I’m probably going to regret engaging with this, and I’m definitely blocking this community in the near future, but here we go.
Sure, but is it really worth that much effort just to figure out whether an image was made with AI?
Yes. 100%. Absolutely.
What’s funny is that some people seem to like an image right up until the second they discover it was AI-generated. Then holy shit! Suddenly they don’t like it anymore.
Yes. That was very much my experience of the image in this post.
No jobs were lost because of it. I was never going to hire an artist to create it anyway. The same fucking crowd of people who pirated vid games and movies most of their life, is suddenly anti-ai because they think it “steals” by looking at other shit for training info?! lmao
Let me first say here that I believe deeply in “to each according to need” and don’t think societies should be based on compelling “productivity” on the threat of withholding the means to meet one’s basic needs.
Furthermore, copyright is bullshit, and particularly in the form in which it currently exists. Even within the context of capitalism, copyright is a terrible way to try to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” (quote from article 1 of the U.S. Constitution). The theory is that by promising artists a monopoly on their own creative works for a time, you make the act of creating and publishing more alluring for creators, encouraging them to create. But a) the printing press fucked that whole thing up even when it was, b) as technology has progressed, they’ve had to go to really ridiculously extreme lengths of forbidding very good and normal human behaviors to try to prop that method of trying to encourage culture, and c) it encourages copyright owners (who aren’t “people” in most important cases in this day and age) to sit back and reap profits rather than continuing to create. I very much think the “patron” model is much better for our culture than copyright is. (Leaving aside the issue of Patreon having such a monopoly on the patron model.) I do believe that “information wants to be free” in the sense that there should be no law preventing you from acquiring, adapting, or sharing art. If someone makes something cool and worthwhile, they should make money off of their reputation and the promise of more cool art, not off of a government-enforced monopoly on copying, adapting/remixing, publication, distribution, or public performance/display of the art. (Let alone on bullshit like anti-circumenvention or whatever.)
However, I believe modern societies should protect a “right to attribution”. This is less related to copyright than to both trademark and plagiarism. (The patron model does depend on it. If people are allowed to defraud patrons by convincing patrons they made something they didn’t, the whole model falls apart. Which is why trademark exists.) I believe I should be able to copy my DVD of Jurassic Park and give the copy to you, but I don’t believe I should be able to say “made by TootSweet.” (I also think I should be able to adapt it – re-edit it to change the ending or write my own fan fiction or what have you – and to put my stamp on whatever changes I contributed, but it should be clear that I added something to something that someone else made. Also, I think it’s troubling for companies to be the ones credited rather than the actual people who made the art.) And in the act of generating images via Stable Diffusion or whatever and sharing them, people who should have gotten credit didn’t.
You all were fucking stealing every vid game ur parents wouldn’t buy you when u were kids!
I said most of what I said above specifically to convey why it’s no contradiction to believe art shouldn’t be locked up by copyright while also considering mass-scraping for training AI models to be “theft”. (Though, I think the term “plagiarism” may be a better term than “theft”.) Not to mention that the very folks who are stealing content en mass themselves cry foul when the same is done to them.
If a bunch of artists got together and built an image generator from their catalogs of art put their names on it and made it available, that’d be pretty cool. But that’s far from how GenAI works in practice today.
Or is the argument really that people can only enjoy something if a human personally touched every step of the process?
I like an image if I like it. I don’t care whether it was made by a person, a camera, a paintbrush, Photoshop, or an AI model. The end result is what matters to me.
