the professor because the public have a long history of accepting the worst in movies, music, TV, comics, and books with an bottomless appetite.

Nobody had a gun to their head as they made this guy a multi millionaire comic artist.

The public willingly made a Twitter troll the head of the most powerful military in human history.

The people with the buying power have never shown good judgement.

The first AI song with the right beat? Top ten hit. The first AI anime with the right sort of floppy titty? Crunchyroll top list. First AI movie with the right amount of kabooms? Billion dollar flick. AI entertainment going the way of the dodo 100% depends upon the public showing good taste. Might as well expect a bird to not shit on your car window.

[LunarScyphozoa]

Putting aside all other usages of the term AI (ie the genuinely useful pattern recognition kind for croissants/cancer cells), there are absolutely no merits to the way generative ai works. I’ve seen some people propose that in order to differentiate it from useful varieties, they call the kind that is causing such a controversy a Plagiarized Information Synthesis System instead of Artificial Intelligence, which about sums up my views on it as well. Anyone who says it’s useful, morally decent, original, or, most frustratingly, when they imply a robot created art instead of an algorithm barfing up some approximation of stolen images, doesn’t know nearly enough about it to be worth listening to. Unfortunately such clowns are extremely common among people with too much power in the social media/art program scene, I’m so grateful tapas has banned it (although it unfortunately often finds its way onto novel covers, despite that).

[abigaillmartin]

Well said @KevinReijnders

[daeygurart]

I can't believe people actually spent thousands of dollars on NFTS when it was literally just jpgs HAHAHA

[allisoncandraw]

I don't like it, and I think most writers/artists here would say the same. It's disingenuous to make "art" using AI and claim it as your own. At the end of the day it uses algorithms that steal from other artists, and takes no real effort for a person to produce. It's a slap in the face to creators who have spent years practicing their craft.

[Calculus_Homework]

Fully agree. There has been useful AI applied in many ways--an example being modern microphones with background noise cancellation. It's still you who is speaking through the microphone, but your dishwasher will be cleaned out of sound that isn't from your mouth with the use of a modern microphone's AI capabilities.

Generative AI is anti-think, and is also the antithesis of art.
I think what makes the art community so angry is that art has ALWAYS been the most exploited profession/skillset. Why is it that everything else is a legitimate learned skillset? Not sure--probably has something to do with the push of progressivism via self-expression and personal observation of socio-economic effects.
Art has always been about observation, application, and the cultivation of community between people of that skillset as well as connecting with people outside of it... and connecting people with each other through the art itself. Art is solely a human thing.

Generative AI is the response of post-capitalistic business minded people who detest even communicating with creatives. Nobody wants to work with artists, speak to us, or pay us... Yet everybody needs art for their projects/media/entertainment/diagrams/etc. It feels like a lot of anti-creatives are resentful of it in a way. Also feels like a "point and laugh at the career artists as we replace them with an inferior filter calculator that relies on artists' work to output generic and poorly composed abominations."

Not to mention, the use of the term "artificial intelligence" as the selling point for it is fraudulent. Generative filtering systems are not AI. Period. But I guess it has become that coined buzzword in their marketing to the masses.

If they build a little robot who is taught how to draw by a teacher, and gets better at it over years of practice and experimentation with media, style, composition, and personal expression... Then I'll be impressed. And artists will welcome the little robot artist into our community with grace.

With how things are going, I predict that traditional media will be the star player for the art community. There will be a huge return to it, and it will be highly sought after. Digital artists will have a reformation of personal intent and less precision in realism to push individual feelings and ideas that cannot be copied.

I'M SORRY BUT I GET SO STEAMED UP. IT'S BEEN YEARS GUYS AND I'M TIRED OF THIS AI CRAP.