Kickstarter bans AI-generated art enthusiast group "Unstable Diffusion" and refuses to deliver their successfully raised $56k funds

[tikker]

28 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

I don't think this is a good metric to differentiate between AI and artist

 

For example, mass manufacturing vs handcrafted.

Mass manufactured goods often have more quality control than handcrafted, and sometimes they're better than handcrafted due to the consistency and research behind it

 

As an end consumer of goods (or art), as long as I enjoy the work, I don't really care where is coming from

In fact, I prefer art from AI because there are annoying people who hounds on others that don't credit the artist. You don't have to credit AI art that you made.

I didn't mean to imply that time was a good metric for value, but in my impression that is often one of the more important metrics. As you say mass manufactured stuff can be better and more consistent, but something handcrafted can be seen as "more valuable" because it didn't come from an automated machine and because you put in time to basically become as good as that machine.

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I just want to say that I agree with most of your post, although to varying degree. But we have been through this particular line of reasoning earlier in the thread and people like NumLock21 does not agree. The time spent on something is not a factor whether or not something is art or not in their eyes. A stick figure drawn by a child in less than a minute would be art, but someone spending several hours tweaking their AI program to make it generate the image someone envision would not be art.

See this comment:  

On 12/26/2022 at 4:13 PM, NumLock21 said:

On 12/26/2022 at 3:40 PM, LAwLz said:

Do I understand you both correctly that you make the distinction because of the amount of work required to create said piece?

In other words, you value an image more if someone had to practice their craft for 10 years before they could achieve something compared to if they didn't need to practice more than 1 hour. Correct? 

It seems you’re not getting the point of what it means to be an artist. It doesn’t matter how long that artist took to draw that artwork or how many years of art experience they have under their belt, it’s about actually picking up a tool and to start drawing with your own hands on a blank canvas, not to type a few keywords and have “someone or something else” do it for you.

 

To make it easier for you to comprehend, I value an artwork of stick figures that took a minute, drew by a kid with their own hands on a piece of paper, be it a physical or digital drawing, then some person who just type in some keyword and have an AI draw for them. If you drew a squiggly line on your own then I’ll say you are an artist, compared to someone who didn’t and uses AI to do it for them.

 

In their eyes, a stick figure drawn by a child would be

The example of a stick figure from a child came with the undertone of time to me, in the sense of someone physically spent their time working on it while it could have been made in 1% of the time with advanced tools, but I may have misunderstood and went a bit too hard on purely the time aspect in my post. I should have added the elbow grease aspect to it as well. I can understand it, however. I appreciate hand-made things in a different way for the same reason. I'm not sure I value e.g. a hand-crafted chair more compared to an hypothetical AI-created one in the practical sense, but if it were a gift or from someone that for whatever reason I have whatever connection to then a hand-crafted version would have more value in a certain way because of that time and effort. I don't see the otherwise identical mass- or AI-produced versions as unacceptable or lesser in other ways though.

[LAwLz]

37 minutes ago, tikker said:

The example of a stick figure from a child came with the undertone of time to me, in the sense of someone physically spent their time working on it while it could have been made in 1% of the time with advanced tools, but I may have misunderstood and went a bit too hard on purely the time aspect in my post. I should have added the elbow grease aspect to it as well. I can understand it, however. I appreciate hand-made things in a different way for the same reason. I'm not sure I value e.g. a hand-crafted chair more compared to an hypothetical AI-created one in the practical sense, but if it were a gift or from someone that for whatever reason I have whatever connection to then a hand-crafted version would have more value in a certain way because of that time and effort. I don't see the otherwise identical mass- or AI-produced versions as unacceptable or lesser in other ways though.

I completely agree with you. But I think this logic would only work if AI art was generated in a program that had a single button and didn't need any input from the human. That is not the case however. It can require a lot of effort to get a good image out of an AI program. I think what a picture shows is more important than how it was made. That's why I can value a photograph more than I value a painting, even thought the painting probably required more effort. 

 

 

Which of these things would you value more:

1) A piece of paper that had "happy birthday" and two stick figures hastily and poorly drawn on it by your friend, that they drew during your birthday because they had forgotten that it was today. They had to ask to borrow a pen from you so that they could draw it too, because they didn't have any pen of their own with them.

 

2) A picture depicting a memory of you and your friend as kids. It's a memory that both of you hold very fondly and often talks about. The picture is printed on a piece of acrylic. However, since your friend can't draw they spent hours in an AI program to recreate the image to look just like they wanted it to.

 

 

People like NumLock21 will say alternative number one holds more artistic value than the second one, because people like NumLock21 does not care about the art piece itself. They only care about the process and whether or not the piece was created through an approved method or not.

At least that's my interpretation of their arguments. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong @NumLock21.

[NumLock21]

59 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I completely agree with you. But I think this logic would only work if AI art was generated in a program that had a single button and didn't need any input from the human. That is not the case however. It can require a lot of effort to get a good image out of an AI program. I think what a picture shows is more important than how it was made. That's why I can value a photograph more than I value a painting, even thought the painting probably required more effort. 

 

 

Which of these things would you value more:

1) A piece of paper that had "happy birthday" and two stick figures hastily and poorly drawn on it by your friend, that they drew during your birthday because they had forgotten that it was today. They had to ask to borrow a pen from you so that they could draw it too, because they didn't have any pen of their own with them.

 

2) A picture depicting a memory of you and your friend as kids. It's a memory that both of you hold very fondly and often talks about. The picture is printed on a piece of acrylic. However, since your friend can't draw they spent hours in an AI program to recreate the image to look just like they wanted it to.

 

 

People like NumLock21 will say alternative number one holds more artistic value than the second one, because people like NumLock21 does not care about the art piece itself. They only care about the process and whether or not the piece was created through an approved method or not.

At least that's my interpretation of their arguments. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong @NumLock21.

I care for both art piece and how that that art piece was made. With your 2 choices, another factor to be added in, that is the human care factor, like how much your friend cares about you. For choice 1, while the art is hand drawn, it was done at the last minute, that means they don't really care about your bday or you in existence anyway. For choice 2, you know your friend cannot draw but they do remember your bday, and wanted to make an artwork, done by an AI that reminds both of you when you were kids. That would bring back great memories and it's a very thoughtful gift. Would I say my friend is the artist, No since they can't draw, the artist here would be the AI.

