Right? Why are they fighting against being replaced by an uncaring soulless AI? What do they expect? Food shelter and security in exchange for all of their hard work and creativity?
This same argument can be used against any advancement of technology that puts any person out of work. It completely disregards the benefits that come from those technological advancements for other people. Should we have rejected the development of electrical lighting to protect the jobs of the lamplighters?
The solution to this is not to suppress the development of new technologies. It’s to try to build a society where “having a job” is not a prerequisite for food, shelter and security.
Everyone says the same shit every fucking decade about something new that comes out. It’s exhausting.
Go read How we got to now and recognize how common it is for everyone to worry about replacement when the reality is actually evolution and not just throwing things away.
Not to mention plenty of vintage concepts stayed around long past “great replacer” technology, especially in fucking art.
Did the camera get rid of the painter? Nope.
Did the oven get rid of the cook? Nope.
Did the TV get rid of the radio? Kinda! See now we just stream our music from the radio differently. Radio broadcast hosts switched to doin some podcasts, or running their own stations!
I am sick and tired of these lazy ass, sensationalist, panic-prone people stifling progress. Get the fuck out of the rest of our ways or actually take the time to learn about what we’re trying to do and accomplish and realize that scientists and developers only ever wanted to discover and create for the rest of the world.
AI artwork is a fun toy to play with. I’ve used it myself sometimes when I got bored. I can even see usefulness in it as a way to help people flesh out ideas. I would never generate an image using AI and claim that I “made” it though. I certainly wouldn’t be able to bring myself to charge money for it as if it were my own work.
That would be like if I opened a restaurant but only served burgers and fries that I ordered from the McDonald’s down the road and served it in the same wrappers with the name just crossed out. Sure, I told them exactly what I wanted, but I didn’t actually “make” anything.
GrubHub doesn’t claim that they make the food, they just deliver it.
What I’m describing would be more like if you went to the local foodie bistro down the road and ordered the house made lasagna and a craft beer, but then you were served a budget Michelina’s Lasagna With Meat Sauce and a Bud Light dressed up slightly on a plate.
Okay so should photographers stop taking photos because they didn’t make anything they took the pictures of? See for photography the product is literally a technology applied to an existing object.
AI Models produce new things from existing knowledge. It’s not copying. It’s not duplicating. It’s taking “inspiration” from and generating.
Not capturing.
Creating from.
You yourself could go out and take your own images and train your own model and generate unique content from that. You’re telling me you wouldn’t feel comfortable with that?
To be worried this stuff will “replace” a field it’s not even a part of makes 0 sense. People will still want photos of real people things for one reason or another.
No artist ever lost their fucking job in the history of art, and that’s pretty fucking clear considering we’re still painting all these years later.
Enough of the paranoia and stealing of power away from the public. People will continue spouting their paranoia until the government comes in and takes all the power away from people who could be making real money and a living off of 0% copywritten material
Why don’t you enlighten us then? What do image generation models do that is so important?
Is it that they democratize art by making it so that people who don’t have access to pencil and paper and downtime with which to practice drawing, but do have access to an extremely powerful graphics card, can finally unleash the creativity trapped in their souls by describing the image they want to see to a computer, having it create a collage of the works of existing artists who actually put in the decades worth of time and effort, and claiming they made it from scratch and that that makes them an artist? Is it that these people are now empowered to make a living by charging people to create images for them at the same rates traditional artists charge, using the skill they honed over about a half dozen weekends?
I make shit for other people all the time for free. Stop generalizing a global population based on capitalist assumptions. Even if you were trying to be a business person with your work, you’d charge what people are willing to pay and at a price that holds demand. Which would probably mean cheaper than an artist. (And if you really wanna talk about prices let’s talk about regular art prices and how subjective that is…)
Why would my unrelated attempts to explain why people would see AI art as valuable, or explain that there is only one computer in the world right now powerful enough to run Midjourney (and no, the much-less-capable local models don’t count) matter to this discussion at all?
State your counterargument to my claim that AI art serves no purpose other than to let people who don’t want to put in the effort to get good at art “create” art by stealing art from other people, or admit that you have none.
I know perfectly well how the tech works. It’s given a bunch of images and randomly rolls dice to generate weights until it can generate things that approximate its training data, then continues in that general direction using a hill climbing algorithm to approximate that data as closely as possible. Every output of a generative neural network is a combination of random noise and a pattern of pixels that appeared in its training data (possibly across several input images, but that appeared nonetheless). You cannot get something out that did not, at some point, go in. Legally speaking, that makes them a collage tool.
I ask again: do you have an argument or are you going to continue to make appeals to ignorance against mine?
Right? Why are they fighting against being replaced by an uncaring soulless AI? What do they expect? Food shelter and security in exchange for all of their hard work and creativity?
What a bunch of crybabies!
