Ho yeah! It's like that with almost everything, the average person genuinely doesn't care about suffrage unless they're the one suffering. Or at least most are oblivious and ignorant to it until they're suffering, it's an animal instinct thing that requires rewiring/empathy training to get out of your system. Not saying our species is apathetic, by default we have SOME empathy, but educated empathy takes effort... sometimes through experience, unfortunately.
Did you stop ordering from amazon because of how they treat their workers, and not allowing to unionize though? Stopped buying clothes and brands made from sweatshops in some third-world country? Are you going to stop from using social media because they're using AI to code, replacing jobs, and scrape all your posts for training data?
Sure, some people may have switched away from Adobe products because of the AI controversy. I personally switched out from them ages ago ever since they went subscription, after v6- early CS days. I made my choice, but that doesn't mean I haven't acknowledged that they're the industry standard still, and that the tools am currently using are niche products in comparison. A lot of people are mad over Adobe's stance on AI but are still using their suite instead of taking the time to learn the alternatives.
Am just being a realist. Most people say they'll the fight the good fight, but like everyone else, they don't have the strength of their convictions… especially when it inconveniences them.
It's amusing to expect that strangers and society in general will change, when they themselves can't even sacrifice the things they use.
Personally, I'm really split between fearing ai and not taking it seriously. I feel the only 'impressive' thing AI has done is generating art. As an artist, I morally cannot support ai art in anyway due to the potential for companies to phase out real artist with crap that looks pretty to the untrained eye, but I will say it is impressive that ai can do that. Outside of that, I feel like AI is more of a fad, hyped up by tech evangelists and Silicon Valley as THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY THING TO OUR SOCIETY, when in reality it wont really add anything in the long run. Like, whenever I hear that statement, I always go back to stuff like Google's Gemini which they've shunted into their search engine (and honestly have made it worse), which tells you to use non toxic glue to keep cheese on pizza, drink you're own urine to pass a kidney stone quickly, or that Sandy Cheeks from SpongeBob died by unliving herself and was found with cocaine in her bloodstream by the Johannesburg Police Department.
Now I'm probably missing stuff that AI does that could actually benefit our society in a way that doesn't fuck over workers but in my opinion, I see AI as nothing but a trend that companies are trying so hard to push on us as being the "next big thing" but in reality only appeals to those who are obsessed with tech. Like with NFTS a couple of years back. And in regards to AI art, I really do think that stuff should be regulated in someway so that all artists aren't out of a job, because it does have the potential to screw us over. But in order for that to happen, its up to us artists to make sure these companies don't try anything funny
I won't use AI, simply because it tends to farm content from writers and artist that didn't consent to their works being used/modified. I consider it copyright infringement, violation to the preservation of a work, and completely untrustworthy since it farms mostly from the internet indiscriminately at the point of commiting incest with itself.
If I want to generate ideas, I simply connsume media: Books, movies, cartoons, music, comics, art forms from other, real artists.
If I want a proofreader, I hire one
If I want an artist, I hire one (I'm the artist)
If I want a writer, I hire one (Tho, I'm dating one)
If I want a musician, I hire one
While I don't hate it, my ideal is that if you want to use AI, you have to feed it, be it drawing or creating from the software, so you are the model who has to craft IRL in said program so you can later use it.
Like filming yourself drawing and then using said video for promotional, educational, register all in one and its just yours.
I prefer the content I use belongs to either me or the person I've hired, I don't want to deal with lawsuits, DMCA claims or similar.
While it is still fresh
We also want to be clear in our belief that the categorical condemnation of Artificial Intelligence has classist and ableist undertones, and that questions around the use of Al tie to questions around privilege.
Remember guys to repent for the privilege of being able to create art by yourself; for the sins of disrespecting the creativity-deficient and disciplinary-challenged. Let the blood of our dying body cleanse the earth so it is ready to be transformed by the machine and its benefactors.
Personally I think genAI has a potential to help people (not only artist), but of course not in the way it is implemented and regulated now.
Generative AI is dehumanization and the degradation of culture and thought, simplifying complexity and watering down nuance into... well, nothingness and meaninglessness.
Maybe it should be called Degenerative AI hahaha... ha.... get it? 