When I consume art, I definitely feel the connection with the mind of the creator(s) of the art. In watching The Matrix, I know a little bit about who Keanu Reeves is, and a little bit about the Wachowskis, etc. I love fractals as well, and fractals are a product of pure math and computers, but it was people who first looked at them and said “this is beautiful actually” and popularized them, and it’s those people I feel connected to when I look at fractals. And without that, the work itself feels both shallow and dishonest. When the work doesn’t have a “mind” behind it (or at least when the minds behind it have been mechanically laundered to remove such a connection), I feel I’m being lied to and manipulated for corporate gain. At least with human-made content, even if there’s a corporation involved, I’m still making a connection to a human through the art. But with GenAI, I and the artists are just being used, and the creators of the model are pushing me to “like” this for their own edification. If I were to embrace that as if all that matters is the pattern projected on my retinas and the neurotransmitters that squirt as a result (mind you, knowing it’s made by GenAI very much changes which neurotransmitters squirt in my brain), there really is no point in it any more. It’s truly disgusting. Is there truly nothing “missing” from AI-generated art to you? If to you the experience and fulfillment of art doesn’t extend past the pixels on your screen at furthest, then wouldn’t staying blitzed out of your mind on heroin 24/7 do a more efficient job of hitting those pleasure centers?
Also, art exists within the context of the culture. It has meaning on the basis of what it meant within that context. What agendas it pushes. What it evokes. GenAI-generated “art” has no meaning above and beyond that of a tone-deaf corporate slogan. If a human had made the image in the original post here, I’d take it as a portrayal of alternate-reality hacker-punk optimism. But as it is, what put it together has no idea what it made, isn’t making any broad statement or critique about/of the culture, and no correct “interpretation” of the meaning of it exists. It’s flat and shallow and has no depth – specifically because it’s AI-generated.
Maybe a lot of this relates to the idea of “separating the art from the artist”. 🤔 Are you the sort of person who would keep buying Harry Potter stuff even if you thought J. K. Rowling was a despicable person and not worry about what buying into what she made says about you as a person? Would you buy a painting painted by Adolph Hitler and display it in your living room if it “looked pretty” to you? (I’m genuinely curious.)
For a community that prides itself on being tech-savvy and anti-authority, there’s a lotta resistance to new technology.
Jesus there’s a lot to unpack there. Remember NFT’s? Those were a bust and whoever thought those were stupid from the start was right to think so. Whether NFT’s qualify as “technology” or not, I’d have to argue those who never adopted them are the truly “tech-savvy” ones.
And how the fuck do you screw your head around so far as to think not using GenAI is incompatible with “anti-authoritarianism”?
Technology’s gonna moving forward whether we like it or not.
First, technology only goes where humans move it. And second, you and I have very different definitions of “forward”. Third, I’m sure many a literal snake-oil salesman has made the same case as to why you’d be some “regressive, anti-medicine dumbass” or something not to take “my panacea”.
I’ve even vibe-coded a bunch of programs that I never would have been able to create otherwise.
Oh jeez. I don’t want to get into this, but we’ll let it suffice to say I have a whole other set of problems with vibe coding.
It’s been a lot of fun, and I’m not planning to stop anytime soon. Love it!
When I consume art, I definitely feel the connection with the mind of the creator(s) of the art.
Well, I feel much differently. I actually spent a good chunk of my career as a professional artist. I don’t feel that way at all. It’s fine that you do, but I’m an actual artist that used to get paid very well for my stuff. Both in the commercial sector and art gallery shows. I have zero issues with people or ai stealing my stuff. lol
I totally respect and support your right to block this community. I don’t feel the same way about the tech as you do. Not even close. But I always support either blocking or avoiding communities you don’t agree with. I block anti-ai communities so it makes sense you would block this one. :)
And I stand by my statement that the tech isn’t going anywhere. It’s going to be so incorporated into everything, that you simply won’t be able to boycott all of it unless you became Amish or something.
We are getting so close to you not being able to tell what is and what isn’t ai. So I find it personally silly to always be on the lookout for it. AI has improved my life in a lot of ways. My wife hates anything AI. But she def doesn’t go out of her way to point to something and say “Slop!” like Lemmy does. That’s what I find so funny.
But it’s ok, we are on the edge of not knowing anyway, so all these complaints mean nothing in the end. They haven’t stopped progress and they won’t. The genie is out of the bottle and there’s no giong back. I’m not being a dick, and I appreciate that you gave your honest thoughts! Take care!