 

 

[Arika]

6 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

You're way too focus on the technology side of things, have also focus on the human side. The reason why taking a photograph with a camera is acceptable, even though the camera does the work is because, the human itself has to physically go to the location in order for the camera to take that picture. If the human just stays home and never steps outside, then no matter how powerful the AI is inside that camera, it's still being wasted. The camera can't go out by itself to take pictures, it doesn't have arms and legs.

this might be the worse argument i think i've seen against AI.

[SolarNova]

I'd like to interject an example. A compare the difference if you will.

 

Target : Produce a piece of 'art' representing the view 'over there'.

 

Person A : Pallete and Easel ...starts painting.

Person B : Tripod and camera ... start taking pictures

person C : Laptop and photoshop ... starts 'drawing'.

Person D : Laptop and Stable Diffusion ... starts inputting keywords.

 

Each one produces an image closely depicting the aforementioned view.

Each has a different method, each takes time to create ...each requires a human persons artistic ability to make (some in certain ways more than others), and each results in a suitable piece of work.

 

For those who dont think so called 'AI Art' ..is 'Art' .

Why is one not considered Art while the rest are ?

 

Food for thought.

[Kisai]

2 hours ago, SolarNova said:

I'd like to interject an example. A compare the difference if you will.

 

Target : Produce a piece of 'art' representing the view 'over there'.

 

Person A : Pallete and Easel ...starts painting.

Person B : Tripod and camera ... start taking pictures

person C : Laptop and photoshop ... starts 'drawing'.

Person D : Laptop and Stable Diffusion ... starts inputting keywords.

 

Each one produces an image closely depicting the aforementioned view.

Each has a different method, each takes time to create ...each requires a human persons artistic ability to make (some in certain ways more than others), and each results in a suitable piece of work.

 

For those who dont think so called 'AI Art' ..is 'Art' .

Why is one not considered Art while the rest are ?

 

Food for thought.

Okay, since we're going to make that comparison.

 

Person A, the Palette and Easel, can whole-cloth paint something with no references, if they have a good eyes-mind (eg the ability to imagine things), there are people who do not (look up aphantasia) and thus they would not be able to paint without there being something physically to "copy and interpret". Regardless of their skill level, they can create something original, or create something influenced by their surroundings, and influenced by tools (such as limited palette of colors.) The Easel will not draw itself, nor will trying to describe a scene to an artist who can't imagine it.

 

Person B, Camera (A tripod isn't part of the photo process, rather it's a tool), An analog camera does not "whole cloth" create works. It requires a real world to operate in. You can take a photo with an analog camera, and you are limited a few limited effects in the lens choice and in the developing process (such as crop and zoom.) You can't describe to a camera what and how to take a photo of, but you can tell the person operating the camera to. Now when you get into digital cameras, there's an entire extra level of control that the camera itself can do. But it still requires a subject, it may contain some "generator" algorithms (eg SMPTE color bars, checkerboards) but this is all post-process. The Photo or real-time preview has already been processed. There is no TTL (Through the Lens) preview on most cameras because most cameras have been cheapened to the point where the TTL is not a good representation of the output. A camera has limitations, you can not take a photo in the dark without specialized lighting and filters, and the result is usually less-than-ideal (eg green or monochrome high-noise photos.)

 

Person C, let's just simplify this to "digital drawing" because even if you start on paper or some other medium, this is the same as Person A until it gets to the scanning or tablet/mouse use to create the initial image. Past that point, an artist can either "digitally ink and color" the analog drawing (Person A), or "color correct" the photo (Person B), whatever the starting process is. You can also whole-cloth create straight from using the graphics tablet or mouse, or you can start with a "generated" canvas (eg "photoshop brushes", "templates", "3d models", etc. ) But that is still ultimately a starting position. Person C doesn't grab some stock clipart from a website, flood-fill a few areas with a different color and call it done. Regardless of where you start, you're starting with something that isn't a blank canvas. If you use your imagination, you're basically doing the same as Person A, except the computer is the canvas. If you start with a photo, then it's the same as person B. 

 

Person D, someone who doesn't "start with a canvas" and can not use their minds eye. The AI can spit out artwork or photos or some horrifying middle-ground because it literately does not know how keywords go together, because often the keywords in the original images don't describe every detail, only small details. For example, look at the "dogs playing poker" I posted earlier in the thread. The AI does not know what "poker" is. The AI only has a vague sense of what a "dog" might be

 

 

Okay, so what if we change that query to "cats playing poker"

Strangely enough  that third and fourth image  looks closer to what I might "expect" for cats playing poker, while the first and second picture looks more like "cats cheating at cards" with only the first, and fourth image actually looking like "poker" in any sense because of the poker chips on the table.

 

And what if you tell the AI to make variations? 

So three of the variations have the same cats, but none of the variations are "poker", hell the last one looks like dice and I'm not even sure what the third image is supposed to be. But none of the images are "poker", most of them are the same "card"

 

The point I'm making here is that if I were to give a human the same prompt "cats drawing poker" the reference they would use would likely be a "dogs playing poker" piece, and a more adept artist might create a "poker scene" (eg a cat holding 4 aces) and then figure out how the cats fit in it. 

 

Can I make Dall-E produce something nicer with a better prompt? Let's see...

So, all four images managed to get "orange tabby", and the last image might pass for describing the face cards, but it's still a fail.

Three of the images got "four cats", this was deliberate, because only "three" of the cats were described. However in every image, other than the orange tabby, it "filled in" the other cats with tortoise-shell cats. Oddly enough, one cat in three of those images could maybe pass as a "tuxedo cat". Ultimately however all of these images are a fail as a final result. I'd say the first image is the closest to "cats playing poker" from this query than the others. What  you don't see in the query is "in the style of michelangelo" which none of these are.

 

So to come back to the list, the amount of "effort" required to get the AI to spit out something that you want is extremely high. That time is better spent paying someone to draw what you wanted in the first place.

 

But if you have no idea what you want, I don't see the harm at using DallE or Stable Diffusion to mashup something. If you really do have Aphantasia, you might see AI Art generation as an accessibility tool.

 

But the reason "AI Art generators" are not "Art", is because the AI doesn't actually "create" things, it creates kitbashes of what words are. It will never understand what the prompt is. It lacks the human experience and understanding of how these words go together to form a composition. And we see this in other AI like GPT and ASR/TTS, where GPT can create a really detailed shaggy dog story with no point, and a TTS will put stresses on the wrong words making it sound unnatural, despite sounding a lot more human than a real human with a learning disability. However the AI fundamentally does not "understand" what it is doing.

