It is said we eat around 10 spiders while we're sleeping. I guess that doesn't count as eating insects
The next poll is a bit controversial as it's a very recent topic. We've seen a lot of AI art on the Internet... Many people think it shouldn't be allowed to do so, as it generates images from copyrighted art, but other people think the AI makes things easier and makes them avoid paying a real artist. What are your opinions on this? Should the AI be banned from art or should humans "compete" against the AI to show they're better?
There’s an entire subreddit dedicated to posting pictures of AI generated “art” and boomers saying “amen” and thinking it’s real. Fun to binge when you’re bored.
Answering the question, I’m not very keen on AI art, it can be cool but they really suck at spelling
I am in favour of AI when it comes to help us automating and speed up repetitive and boring actions, but autogenerating AI is a big no for me.
Perhaps as I am a hobby artist I am particularly touched by this and you have a different way of enjoying your life but I see autogenerating AI as a big insult to life.
If AI is replacing humans there will be no more reason to live for, there will be no more satisfaction in doing things and I would prefer that a robot does the dishes and all the boring housework instead of replacing me on what I enjoy doing.
Lately I've been seeing advertisements around, game cabinets embellished with AI generated images and they make me feel sick, AI art is easy to spot as it feels soulless and contains mistakes a human would never make and the same goes for writing.
Yeah, I totally get that point about AI taking over things people enjoy doing. I've been hearing the same talking points around the lunch table at work, so it's definitely striking a nerve.
I'll admit to having used craiyon a couple of times, but only to create jokey images or see what it can do. The novelty quickly wore off and was replaced by a feeling of intellectual atrophy at the idea of outsourcing mental / creative activity to AI agents
So yeah, I agree, we should leave humans to do artistic things, otherwise what else is left?
Perhaps the creation of memes is the only context in which the use of artificial intelligence doesn't seem wrong to me. That meme of Luigi in the hospital is still savage nowadays
Like Itzal said, I have always thought that artificial intelligence should be created to do the dirty work, not replace humans so that they have to do the dirty work. Nowadays it's an insult to do a professional job with an AI, basically because its drawings are bad, we've all seen horrible examples out there (even on scientific journals). But even if it's perfectioned after many years, what about the creativity? I wouldn't like to see generic drawings everywhere trying to copy Pixar's art style (which was invented by humans!). Unfortunately some people don't understand this, but people's creativity is what makes the drawings and the art special.
This is the kind of question I was waiting for . Some thoughts on this:
Many people think it shouldn't be allowed to do so, as it generates images from copyrighted art
I don't completely understand it, but I'm aware that some sites have rolled out measures to help artists to protect their art from being used to train AIs. Hopefully this continues to advance so every artist has the ability to stop companies from using their work to train AI. However, things like the DeviantArt scandal worry me (using the artwork from the site to train their own AI, and then giving the option to users to opt out from that, only after the AI has already been trained). I even remember people complaining that the art of deceased artists was also used to train that AI.
other people think the AI makes things easier and makes them avoid paying a real artist
Well, yeah, AI is an optimization tool, it will allow visual creations to be made faster and with the intervention of less human beings. On one hand, it's great, now things that otherwise would have taken an eternity to make, can be enjoyed today (like playing Rayman Arena with HD textures), on the other hand people can be less interested in paying an artist or will need less help from them (like just hiring them to fix the errors of something made with AI).
should humans "compete" against the AI to show they're better
Competing with AI never ends well:
I remember hearing people recommending artists to try to include AI into their workflow (like using to make previews of possible ideas, instead of using it to make the final product). Trying to actively compete against it, sounds like a losing battle to me.
ItzalDrake wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 11:04 am
Perhaps as I am a hobby artist I am particularly touched by this and you have a different way of enjoying your life but I see autogenerating AI as a big insult to life.
If AI is replacing humans there will be no more reason to live for, there will be no more satisfaction in doing things and I would prefer that a robot does the dishes and all the boring housework instead of replacing me on what I enjoy doing.
Lately I've been seeing advertisements around, game cabinets embellished with AI generated images and they make me feel sick...
I can relate to that. Recently I have lost some of my motivation to draw, I have increasing doubts about how much would it pay off to develop those skills (beyond personal satisfaction), specially when someone can use AI and quickly produce large sets of fully colored and detailed images without the help of artists. Also, I guess there will be less economic incentive to try to learn how to draw and produce graphics by yourself (in the "old non-AI way"), considering that the number of people that would pay for that will decrease.
PluMGMK wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:27 pm
I'll admit to having used craiyon a couple of times, but only to create jokey images or see what it can do.
Craiyon was fun to use, specially for the novelty of it, specially when I was able to produce different images and edit them together, I can't deny that.
PluMGMK wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 12:27 pm
So yeah, I agree, we should leave humans to do artistic things, otherwise what else is left?
I remember that many years ago, people used to say AI would take care of repetitive tasks that no one wants to do, and that most of the jobs left would involve creative work, and now look at what happened .
DaveRattlehead wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 4:36 pm
Perhaps the creation of memes is the only context in which the use of artificial intelligence doesn't seem wrong to me.
I love watching videos of AI generated Pixar covers with crazy (and some downright offensive) themes, never gets old
DaveRattlehead wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 4:36 pm
Perhaps the creation of memes is the only context in which the use of artificial intelligence doesn't seem wrong to me. That meme of Luigi in the hospital is still savage nowadays
I do agree with that, I've seen around the Rayman community people using AI to make Rayman characters sing or say things they would never say and the results were hilarious
DaveRattlehead wrote: Tue Aug 13, 2024 4:36 pm
Nowadays it's an insult to do a professional job with an AI, basically because its drawings are bad, we've all seen horrible examples out there (even on scientific journals ).