Then you probably don’t know I’m a mod in the “Fuck AI” community. Lol.
lololol I did not! Ha! That’s hilarious. We are opposing forces! LMAO
Hey, I get the Amish feeling. I love tech, but I go back and forth on just dropping out of society all together. Not because of AI, but because of the division and noise of everything. I grew up in Amish territory, and my town has a huge influx of Amish people that come into town every day. So I know a lot of their lifestyle.
I want that kind of lifestyle without the religious oversight though. I’m not big on being told what to do. lol
sigh
I’m probably going to regret engaging with this, and I’m definitely blocking this community in the near future, but here we go.
Yes. 100%. Absolutely.
Yes. That was very much my experience of the image in this post.
Let me first say here that I believe deeply in “to each according to need” and don’t think societies should be based on compelling “productivity” on the threat of withholding the means to meet one’s basic needs.
Furthermore, copyright is bullshit, and particularly in the form in which it currently exists. Even within the context of capitalism, copyright is a terrible way to try to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” (quote from article 1 of the U.S. Constitution). The theory is that by promising artists a monopoly on their own creative works for a time, you make the act of creating and publishing more alluring for creators, encouraging them to create. But a) the printing press fucked that whole thing up even when it was, b) as technology has progressed, they’ve had to go to really ridiculously extreme lengths of forbidding very good and normal human behaviors to try to prop that method of trying to encourage culture, and c) it encourages copyright owners (who aren’t “people” in most important cases in this day and age) to sit back and reap profits rather than continuing to create. I very much think the “patron” model is much better for our culture than copyright is. (Leaving aside the issue of Patreon having such a monopoly on the patron model.) I do believe that “information wants to be free” in the sense that there should be no law preventing you from acquiring, adapting, or sharing art. If someone makes something cool and worthwhile, they should make money off of their reputation and the promise of more cool art, not off of a government-enforced monopoly on copying, adapting/remixing, publication, distribution, or public performance/display of the art. (Let alone on bullshit like anti-circumenvention or whatever.)
However, I believe modern societies should protect a “right to attribution”. This is less related to copyright than to both trademark and plagiarism. (The patron model does depend on it. If people are allowed to defraud patrons by convincing patrons they made something they didn’t, the whole model falls apart. Which is why trademark exists.) I believe I should be able to copy my DVD of Jurassic Park and give the copy to you, but I don’t believe I should be able to say “made by TootSweet.” (I also think I should be able to adapt it – re-edit it to change the ending or write my own fan fiction or what have you – and to put my stamp on whatever changes I contributed, but it should be clear that I added something to something that someone else made. Also, I think it’s troubling for companies to be the ones credited rather than the actual people who made the art.) And in the act of generating images via Stable Diffusion or whatever and sharing them, people who should have gotten credit didn’t.
I said most of what I said above specifically to convey why it’s no contradiction to believe art shouldn’t be locked up by copyright while also considering mass-scraping for training AI models to be “theft”. (Though, I think the term “plagiarism” may be a better term than “theft”.) Not to mention that the very folks who are stealing content en mass themselves cry foul when the same is done to them.
If a bunch of artists got together and built an image generator from their catalogs of art put their names on it and made it available, that’d be pretty cool. But that’s far from how GenAI works in practice today.
When I consume art, I definitely feel the connection with the mind of the creator(s) of the art. In watching The Matrix, I know a little bit about who Keanu Reeves is, and a little bit about the Wachowskis, etc. I love fractals as well, and fractals are a product of pure math and computers, but it was people who first looked at them and said “this is beautiful actually” and popularized them, and it’s those people I feel connected to when I look at fractals. And without that, the work itself feels both shallow and dishonest. When the work doesn’t have a “mind” behind it (or at least when the minds behind it have been mechanically laundered to remove such a connection), I feel I’m being lied to and manipulated for corporate gain. At least with human-made content, even if there’s a corporation involved, I’m still making a connection to a human through the art. But with GenAI, I and the artists are just being used, and the creators of the model are pushing me to “like” this for their own edification. If I were to embrace that as if all that matters is the pattern projected on my retinas and the neurotransmitters that squirt as a result (mind you, knowing it’s made by GenAI very much changes which neurotransmitters squirt in my brain), there really is no point in it any more. It’s truly disgusting. Is there truly nothing “missing” from AI-generated art to you? If to you the experience and fulfillment of art doesn’t extend past the pixels on your screen at furthest, then wouldn’t staying blitzed out of your mind on heroin 24/7 do a more efficient job of hitting those pleasure centers?