 

You and I can agree on what a "dog" or a "cat" is. An AI does not know what a "dog" or "cat" is. From the images I posted, which are all AI generated, you can see what the AI generates as a cat or a dog, and most of that is at least "passing" as a cat or a dog to a human. In many of these images the cats or dogs are contorted into shapes that a real cat or dog can not do. This is because the AI has no more understanding of a cat or a dog than a human who has never seen one.

 

These AI-driven art generators may have a place, but what they are presently, are auto-complete with a large database, nowhere near any actual thought put into the composition of their output. The level machine learning is at right now is sufficient for passing low-quality/low-effort works off as "stylistic", but are completely inept at "creating". 

 

We've had Vocaloid out there since 2004, and by all amounts it's literately a fancy diphone concatenative TTS based on actual human singing. If one's argument that "AI generated artwork is not real art", then Hatsune Miku (which is classified as an instrument) and all vocaloid music must not be art either. The AI art generator is the stylus, not the finished work. 

 

Did Vocaloid ruin the ability for Japanese singers to produce music? No it didn't. Japanese singers would not provide their voice for it because of that fear. Funny thing is, "real artists" have been stealing music created by Vocaloid users.

 

This is the same song and dance, so to speak. We saw it all before, a decade earlier. Where is Vocaloid now? New games using Vocaloid songs exist.

 

 

Are we anywhere near that with AI Art generators? No. We're at the "this is a toy, and nobody should use it" phase as the people who feel threatened by it's existence refuse to acknowledge that it's not going to replace them. 

 

Are there a billion vocaloid covers of pop music? Sure. Are you going to listen to a Miku cover of everything instead of the original artist to spite the artist? No. Miku is not everyone's cup of tea. And that's the bottom line. Not everyone is going to like this stuff, and you can't force them to.

 

If someone's entire stake in ML technology is how much money they stand to make or lose (be that the developer of the tools, or the artists who will not use these tools anyways and just tout imagined losses,) then you are safe ignoring them. Any company that mistakenly assumes that people do not care "who" made a piece of art and that they can swap an AI for a human artist, is in for a rude awakening. 

 

Let's assume for the sake of argument that an AI learns to draw comics. It is trained on popular Manga, Marvel, DC, Disney,  Archie, etc and does so, so well that it can replicate every "talking heads" comics in the newspaper. Do you think for even a minute that the AI knows how to compose a scene? No. It does not. It doesn't understand the context of the comics it trained on. If you were to then ask the AI to draw "Superman fighting Godzilla in Jack Kirby style", what do you think the result would be?

 

"learned to draw cartoon figures by tracing characters from comic strips and editorial cartoons"

 

Would the AI know this? No. But it could conceivably come up with an art style "that is Jack Kirby" without being Jack Kirby by using cartoons that are now in the public domain from the 1920's.

 

This is what I'm saying when people get uptight about how the AI is trained, that is a MOVING TARGET. The quality and output will change over time, and not always "better" because a lot of compromises in machine learning are for speed, not quality. If we aimed for high quality out of the gate, it would take years to have a working model. Once that working model produces stuff that is less garbage and a lot of the edge-cases are worked out, then the hardware costs will have come down and the model will take less time and money to train than trying to do that immediately and generating high quality incoherent garbage. 512x512 image training data is no different from 22khz audio training data. It's not "good enough" for production quality, but it's good enough to tell if that input data is full of mistakes or if the input should be curated further.

 

That is where we are right now.

 

 

[NumLock21]

3 hours ago, SolarNova said:

I'd like to interject an example. A compare the difference if you will.

 

Target : Produce a piece of 'art' representing the view 'over there'.

 

Person A : Pallete and Easel ...starts painting.

Person B : Tripod and camera ... start taking pictures

person C : Laptop and photoshop ... starts 'drawing'.

Person D : Laptop and Stable Diffusion ... starts inputting keywords.

 

Each one produces an image closely depicting the aforementioned view.

Each has a different method, each takes time to create ...each requires a human persons artistic ability to make (some in certain ways more than others), and each results in a suitable piece of work.

 

For those who dont think so called 'AI Art' ..is 'Art' .

Why is one not considered Art while the rest are ?

 

Food for thought.

All of them are producing art through different mediums, but are all of them consider to be an artist? No

Person A and C are the real artist.
Person B, taking picture is somewhat "an art" but when someone says they're an artist, most people would think of drawing, sketching, painting, not taking photos. Person B would be a photographer..

Person D is a nobody, they are not a artist or a photographer, etc. when they are not willing to take their time to properly learn the tools of the trade. What they want is, have something else do the work for them, have it done as quickly as possible while, with no effort on their part, and then take all of the credit. If person D would tell AI to write a book for them, they'll immediately run out and claim they are officially now an author.

[Arika]

On 1/3/2023 at 2:52 PM, Kisai said:

someone who doesn't "start with a canvas" and can not use their minds eye

well since you keep using very generic examples of AI gens of how it's not art, how about you tell me how'd you'd recreate this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and @NumLock21 tell me, is this art?

 

I trained it on art I drew of my character

 

and if not, why?

[Kisai]

18 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

 

Person D is a nobody, they are not a artist or a photographer, etc. when they are not willing to take their time to properly learn the tools of the trade. What they want is, have something else do the work for them, have it done as quickly as possible while, with no effort on their part, and then take all of the credit. If person D would tell AI to write a book for them, they'll immediately run out and claim they are officially now an author.

You do realize that people do ghostwriting right? That's exactly what celebrities do. They do not write books, they hire someone for pennies on the dollar to write a book and then slap their name on it to capitalize on their brand. They're not the only ones. Perhaps you've seen some rubbish mobile game or other movie/book tie-in that appears to just be a re-skin of something with the brand. That's the same idea.

 

Perhaps you've mis-construded the idea of asset-flipping and money laundering as what "art" is. Do you think artists wouldn't want to be landlords on the art they've created in the same way that music is? Because visual works and audio works are on opposing ends of licensing spectrum. Recording artists enjoy perpetual royalties, they merely need to make, or be the first to popularize a style. Actors in movies get residuals for decades in addition to being paid up front, but they aren't paid for every use of their likeness. At least not yet.