Food for thought:
https://www.tiktok.com/@eleanor.stern/video/7410457972779846942?_r=1&_t=8pSMFpFwXTW1
(I would've sent the article link, but I don't subscribe to the New York Times. She narrows down a few points that Chiang makes, so I think it was good enough points to get across. Also... I don't have tiktok--a friend sent me this--and now I'm not allowed to view this anymore. lol)
So I hate when people use it to completely do the work for them. HOWEVER, I am an artist and writer, so I love to use these platforms to help give me ideas, but once i start the work it is all my own. Every brush stroke, every line in my writing.
I also use writing AI just to help double check my spelling/sentence structure but that’s about it.
I think it is really unfortunate to writers and artists when people use AI as their own work, because it diminishes the actual effort that is put into something.
edit when I say I use it for ideas I mean like if I need to draw a riverbed, but I’ve never drawn one before, i might ask AI to show me some fantasy River beds. It helps me to see how something like that might be drawn and then I can incorporate some of the ideas (like maybe how the leaves are drawn) into my own work.
I also use it for this too. For example, I had to write a grant for class (the professor wanted us to use AI) and was unsure of where to start so I asked AI to write an example for me and provide a reasoning why it did it.
Confessions that will make a lot more people despise me even more:
I have begun to feel distant and even dissociating from the more 'artiste' types. The types that at every turn would thumb people down for taking 'shortcuts' from what they deem as inappropriate from the traditional ways of skillful art. And that's sad, because they're the types of people I hung out most with during my earlier years.
Now hear me out first, this might sound crazy: Have you ever considered that to a lot of people, 'Art' was never about showing off skill, nor caring about whatever lazy technique it was to copy something?
And that they just wanted to recreate whatever it was because it looked or sounded cool. Or to a lot of them, it was just merely a way to express themselves. Haven't you as a child copied or traced something from your favorite books or characters? Let's be honest, sure it felt nice to be complimented on your skill as a kid, but to a lot of other kids, it was just about participating and not being left out.
How did it come to this?
Just a while back, my little niece posted an image in a group about her favorite show/ characters. (am unfamiliar with it, I'm afraid). It was made from an image generator, and at no point did she say she made it. Note that she didn't use the word 'art'; since even at her young age, she already knew how people would respond if she mislabelled it as such. She just wanted to share something as a fan. And let's just say it got real toxic, real fast. 'Colorful language' with profanities that could have merited an age-rating. And from the avatars, it came from fully grown 'adults' too.
There was a time, once upon a time; when a portion of art was just about the freedom of expression. Nowadays, it sometimes feels that everything has to be gatekept under the pretense of 'skill' or 'everything should be done manually or traditionally'
Have you ever considered that a lot of regular people have also grown tired of these 'artiste' superiority attitudes as well? Posts like "My art isn't that good, but it sure is a 100x better than whatever garbage you just posted" won't win people over to your cause.
And they just seem to be making even more enemies. At first, it was the terrible AI hands; but that got fixed or easily fixed now with LoRA Diffusion models. Same with automatically changing the poses of characters in your own original artwork. Now, programmers have coded automated 'process videos' in 'creating' an artwork. (it's still not that good… yet) And unlike actual aesthetic improvement, they simply did it out of spite to 'holier than thou' artiste.
How could these 'artiste' not see ? That for every infographic and post they make on 'How to spot AI', they're just actually speeding up machine learning.
My first 'disconnect' with art was during an animation elective. Nothing fancy, just the basic bouncing ball, walking, and talking mouths. Long ago, when dinosaurs still walked the earth, there was this hot new thing called Macromedia Flash. Me and a couple of other students wanted to show our teacher this fancy new automated in-betweening (tweening) feature. We were actually surprised at his hostile reaction to it. Even when we said that students should learn the basics first and how to do manually.
Fast-forward a couple more years, and I've seen a fair share of my artist friends get viciously harassed and ridiculed for a myriad of things: photo references for hands, using a grid system is 'tracing'. Tracing over poses of blank 3d characters. Tracing over 3d backgrounds. Using 3d backgrounds. Manipulated photos for backgrounds. Utilizing distort/skew/warp instead to redoing the lines, Using the symmetry tool to automate the other side. Am seeing the same pattern for personally-trained AI models and pose editors now.
And the worse part is? Most of these attacks came from artists not even better than them to be honest.