I've seen worse.. a few days ago I was looking at some job advertisements on Indeed and I found a school that was looking for a Midjourney expert who could teach people how to use that AI, I really don't know what to think after seeing this..
I think it's perfectly fine for AI to generate "art", as long as the workers whose creations have been used to train those models are fairly compensated. Surely, most dreamt of an AI that would free them of mundane tasks rather than one that would replace them in creative processes, but then again, if an AI can completely replace you, are you really being creative? Obviously, this generic art is apparently easier to emulate than the (not so trivial!) job of a cleaning lady.
So is it unfair that automation is replacing jobs? We can all be Luddites and start destroying cotton mills, or we can embrace the immense productivity gains and instead focus on making sure that the transition happens in a socially acceptable way, and that human resources are effectively redirected towards the new sectors created by this change.
Hunchman801 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:04 pm
I think it's perfectly fine for AI to generate "art", as long as the workers whose creations have been used to train those models are fairly compensated. Surely, most dreamt of an AI that would free them of mundane tasks rather than one that would replace them in creative processes, but then again, if an AI can completely replace you, are you really being creative? Obviously, this generic art is apparently easier to emulate than the (not so trivial!) job of a cleaning lady.
So is it unfair that automation is replacing jobs? We can all be Luddites and start destroying cotton mills, or we can embrace the immense productivity gains and instead focus on making sure that the transition happens in a socially acceptable way, and that human resources are effectively redirected towards the new sectors created by this change.
The problem is it's just impossible to fairly compensate the original artists, seeing as it takes thousands of not millions of images to train the models in the first place, and as far as I know it's not possible to reverse engineer who's training data was used to produce a given image. And even if it was possible, the cost then would be too much for it to be a viable option - if an artist would be paid X amount for a given piece, and instead someone opts for an AI creation based on that artist's work, wouldn't X be a fair price? If so, why would anyone opt for the AI? If not, why would anyone opt for the artist?
I would also say that the productivity gains aren't comparable to cotton mills in this case, seeing as we are talking about art specifically. I would argue that art doesn't serve a practical purpose or function - or at least, in my opinion, it shouldn't. Art is an abstract thing that makes you feel a certain way, and the only "point" in art is to make you feel that way, as a form of communication - unless the "point" is to make money, in which case I would go so far as to dare to say it is no longer art. And I think that's all AI art is good for. Making money, one way or another. At least an AI powered cotton mill would be doing a practical service to the world. At least in a Marxist sense, which I'm not sure whether or not you were hinting at, I don't think the analogy holds.
Anyway, personally I don't necessarily agree with either of the options in this poll. I just think AI art sucks balls.
That's certainly a good point on fair compensation, though I'm sure that while no mechanism will ever be perfect, there are ways to push things in the right direction. Surely, you can still illegally download movies and music if you want, but streaming platforms are a huge source of income for film companies and musicians alike.
Now as for the definition of art, that's a debate that can go on forever. Whatever you call them, those creations are, for the most part, created to generate income. Professional "artists" sell their creations for money, and AI "art" models are meant to become profitable at some point. I'm not necessarily comparing the magnitude of the productivity gains of, say, AI art and cotton mills, but there is a demand for visual artwork (and music too, and others) and automating its creation, if only partially, is indeed a productivity gain.
I think we need to re-examine the concept of ownership, and only after that will AI's role in art start to make sense. For example, many media franchises are absolutely ruined when ownership passes hands, because only the creators (and *sometimes* the fans) really "get it." So where that ownership was originally the creator's way of protecting their work, it turns into big companies monopolizing popular culture in the hopes of profiting from it.
In much the same way that life perishes and evolves, art also perishes but "lives on" in newly inspired forms. The milking of IPs has perhaps no better representation than an aged, senile Harrison Ford playing Han Solo again. The way I see it, these problems have gone on far too long, caused serious problems for capitalism, and need to be addressed before we start thinking about AI.
What are my grounds for thinking this way? I think the gap between the labourer and manufacturer is growing dangerously wide. If we know how to ensure people's values are aligned, it doesn't matter whether the problem is AI or anything else; we'll have a clear view towards resolving it. Rayman is a great example of creatives and business coming together to innovate and bring something new and valuable, so we know it's perfectly possible for the artist, technician and businessman to have a symbiotic relationship.
It is what it is. If I'm working for someone and an AI can make something in 5 minutes that I'd spend an hour on that pleases them, well, who am I to argue.
Hunchman801 wrote: Fri Aug 16, 2024 11:04 pmif an AI can completely replace you, are you really being creative?
Well of course you are! Art just by its nature doesn't need to follow stringent technical requirements in the way manual work does, and we don't have very good control over what an AI does right now.
Cutting labour costs in the name of efficiency is necessary to progress, there's just a horrible (and reasonable) stigma when it comes to big studios doing seemingly nothing in anyone's best interest with the technology. Movies only end up costing more and more for no practical reason despite using more and more AI, and end up worse a lot of the time.
It can really help indies create their vision though, because obviously the average person can't afford to pay a bunch of artists very well. Once the tools provide more customisation, I'd love to use it to help generate textures if I can't pay anyone to work for me (which I'd still prefer to do because I value the human aspect of art).
. Some thoughts on this:
.