 

An audio work can be enjoyed multiple times, on repeat, sung by different people, remixed by different people, and sometimes those covers are for profit due to a specific carve-out in American copyright. What tends to happen with visual works is that another artist re-interprets the original work, because they enjoyed the original, or wish to profit off the recognition of the original. (There are entire conventions in Japan that are nothing but re-interpretations of commercial and other fan visual and audio works.) That carve-out does not exist for visual works. If you remix someone's visual work, there is no copyright society to pay for it that will pay the original artist. 

 

The "bad end" scenario is that there will be 12 or so "good models" for virtual artists/actors, musicians and writers, and everyone will use those models in the same way everyone uses AutoTune to make "perfect" singers out of amateurs. Everyone uses AutoTune(TM)-like tools now, and that's just what people are used to hearing. Before AutoTune it was dynamic range compression. Music prior to 1980 sounded different.

 

The "good end" scenario is that this AI art generation stuff makes visual works more like a video game holodeck, and a lot of this private stuff is made for people's personal enjoyment only. Look no further than what "player housing" really is in MMORPG's. That is also just remixing existing game assets. Yet by your definition, someone who decorates their player house is not an artist either. 

 

The plausible scenario is that young actors and singers will have their voices and likenesses recorded and then those recordings are used to produce "new" mixes, and also AI-trained new songs in the style of their youthful voice. And if an a musical artist loses their voice entirely, well the AI can still allow them to sing.  

 

With AI visual works, this can also be done, but we are a lot less of the way there. Let's say a visual artist is in an accident and loses the function of their dominant hand. Well now they can't draw anymore, or at least not at the level they used to. The AI trained on their own works can perhaps "improve" that off-hand drawing into what their dominant hand was capable of.  Not a perfect solution, but that would offer them a way to keep doing what they want to do.

 

What is "art" is subjective, and "time" is not part of it. It's where creativity comes into it. If you are making a creative decision in taking a photo, or a creative decision in letting the AI compose a scene or an image, it's still the human doing that, despite the rest of the steps being done by machine. Now would it be possible for an AI to be told to "generate a cat in every art style known", yes, maybe that isn't a creative decision because there is an unknown variable there.

 

https://mashable.com/article/music-melody-algorithm-midi-copyright

Quote

It’s become a regular occurence in the music industry: An artist releases a song. The song becomes a hit. Fans of another artist notice similarities to one of their songs. That other artist’s label or legal team also notices these similarities. The two artists either come to an agreement or go to court over royalties based on who owns the copyright.

...

Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin, two fellow musicians and programmers, developed an algorithm to come up with every possible music combination. The goal: to copyright every single combo in order to give it to the public so musicians and artists can use melodies without worrying about copyright issues down the line.

 

The algorithm created by the two programmer-musicians can put together every single 8-note, 12-beat melody combo. According to Riehl, the algorithm can generate 300,000 melodies per second. In order for these melodies to be copyrighted, they must be created as a work. So, the algorithm outputs MIDI files of the melodies to a hard drive.

This is how things go wrong. The goal is noble, make every possible music combination public domain, even if nobody would ever use it. But who is to stop a corporation from doing the same? Do we want a corporate AI to have the exclusive rights to "cats in any artists style" just because it can generate them infinitely? 

 

That is why copyright should not be given to algorithm-driven "art". There has to be a human at the helm to make the input decision, not just iterate through every possible answer.

 

 

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

I care for both art piece and how that that art piece was made. With your 2 choices, another factor to be added in, that is the human care factor, like how much your friend cares about you. For choice 1, while the art is hand drawn, it was done at the last minute, that means they don't really care about your bday or you in existence anyway. For choice 2, you know your friend cannot draw but they do remember your bday, and wanted to make an artwork, done by an AI that reminds both of you when you were kids. That would bring back great memories and it's a very thoughtful gift. Would I say my friend is the artist, No since they can't draw, the artist here would be the AI.

But do you consider both pieces art? Which would you say has the most value as a piece of art? Which one would you appreciate the most? 

 

I would say piece number 2 is art, created by the friend with love and care, and holds the most value. I would also say piece number one is art but that it doesn't hold much value, and I would not appreciate it.

Piece number 2 especially is art however, because it's the thought, care and end result that matters, not which particular method they used to achieve the result. The AI didn't decide to make a picture depicting a fond memory, the friend did. The AI was just the tool the friend decided to use to create the piece of art they depicted in their mind. If someone had happened to have a camera and be able to capture the moment it happened, rather than recreate it using an AI several years later then that photography would probably also be art, because of the thought, care and end result.

 

 

Art isn't about which method is used to achieve something. Art is about expression ideas. It's about evoking emotions and/or thoughts. It's about making something that is pleasant to experience (through sight, hearing, feeling, or other senses).

Art is, in my opinion, about the end result. AI software, Photoshop, paint brushes, cameras, all of those are just means to an end. They hold little value by themselves. In some cases they might slightly elevate the art piece, for example knowing that the Sistine Chapel ceiling was hand painted makes the piece even more impressive, but it's not because it is hand painted that it's so impressive. It's impressive because it is so beautiful, grand and because of what it depicts. The ceiling would not be considered a masterpiece if it was stick figures jerking each other off. It's a masterpiece because of the result, not the method.

 

I think this is where I most strongly disagree with a lot of anti-AI artists. Those artists do not seem to care about art, because they do not care about the end result. They care more about the method, because that's what they have built their identity on.

If being an "artist" means I am no longer allowed to care for the actual art pieces then fine, I don't want to be an artist. You can call me something else if you want, like "prompt writer" or whatever. The label isn't really that important. What should be important is the results.

[Kisai]

20 minutes ago, Arika S said:

well since you keep using very generic examples of AI gens of how it's not art, how about you tell me how'd you'd recreate this?

No that's the other person in the thread making the argument that "no AI art generation is art"

 

There needs to be a human on the input side for it to be "art", the AI has no mind's eye. It has no concept of composition.

 

No instead I can tell you why I know it's AI.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

 

Please keep in mind this is like 10 minutes, basically asking "why would a human do the things in red" 

 

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 

 

In a sense, there are bunch of mistakes that "an AI does" because it doesn't know what this is. Stable diffusion is particularly terrible at hands.

 

20 minutes ago, Arika S said:

and tell me, is this art?

 

I trained it on art I drew of my character

 

and if not, why?