Also, art exists within the context of the culture. It has meaning on the basis of what it meant within that context. What agendas it pushes. What it evokes. GenAI-generated “art” has no meaning above and beyond that of a tone-deaf corporate slogan. If a human had made the image in the original post here, I’d take it as a portrayal of alternate-reality hacker-punk optimism. But as it is, what put it together has no idea what it made, isn’t making any broad statement or critique about/of the culture, and no correct “interpretation” of the meaning of it exists. It’s flat and shallow and has no depth – specifically because it’s AI-generated.
Maybe a lot of this relates to the idea of “separating the art from the artist”. 🤔 Are you the sort of person who would keep buying Harry Potter stuff even if you thought J. K. Rowling was a despicable person and not worry about what buying into what she made says about you as a person? Would you buy a painting painted by Adolph Hitler and display it in your living room if it “looked pretty” to you? (I’m genuinely curious.)
Jesus there’s a lot to unpack there. Remember NFT’s? Those were a bust and whoever thought those were stupid from the start was right to think so. Whether NFT’s qualify as “technology” or not, I’d have to argue those who never adopted them are the truly “tech-savvy” ones.
And how the fuck do you screw your head around so far as to think not using GenAI is incompatible with “anti-authoritarianism”?
First, technology only goes where humans move it. And second, you and I have very different definitions of “forward”. Third, I’m sure many a literal snake-oil salesman has made the same case as to why you’d be some “regressive, anti-medicine dumbass” or something not to take “my panacea”.
Oh jeez. I don’t want to get into this, but we’ll let it suffice to say I have a whole other set of problems with vibe coding.
I can’t relate, and wouldn’t want to.
Well, I feel much differently. I actually spent a good chunk of my career as a professional artist. I don’t feel that way at all. It’s fine that you do, but I’m an actual artist that used to get paid very well for my stuff. Both in the commercial sector and art gallery shows. I have zero issues with people or ai stealing my stuff. lol
I totally respect and support your right to block this community. I don’t feel the same way about the tech as you do. Not even close. But I always support either blocking or avoiding communities you don’t agree with. I block anti-ai communities so it makes sense you would block this one. :)
And I stand by my statement that the tech isn’t going anywhere. It’s going to be so incorporated into everything, that you simply won’t be able to boycott all of it unless you became Amish or something.
We are getting so close to you not being able to tell what is and what isn’t ai. So I find it personally silly to always be on the lookout for it. AI has improved my life in a lot of ways. My wife hates anything AI. But she def doesn’t go out of her way to point to something and say “Slop!” like Lemmy does. That’s what I find so funny.
But it’s ok, we are on the edge of not knowing anyway, so all these complaints mean nothing in the end. They haven’t stopped progress and they won’t. The genie is out of the bottle and there’s no giong back. I’m not being a dick, and I appreciate that you gave your honest thoughts! Take care!
Then you probably don’t know I’m a mod in the “Fuck AI” community. Lol.
Every day I move a bit closer, believe me. :\
lololol I did not! Ha! That’s hilarious. We are opposing forces! LMAO
Hey, I get the Amish feeling. I love tech, but I go back and forth on just dropping out of society all together. Not because of AI, but because of the division and noise of everything. I grew up in Amish territory, and my town has a huge influx of Amish people that come into town every day. So I know a lot of their lifestyle.
I want that kind of lifestyle without the religious oversight though. I’m not big on being told what to do. lol