This same argument can be used against any advancement of technology that puts any person out of work. It completely disregards the benefits that come from those technological advancements for other people. Should we have rejected the development of electrical lighting to protect the jobs of the lamplighters?
The solution to this is not to suppress the development of new technologies. It’s to try to build a society where “having a job” is not a prerequisite for food, shelter and security.
False implication but okay.
Everyone says the same shit every fucking decade about something new that comes out. It’s exhausting.
Go read How we got to now and recognize how common it is for everyone to worry about replacement when the reality is actually evolution and not just throwing things away.
Not to mention plenty of vintage concepts stayed around long past “great replacer” technology, especially in fucking art.
Did the camera get rid of the painter? Nope.
Did the oven get rid of the cook? Nope.
Did the TV get rid of the radio? Kinda! See now we just stream our music from the radio differently. Radio broadcast hosts switched to doin some podcasts, or running their own stations!
I am sick and tired of these lazy ass, sensationalist, panic-prone people stifling progress. Get the fuck out of the rest of our ways or actually take the time to learn about what we’re trying to do and accomplish and realize that scientists and developers only ever wanted to discover and create for the rest of the world.
AI artwork is a fun toy to play with. I’ve used it myself sometimes when I got bored. I can even see usefulness in it as a way to help people flesh out ideas. I would never generate an image using AI and claim that I “made” it though. I certainly wouldn’t be able to bring myself to charge money for it as if it were my own work.
That would be like if I opened a restaurant but only served burgers and fries that I ordered from the McDonald’s down the road and served it in the same wrappers with the name just crossed out. Sure, I told them exactly what I wanted, but I didn’t actually “make” anything.
deleted by creator
That has literally nothing to do with what I said
GrubHub doesn’t claim that they make the food, they just deliver it.
What I’m describing would be more like if you went to the local foodie bistro down the road and ordered the house made lasagna and a craft beer, but then you were served a budget Michelina’s Lasagna With Meat Sauce and a Bud Light dressed up slightly on a plate.
deleted by creator
Okay so should photographers stop taking photos because they didn’t make anything they took the pictures of? See for photography the product is literally a technology applied to an existing object.
AI Models produce new things from existing knowledge. It’s not copying. It’s not duplicating. It’s taking “inspiration” from and generating.
Not capturing.
Creating from.
You yourself could go out and take your own images and train your own model and generate unique content from that. You’re telling me you wouldn’t feel comfortable with that?
To be worried this stuff will “replace” a field it’s not even a part of makes 0 sense. People will still want photos of real people things for one reason or another.
No artist ever lost their fucking job in the history of art, and that’s pretty fucking clear considering we’re still painting all these years later.
Enough of the paranoia and stealing of power away from the public. People will continue spouting their paranoia until the government comes in and takes all the power away from people who could be making real money and a living off of 0% copywritten material
Why don’t you enlighten us then? What do image generation models do that is so important?
Is it that they democratize art by making it so that people who don’t have access to pencil and paper and downtime with which to practice drawing, but do have access to an extremely powerful graphics card, can finally unleash the creativity trapped in their souls by describing the image they want to see to a computer, having it create a collage of the works of existing artists who actually put in the decades worth of time and effort, and claiming they made it from scratch and that that makes them an artist? Is it that these people are now empowered to make a living by charging people to create images for them at the same rates traditional artists charge, using the skill they honed over about a half dozen weekends?
Was the price the art sells for seriously the only part of my argument you could find a problem with? If so, that says a lot about yours.
Considering I responded to your three comments?? No, it wasn’t but good try at trying to insult me lmao.
At least I can pay attention who I’m talking to in a thread if you wanna start throwing stones 😂
Why would my unrelated attempts to explain why people would see AI art as valuable, or explain that there is only one computer in the world right now powerful enough to run Midjourney (and no, the much-less-capable local models don’t count) matter to this discussion at all?
State your counterargument to my claim that AI art serves no purpose other than to let people who don’t want to put in the effort to get good at art “create” art by stealing art from other people, or admit that you have none.
You’re purposefully downplaying and over simplifying what AI models do. I’m not going to continue arguing with someone who can’t debate fairly.
Learning models don’t fucking collage shit. That’s not how the tech works.
I’m not going to debate this shit with someone who’s this blatant with their bad faith argumentation as you are being, good bye.
Anyone else wants to actually discuss or learn more about the tech in a civil way, lmk.
I know perfectly well how the tech works. It’s given a bunch of images and randomly rolls dice to generate weights until it can generate things that approximate its training data, then continues in that general direction using a hill climbing algorithm to approximate that data as closely as possible. Every output of a generative neural network is a combination of random noise and a pattern of pixels that appeared in its training data (possibly across several input images, but that appeared nonetheless). You cannot get something out that did not, at some point, go in. Legally speaking, that makes them a collage tool.
I ask again: do you have an argument or are you going to continue to make appeals to ignorance against mine?