 

So based on the plain description of your character, they are a purple wolf girl with a white-black clothing aesthetic and a black choker and black cuffs. If you showed me both of these images and then go "which one is the AI" The one that I didn't put blue arrows on is more likely to be chalked up to artist mistakes, but even then, if that was a commission I would kick it back to the artist for the reasons pointed out.

 

An AI "prompt" can not fix those. The AI doesn't fundamentally understand what any of the things in the scene are to even begin fixing it.

 

This art style is also nothing like "your style" on your pixiv. So let's say for the sake of argument, that you commissioned me, but you handed me the works in this thread rather than the works from your pixiv and said "I want this", what I would likely end up doing (assuming this was something I was going to do) sketch out a drawing from the "key" symbols I see in the image, the wolf-style ears, and the front part of the hair, the choker but there really is nothing else in the image that tells me what this character is supposed to be.

 

But that's just how I see it. The output of Stable Diffusion is at best, awful. If you say "I made this" but can't create a consistent style, that's a red flag that the person making the claim isn't using their "drawing skill" but something else. That could be tracing, that could be AI art generators, that could be loading a 3D model from Vroid and tracing over that for all I care. But the point is that there has to be a creative choice in doing that.

 

The reason "tracers" get ripped to shreds on the internet is because the images they choose to rip off are already well known. This is what happens with stable diffusion, is that the "images" that make up the training set are literately the same images everyone can find in LAION and Google Image search. If I take your image and drop it into google images, what do I get?

 

1) "Nekomata"

2) Hololive Nekomata Okayu

 

Do you want to be accused of ripping off some Nekomata Okayu fanart? That is the risk you carry when you publish AI generated artwork without indicating it's "AI Generated", someone will take the image, drop it into google image search and be told exactly what "it looks like", even if you never saw the training source at all.

 

I would not risk passing off "AI generated artwork" as something "you made", especially if you're not willing fix all the obvious things the AI doesn't understand, because you won't be able to justify those mistakes to another artist.

[Arika]

6 minutes ago, Kisai said:

I would not risk passing off "AI generated artwork" as something "you made",

Nor do i think anyone should claim they "made it". Any AI art posted anywhere should be tagged as such because as you and i both know, it's incredibly easy to spot and anyone claiming AI art to be something it is not, will be hammered on pretty hard by pretty much everyone else (me included).

 

13 minutes ago, Kisai said:

An AI "prompt" can not fix those. The AI doesn't fundamentally understand what any of the things in the scene are to even begin fixing it.

A prompt can't but what you can do is keep running it through the img2img and get it to keep doing the same picture over and over and then taking the best parts of each and collaging them together.

 

 

----

 

Just so it's clear, this is all for fun for me. i'm not really defending people who post AI art only or attacking those people. basically i'm in the "As long as it's clearly tagged as being AI art and you're not trying to present it as something it's not, then i don't care, have fun"

Is it art?; yes, a different type of art, but it's still art.

 

Basically this is almost identical to my views on it

 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Nor do i think anyone should claim they "made it". Any AI art posted anywhere should be tagged as such because as you and i both know, it's incredibly easy to spot and anyone claiming AI art to be something it is not, will be hammered on pretty hard by pretty much everyone else (me included).

I don't think it is that easy to spot. Recently, an artist was banned on /r/art because his drawing "looked like AI art", even though it wasn't and he supplied the psd files to prove that he made it himself (he still got banned though, and so did a lot of people who questioned the ban).

 

Spotting AI art might be easy in some circumstances, but not all. I also think that it will continue to improve so the tells that exist today might not exist in a few years.

 

1 hour ago, Arika S said:

Just so it's clear, this is all for fun for me. i'm not really defending people who post AI art only or attacking those people. basically i'm in the "As long as it's clearly tagged as being AI art and you're not trying to present it as something it's not, then i don't care, have fun"

Is it art?; yes, a different type of art, but it's still art.

I think this is the right mentality to have.

Don't pass a creation off as something it isn't. Don't mislead people into thinking AI generated art is hand painted, just like you shouldn't claim a photograph with a water color filter is an actual water color painting.

[Thaldor]

I love it when discussions go to what is and what isn't art because when you come from more engineering background (hard surface 3D modelling and game design is where I specialized) and start to work with artists there's a ton of things that don't make a single sense to you and the biggest thing is "what is art?".

 

Painting on canvas is always art or that's what is often thought but is paint on canvas always art or is it just the name of the "artist" and their influence what makes it "art"?

No one will argue that Mona Lisa isn't art but if da Vinci was to use bedsheet as canvas and draw a brown line to it, would that be art? For art people most probably it would be masterpiece predating any art movement by Leonardo da Vinci, worth of millions and everyone would loose their minds over it. But only as long as it is signed or can be traced to da Vinci, if it was made by John Doe in 2022, it would just be a skidmark on canvas worth nothing and most likely considered mocking of art, which again would be art if done by person with right name and status.

 

Just couple years back there was huge news about a certain piece of art, extremely visual, mind blowing, so great that half of the world was pissing their pants for it. And it was banana and piece of duct tape, $120,000 for a banana taped to a wall named "Comedian" by Maurizio Cattelan. 2018 some Scottish students left a pineapple on an empty stand in art gallery only to find it covered with glass and "mistaken" for "art" later and some people apparently were very taken meeting the "artist" of this magnificent "art piece" (which it wasn't in right terms). So what is a difference between a banana taped to a wall and pineapple on a stand?

 

Art has nothing to do with how you do something, what you use or whatever you even do. It is all about status and who the hell is crazy enough to pay for it and spread it. You can do amazing photorealistic portraits with coal on paper and none of them will be considered art unless someone with high status is ready to pay for you huge sums and starts to talk to their high status friends about you, while with correct name your skid mark in your underwear is an masterpiece.

 

So, what is a difference between AI image and AI art? If Banksy was to train an AI to make an image for him, would that be AI art? If we take a person and they use a decade to study Banksy art and tell them to make a new piece in likeness of Banksy, how is that different from us using fraction of time and money (probably still more than it took to tape a banana to a wall)?

Banksy is a great example here also for other things, like how is it different to find images to teach AI and then keywords to guide AI to make an piece from stealing neon signs and placing them somewhere? Or the banana taped to a wall, I would eat my hat if Mr. Cattelan created the banana and manufactured the duct tape, his own input to the art piece is just choosing the banana and tape from store and setting them up and posing in front of them. Banksy piece becomes wanted and great once he publicly announces it as his piece, by certain theories he might have designed it but the execution is made by someone else, which does bring us again questioning how it is different from AI art because Banksy, as himself, didn't create that piece, just told (and paid) someone else to make it and shut up about it.