To make it clear once again, this is not about using other's people works to train your own model and passing it off as your own. That's just stealing. And Tapas is very clear that you can't use any generations in your artwork.
If people actually took the time to learn, they would see that you don't need a fancy server to train anymore. You can train and generate offline and locally, on your own pc, using only your artworks. Outputs are even better and more consistent this way since the only inputs are your own.
It's true, a lot of generated images are trained from stolen artworks. But always remember, there are those who use it that are personally trained models… or they may just be regular folk that wanted to share or express themselves.
People conveniently forget that humans and artists learn and improve from copying other things. And now that the machines started its first baby steps in copying, it either disgusts or terrifies us. A bit hypocritical there, but that's just humanity.
It's a fun little thing to do when I'm bored, to see what it can come up with, but I really hope the popularity dies down, because if it doesn't the art and animation industry could be in a lot of trouble. And I hope not since those are the things I'm focusing on in school rn. But, it is also rlly funny to see people not understand what is and isn't AI generated.
...I think the problem with your argument is that ^this IS what it's about for the vast majority of AI champions. =/ The phrase "democratize art" didn't come from nowhere...there are hundreds of people who genuinely believe that being an artist is an inherent privilege rather than a skill/career, and that it's only fair for that "privilege" to be taken from artists, whether they want it or not.
It's true that not all AI is equivalent to generative AI. It's true that there exists assistive AI that simply relies on calculations applied to limited, ethical datasets, which artists can and should use if it helps them in their work.
But that's not what people are upset about right now. We're upset about the generative AI that CEO's are boldly pushing for to replace artists entirely. We're upset about the generative AI that is literally breaking people's websites by constantly trawling for data to steal, even when 'NO' is essentially written into the code. We're upset about the generative AI that has already upended and destroyed countless careers, ruined educations, spread misinformation and harassment, and wasted thousands, if not millions of gallons of water (that actual humans desperately need) just to keep itself running.
...So, y'know, in light of all that, minimizing this to an issue of snobby "artistes" looking down on the underdogs feels disingenuous and insulting, to say the least. T_T
If you just want to make a case for AI that isn't harmful, I think you should just focus on educating people, explaining the differences between 'good' and 'bad' AI constructs. Trying instead to convince artists who are having their work stolen at the cost of the planet itself that they're somehow focusing on the wrong thing (???) does not make sense and will not help you. If people apparently 'despise' you for doing that, it's not because they're "artistes", it's because you sound like an insensitive jerk.
Also, on that note...I would be wary of any generative AI art program that supposedly only trains itself on local data. If an AI only needed a couple hundred or thousand pieces to function well, I doubt companies would be risking legal action by scraping everything they can get their hands on.
I think it's much more likely that such an AI would be referencing local data, while using the larger still-unethical dataset to interpret and modify it. You really gotta read the fine print when it comes to AI products...like it or not, the industry in its current state is 90% built on shameless theft. You have to be able to admit that and reckon with it if you want to be taken seriously when discussing it.
By that very same logic, don't you think that the snarky, snobby, downright hostile comments from 'artiste' are insulting and off-putting to regular people? People that are already apathetic to their plight.
As crazy as this might sound to you: I am actually trying to help. I'm trying to make these artistes understand that they're not doing themselves any favors. That they're not winning people over to their cause (which they could really use more public support to be honest) when they immediately go rabid when normal people, who doesn't really care about 'being an artist' use generators just to share and express themselves.
Regular people label aritste as jerks when they immediately gang up on some little girl that just wanted to share something because she was a fan of a series or character. Somehow, one way or another it always ends up turning into a toxic cesspool, even when posters never labeled them as theirs or 'artworks' for the matter.
And I don't need to make a case. Already said am distancing myself from the more pretentious 'artiste'. You may not believe this as well, but there are open-minded artists that I highly respect, and I'm proud to call friends. They don't immediately go red-eyed just because someone muttered A.I. or go on attack mode if some random person posted a generated image on socials. They don't have a 'nuke everything', 'you're either with us or against us' point of view.
And yes, I fully support actions to prevent data scraping. I have even educated those artist friends on how to use Glaze to cloak their artworks and avoid AI style mimicry.