 

As we can see time and effort also apparently aren't measures for art because seemingly training AI and coming up with keywords is, especially with modern art, a lot more time and effort than it takes to make an actual art piece. Even made by someone looses it's meaning when the someone could just as well pay someone else to make it and as long as they paid enough and no one talks, no one knows the one didn't do it and we can all play along and keep it as the ones piece of art.

[tikker]

13 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I completely agree with you. But I think this logic would only work if AI art was generated in a program that had a single button and didn't need any input from the human. That is not the case however. It can require a lot of effort to get a good image out of an AI program. I think what a picture shows is more important than how it was made. That's why I can value a photograph more than I value a painting, even thought the painting probably required more effort. 

 

 

Which of these things would you value more:

1) A piece of paper that had "happy birthday" and two stick figures hastily and poorly drawn on it by your friend, that they drew during your birthday because they had forgotten that it was today. They had to ask to borrow a pen from you so that they could draw it too, because they didn't have any pen of their own with them.

 

2) A picture depicting a memory of you and your friend as kids. It's a memory that both of you hold very fondly and often talks about. The picture is printed on a piece of acrylic. However, since your friend can't draw they spent hours in an AI program to recreate the image to look just like they wanted it to.

 

 

People like NumLock21 will say alternative number one holds more artistic value than the second one, because people like NumLock21 does not care about the art piece itself. They only care about the process and whether or not the piece was created through an approved method or not.

At least that's my interpretation of their arguments. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong @NumLock21.

I could appreciate 1   but for sake of the argument, indeed number 2 would hold more artistic value to me. Maybe part of the issue is the AI still being perceived as an an omnipotent black box? Playing around with Stable Diffusion lately I must say it is/can be as hard to get it to make the thing you want as when I would ask a human to come up with it. Probably even harder.

10 hours ago, SolarNova said:

I'd like to interject an example. A compare the difference if you will.

 

Target : Produce a piece of 'art' representing the view 'over there'.

 

Person A : Pallete and Easel ...starts painting.

Person B : Tripod and camera ... start taking pictures

person C : Laptop and photoshop ... starts 'drawing'.

Person D : Laptop and Stable Diffusion ... starts inputting keywords.

 

Each one produces an image closely depicting the aforementioned view.

Each has a different method, each takes time to create ...each requires a human persons artistic ability to make (some in certain ways more than others), and each results in a suitable piece of work.

 

For those who dont think so called 'AI Art' ..is 'Art' .

Why is one not considered Art while the rest are ?

 

Food for thought.

Much better than I could have put it. In each of those examples you clearly have something in your mind that you are trying to achieve and you are using different tools to bring that depiction into existence. I would agree to there being a difference between each one, and perhaps even A being "more valuable" since it is inherently more difficult and rare, but I would consider all of them art.

7 hours ago, Kisai said:

This is because the AI has no more understanding of a cat or a dog than a human who has never seen one.

I think this is an important point. You make good arguments about there being a lack of fundamental understanding in AI that humans do have. If you were to ask someone that has never seen a cat to draw one, describing it as a small four-legged furry animal, I would not be surprised if you get similar kitbashing of things they do know. My impression is that if it is not trained to do something, it will replace you as likely as that an untrained human will replace you. I like your breakdown of how you can tell those pics were AI generated.

 

6 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

All of them are producing art through different mediums, but are all of them consider to be an artist? No

Person A and C are the real artist.
Person B, taking picture is somewhat "an art" but when someone says they're an artist, most people would think of drawing, sketching, painting, not taking photos. Person B would be a photographer..

Person D is a nobody, they are not a artist or a photographer, etc. when they are not willing to take their time to properly learn the tools of the trade. What they want is, have something else do the work for them, have it done as quickly as possible while, with no effort on their part, and then take all of the credit. If person D would tell AI to write a book for them, they'll immediately run out and claim they are officially now an author.

So the over-arching question is actually what do you consider an artist and whether the paradigm is allowed to shift to include AI as a tool of the trade.

 

What you describe is like me asking you to draw me something and then me selling it as my own. That happens, but is also focussing on bad faith to me. Consider the other side: I have a scene in my head that I want visualised for a compound work, say a book that I want illustrations for. I have thought long and hard about it and spent hours or days feeding the AI keywords, basically writing a story, to arrive exactly at what I wanted.

 

Let's say it would have taken a painter the same amount of time to paint it, because a fellow human inherently understands you and understands you quicker because it has more experience (i.e. training) to draw from. In both cases I have let someone/something else do the work for me. In both cases I have to put in effort to clearly describe what I want, probably having an easier task with the human since they have human understanding and more experience (or "training") to draw from. And in both cases I will get the majority of the credit as the main author of the book.

 

I agree that you should say "visualised by <insert human>" or "visualised using <insert AI>" and not claim to have fully created it all yourself, but I would consider that a valid use case and not detrimental to the work's artsiness as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to calling someone who writes stories an artist, but I wouldn't call them an artist for their drawings, but rather for their story and the style of illustrations to go with them.

[NumLock21]

13 hours ago, Arika S said:

and @NumLock21 tell me, is this art?

 

I trained it on art I drew of my character

Both would be art, one is done by you, the other is done by at the AI, that is trained by you. If you were to say I am the artist for the picture that you drew using your hands, then I fully agree. If you were to say I am the artist on the picture that was drawn by the AI, then I would disagree. You trained the AI to draw like you, so the artist here is the AI

12 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But do you consider both pieces art? Which would you say has the most value as a piece of art? Which one would you appreciate the most? 

Yes both are consider as pieces of art and number 2, even though it's done by the AI, it has more value because my friend remembers my bday and has came up with a very nice and thoughtful gift.  The other friend who did art #1 don't care about me and my bday anyway. It's what I've mentioned earlier in my other post.

5 hours ago, tikker said:

So the over-arching question is actually what do you consider an artist and whether the paradigm is allowed to shift to include AI as a tool of the trade.

They can only be called artist only if they are doing most of the work on their own, without using AI majority of the time.

5 hours ago, tikker said:

What you describe is like me asking you to draw me something and then me selling it as my own. That happens, but is also focussing on bad faith to me. Consider the other side: I have a scene in my head that I want visualised for a compound work, say a book that I want illustrations for. I have thought long and hard about it and spent hours or days feeding the AI keywords, basically writing a story, to arrive exactly at what I wanted.

That's why books gives credit to their proper people, like the person who wrote the story, the person who did the illustration, etc, this also applies to AI. if you use AI with your book give the AI credit for their part of the work.

5 hours ago, tikker said:

Let's say it would have taken a painter the same amount of time to paint it, because a fellow human inherently understands you and understands you quicker because it has more experience (i.e. training) to draw from. In both cases I have let someone/something else do the work for me. In both cases I have to put in effort to clearly describe what I want, probably having an easier task with the human since they have human understanding and more experience (or "training") to draw from. And in both cases I will get the majority of the credit as the main author of the book.

You'll get the credit for the book, but you will also give proper credit to all of those who help you make the book, including the AI.

5 hours ago, tikker said:

I agree that you should say "visualised by <insert human>" or "visualised using <insert AI>" and not claim to have fully created it all yourself, but I would consider that a valid use case and not detrimental to the work's artsiness as a whole. I wouldn't be opposed to calling someone who writes stories an artist, but I wouldn't call them an artist for their drawings, but rather for their story and the style of illustrations to go with them.

I would called person who drew the pictures for your book the artist/illustrator, and the person who wrote the story the writer/author. But the whole book can also be consider as a work of art. It's also important to properly credit in detail as to who did what part in creating that book. It's like the credits to a movie, they go into detail and credit every individual as to who did what during the filming of that movie.

My whole point is to give proper credit on how and where those things comes from. Some people that uses AI, claim they did everything by themselves and demands all of the credit. First of all that is just wrong and second it's a lie, where they will eventually be found out, when they cannot replicate "their own" previous work.

 

11 hours ago, Kisai said:

In a sense, there are bunch of mistakes that "an AI does" because it doesn't know what this is. Stable diffusion is particularly terrible at hands.

That red arrow your pointing to the leg "random hair" on the art done by the AI. That "hair" seem to go around the entire leg, and there seem to be a transparent material that goes up to where the outer pants are. It looks like as if the character is wearing 2 pairs of pants, the transparent one underneath the visible one. it want to be fashion trend setter so it has one legging longer than the other.

[Thaldor]

One thing I also would like to point out, artists hate crediting others, even less probably AI. And that is historical fact which no one can even question without getting to the dirty side of art business through centuries. Even today with the quite complicated world of copyrights and origin rights and all that, especially traditional arts of painting and sculpting are far from what the law says about crediting the "artists".

Artists having studios with assistants and apprentices is common through the ages. With that also not crediting the assistants and apprentices is more the rule of the art than exception and here starts the big question with AI art.

 

If artists using assistants don't need to credit them for their work, why would it be any different with AI with even less legal rights?

 

Warhol's studio was even named "The Factory" to tell that it wasn't just Warhol who did art there, still every piece is credited to Andy Warhol. And we don't even need to go that far (although we could go as far as anyone would want to go, like you believe Michelangelo did all of his works only by his own hands? And who do we credit for that?) even today we can just take a peek at Takashi Murakami and find out that it's not the artists who creates that gets credited but who comes up with the idea. The amount of credits Murakamis workforce get... Zero. We have artists like Olafur Eliasson who openly credit his whole studio for the art they do and then we have Kehinde Wiley who is very silent about his art being outsourced to China with way less people to name than Eliasson but does he do that? Absolutely no.

 

If in traditional arts we are so open about not crediting the people who do the work and are ready to give the whole credit to the one who merely came up with the idea of the work directly tossing every and each artists copyright to their work to the trash bin, why should we need to credit AI's for the work they do when they aren't even humans with human rights, even less artists with copyrights?

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

That red arrow your pointing to the leg "random hair" on the art done by the AI. That "hair" seem to go around the entire leg, and there seem to be a transparent material that goes up to where the outer pants are. It looks like as if the character is wearing 2 pairs of pants, the transparent one underneath the visible one. it want to be fashion trend setter so it has one legging longer than the other.

I wanted to keep the critique simple, that "random hair" I knew could have been a line from possibly an android/cyborg, just like the random hair on the arm. I put an arrow on the hand that was on the ground but didn't label it because I felt it was obvious.

 

I hope you understand the point I was making was that if you commissioned an artist, the the things with red arrows are not "artistic choices" but rather a result of the AI kitbashing different training data weights.

 

Here's a "tutorial" of a self-hosted stable diffusion example, to give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

https://stable-diffusion-art.com/how-to-use-img2img-to-turn-an-amateur-drawing-to-professional-with-stable-diffusion-image-to-image/

 

If you put in your scribble through img2img and say "sexy super hero, marvel style", and it spits out something usable (it may take hundreds of tries, and expanding the prompt with as many as 500 words) and then run it through a second time but replace "marvel" with "manga". This is what "style transfer" is. It doesn't so much as "draw X in Y style" but it applies the weights of Y instead of X, thus the output will be identifiable as Y, but maybe look a lot more kitbashed as those other words may not have the same weighting with "manga" as they do with "marvel"

 

A lot of what the "AI" does is black-box. We don't actually know how the AI comes up with the result, because the entire point of using neural nets is to be able to do the thing at speeds that would take a linear process thousands of times longer, and reverse-engineering it is essentially impossible.

 

General text AI's coming up with food recipes is where I would draw the line and tell people who are not professional cooks, not to do that. The AI is certainly lacking the experience necessary to know how food is cooked, and may give you a recipe that looks benign but when you start cooking it creates poison fumes or the subsequent result is lethal because of it not knowing that ingredient has to be prepared a certain way to not be deadly. It may also inadvertently kitbash a recipe for cookies with a recipe for dog cookies, and the result may not kill you, but might kill the dog. 

 

To that end, using an AI Art generator to pass off something generated as a human, brings the same risk as the text AI creating cooking recipes. If not correctly labeled as "AI generated", there runs a risk of a human without experience potentially bringing some consequence upon themselves or others. Like the immediate risk that comes to mind is using an AI to photobash a crowd and then pass it off as "protests against X", and a real news source runs the image for a story. 

 

Like I kid you not, this happens every time on Rememberance day/Veterans Day. There will be pieces of artwork that are actually from WWII PC games, or from indie films that end up being used instead of actual photos, because the people doing the text, have no understanding of the source material the images are from. Now imagine this problem with AI generated propaganda. Now you can not trust ANY photos that do not come from different photographers at the same scene at the same time, because a single image might be "AI generated."