But your biggest problem right now is that kind of superiority/ privilege attitude to the general public. It's baffling why they can't even realize why they're not having enough public support, when they're openly antagonizing them. Picking on/ shaming regular joe and janes, who doesn't care about being an artist in the slightest; just sharing a generated image for kicks.
Do you really think "educating the public" will work when the ones they're supposed to support are antagonistic to them? . You know better than that.
That's clearly said by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. A lot of local models are now open-source. No company 'owns' them. You can check the code yourself if you know how. Don't let blind hatred for AI prevent you from educating yourself, and that's why a lot of artiste aren't taken seriously either. And the absurd amounts of data needed is ancient, old news. You wouldn't be able to run it offline just on your computer if it still required petabytes of data. They're a blank slate, they can't even run anything unless you feed them something.
Sorry, I am just confused
Why are you making it up like artists are a separate class that instantly gain privileges by birthright to be able to do art and snobbishly look down on the rest of population, instead of regular joe and janes who are just simply capable of making art as a hobby or career?
I am sure there are privileged artists that are out of touch with the general populace; however, let us not forget that artists from disadvantaged backgrounds do exist. Of course, if you already come from disadvantages, working a shit job which many look down on, and now some greedy privileged bastards think you deserve nothing in the guise of 'making what you do accessible for everyone,' you would be livid.
Also, skill to make art is something you can learn and develop, not something you are born with. It is all unlike how multimillionaire inherit their wealth and status from their parents. Some people may have stronger aptitude for it, sure, but you have to work on it.
I understand in your example that is not nice to gang up on a child who do not know better, I am very sorry to hear that. I recognise that some artists themselves can have problems with their attitude, professionalism, and how they come across (to the point I muttered "This is why they want to replace you with AI"). It is perhaps have something to do with that being an artist is a cutthroat, and sometimes very connection-based job. Still, while artists themselves have to better themselves in many regards (and actually making art); I do not think stealing and making mockery of their work (while supporting the greedy people behind) will "show them."
Again, I personally think genAI have a potential to help, but definitely not with the way it is now. Many don't even have the right mindset for it. I don't think stuffs being used to "replace" anyone in mind will do good, because anyone except those in control of that stuff can be replaced.
@tacticalglasses, I understand where you are going with this but I find it very misguided. Art is a skill. It takes time. Tracing over 3D models does not. Dropping in 3D backgrounds does not. Here is an example I always use. When I see a painting that I find impressive, I instantly find it less impressive if it's digital. You can literally "control Z" yourself to a masterpiece. Oil on canvas you cannot. So one is more impressive than the other. Yes you can feel all you want about how to be nice about it, but one takes more skill. What I do agree with you is the art world is full of people that are pretentious. But I find these people are usually into the scene of art, not the skill. The biggest critics of art can't draw a stick figure but still want to be in the scene. These people rightly should be ignored.
And AI still has a massive problem for commercial work. Repeatability and client tastes. If the client loves everything about the picture, but needs it altered in some way, you are basically out of luck. Until they can figure that out, which they will one day, good artist won't have to worry about AI.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Am not saying that handmade, real crafted artworks should go away or not be supported. Never said that. Far from it. Some of my most used items and prominent decor are handcrafted customs from amazing artisans in Etsy or locals. The best artists will never have problems getting jobs. It's the assistants, the inkers/ the effect makers/ background specialists are the ones having the most trouble.
Am just saying, there's a part of Art… before all of this tribalization; that just meant freedom of expression for the common man. And that a lot of artists seem to forget that, and it's that provaction against the public who would use tools and methods they deem inferior; causing that disconnect and lack of support. When it was never meant as a show of skill for regular people -- they just wanted to share.
Let's just agree to disagree on a couple of things:
One. In my and artists friend's experiences; the biggest critics are other artists themselves. You yourself find that traditional media is more impressive than what digital artists and painters do, right? Even when a lot of them are classically trained and have more than paid their dues in decades of turpentine smell and barely-hanging on easels.
Two. Very curated (and only 1 source artist) LoRAs don't have that consistency and repeatability issues anymore. You can now draw in changes and modifications that happen almost instantaneously now. All done offline, in a local machine. They even save separate components to individual layers now. (lineart/ blocking/ color/ shading/ clothing/ foreground/ background) so modifications are easier than ever. You don't have to believe me, and the people who use them to make their workflow much faster now doesn't need others to believe them either.