 

Fortunately the low-resolution is a give-away for now.

 

[Lightwreather]

10 hours ago, Kisai said:

Fortunately the low-resolution is a give-away for now.

*Real-CUGAN, Real-ESRGAN and waifs-2x sitting quietly in a corner*

 

ofc, they work better with illustrations than irl stuff, but still

[Kisai]

Copyright Alliance (Washington Lobby group that advocates on behalf of the MPAA/RIAA, etc) has released a statement on their position on AI.

 

https://copyrightalliance.org/policy/position-papers/artificial-intelligence/

 

Quote

Fair Use

There are some who believe that use of copyrighted works for AI ingestion will always qualify as a fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act. That view is inaccurate. While there may be instances where ingestion and training qualify as a fair use under section 107, that likely would not be the case if a TDM license is available, the use is commercial, or the resulting AI generated work harms the actual or potential market for the ingested work. The answer will depend on the facts in each particular case.

 

Some AI developers have, without authorization, used training data sets or pre-trained AI created by non-commercial third parties in their commercial products—a practice known as data laundering. Neither this kind of unauthorized use nor the work of the non-commercial entity necessarily qualify as fair use. Ultimately, AI systems should only train on works or databases of content that they have the authority to use.

 

Remember that the position of big media is that you should pay for every single use (commercial, personal, incidental, etc) and that fair use should not exist.

[Vode]

On 12/26/2022 at 2:53 AM, LAwLz said:

Why should only humans be allowed to study and copy others, and why shouldn't computers be allowed to do the same thing?

And who wrote that law/rule? I get that that might be what artists want, but that might not be the outcome if they try and push for rules or legislation.

I don't really see a logical reason for allowing humans to do something but not machines.

 

 

To me, someone using an AI image generator is as much of an artist as for example a photographer or music producer (who does things digitally).

It's not any less an "artist", but it's not the same say category of "artist" as someone who draws. Hell, I'd say someone who does vector graphics is not the same type of artist as someone drawing on paper either. 

 

There are a lot of definitions of what art and artists are. Personally, and judging by most dictionaries, an artist is someone who creates art. And definitions of "art" are usually a variant of "creating something that expresses an idea or thought".

I think a person who creates images through AI programs fits the definition of an "artist" if we go by those definitions. They have an idea or thought they want to express, they use a tool to create something that matches that idea, and they can present it to others. An artist making art.

I couldn't find any definitions of "art" or "artist" that included things like "you have to have spent X number of hours on it", "you're not allowed to use certain tools", or anything of the sort when looking up definitions.

Basically art is about respect for skill or resources (time).

 

We humans are wired to appreciate effort in that way.
 

Wearing a $20k Rolex shows you have enough resources you‘re able to waste some of it on a watch. It takes effort aquiring one. Wearing a $50 fake doesn‘t.

 

Creating art is similar, it‘s an enormous time sink usually to master a skill and this is a huge part of why good art is valuable on a subjective level. If it takes little effort on the part of the person who is clicking a button and it‘s actually hard to distinguish between human and AI ceeated art it devalues the whole idea. It disincentivizes putting actual effort in. People catch up to that and art in general will be valued less.

 

Just basic signalling theory. The signal must be hard to produce (wasteful to a degree) to be perceived as real or valuable.

 

It‘s understandable for artist to try and protect their craft.

[Vode]

On 1/2/2023 at 11:48 PM, NumLock21 said:

I care for both art piece and how that that art piece was made. With your 2 choices, another factor to be added in, that is the human care factor, like how much your friend cares about you. For choice 1, while the art is hand drawn, it was done at the last minute, that means they don't really care about your bday or you in existence anyway. For choice 2, you know your friend cannot draw but they do remember your bday, and wanted to make an artwork, done by an AI that reminds both of you when you were kids. That would bring back great memories and it's a very thoughtful gift. Would I say my friend is the artist, No since they can't draw, the artist here would be the AI.

 

 

The problem with that example is the human relationship between the creator and the one assinging value.

 

You need to give an example where there is no close personal relationship as this is usually how art is judged on a broad scale. 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

On 1/20/2024 at 10:31 AM, Vode said:

Basically art is about respect for skill or resources (time)

 

This is an hill I'm willing to defend. Art is subjective, and personally I consider a good diffusion output as art. I don't have the ability to draw, with diffusion I can make my D&D scenarios, tough it's a time intesive process to trick the diffusion model of getting the scene I want:
 

Spoiler

 

 

Something I like to post about this subject, is comments about the invention of the photography last century, that was tought to displace portrait artists. Which it did, and there are still artists doing amazing work. Inventing a new brush doesn't invalidate one's expertise, it just opens up new way to do art.

This is not an anti diffusion statement from 2024, but is an anti photography statement from 1901

 

[Holmes108]

39 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

 

This is an hill I'm willing to defend. Art is subjective, and personally I consider a good diffusion output as art. I don't have the ability to draw, with diffusion I can make my D&D scenarios, tough it's a time intesive process to trick the diffusion model of getting the scene I want.... (snip)

 

 

 

Agree with your whole post. 

 

I'll take it one step further (unpopular opinion time!). I'm 45 years old, meaning I'm well into 'boomer' territory as far as the internet is concerned. But honestly, all of the anti-AI art stuff, including voice work, etc, is all about the most 'boomerish' stuff I've heard in a long time. 

 

It's here. It's happening. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. But more importantly, in the grand scheme of things, everything will be okay. It always is.

 

But the idea of boycotts and outrage because you heard a product used an AI asset, and other stuff of the sort just seems crazy to me, and is absolutely no different than those that complained and fear mongered about most other forms of technology such as, the printing press, the aforementioned photography etc etc.

 

I mean, if you want to boycott it because you think it's genuinely an inferior product due to use of AI work that isn't high quality, that's a different thing entirely. But on principle? Well, I just don't get it. 

[jagdtigger]

6 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

But the idea of boycotting shit because you heard it used an AI asset, and other stuff of the sort, just seems crazy to me, and is absolutely no different than those that complained and fear mongered about most other forms of technology such as, the printing press, the aforementioned photography etc etc.

Problem is none of your examples ended as much jobs as AI will, you kinda comparing apes to oranges. And that is the essential issue, many will loose their jobs and wont be able to work in their profession because evdry company will use AI........