The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.
That’s nice. Proud Gatekeeper here.
Art is human creativity. By its very definition, it cannot include something lacking originality.
A person may use AI as a tool to create art, but without human creativity it’s just mechanical regurgitation.
Human is the one with vision, AI is the tool. It’s just a much more advanced paint brush that anyone can use. Alone it doesn’t create anything and if the end result is bad, it’s not the fault of the brush.
AI art is just an art sub-genre like painting, sculpting or photography is. Saying it’s not art is like a film photographer saying digital is not real photography - gatekeeping.
Sorry, but I’ve seen this opinion expressed very often, though not word-for-word. Definitely not unpopular overall.
I don’t disagree, though I would argue that AI art can never have the same importance as art directly generated by a human using their full set of abilities.
And not every type of gatekeeping is bad.
The question about the legal and moral aspects of training on works of other artists is related, but a different discussion.
Thats not the main issue either. The issue is that Corpos rather prompt an LLM than pay for their artists.
If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that. I don’t see why you should artificially limit this. If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that’s who the audience is for the remaining human creators. AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don’t see what the issue is.
If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that.
it can’t create better content though
I don’t see why you should artificially limit this.
LLMS limit themselves already, no need to additionally artifical limit it.
If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that’s who the audience is for the remaining human creators
Corpos don’t care, ordinary people don’t care. Does it make it still a good thing that Corpos can pump out slop without paying a living wage to artists or atleast royalties to those they took the training data from (with or without their consent)?
AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don’t see what the issue is.
It pretty much can’t. It only mix and pattern matches existing photos.
Coming back to my first half sentence:
AI can’t create and when it only trains on it self it collapes, a short to this:
And not every type of gatekeeping is bad.
Right?
“You must be this tall to ride” isn’t because the amusement park hates short people. It’s a safety issue.
I don’t see how that comparison translates to the topic about AI art.
Speaking of gatekeeping, I’d like to never call those unoriginal lines of code “artificial intelligence.” They are just parrots with a larger vocabulary.
It came to light that marketers changed the definition of AI just to try to dupe people and (allegedly) investors. We didn’t really have the term AGI, or at least the general term AI did not need to specify it before. They chose AI because it was buzzwordy
i suppose i cant disagree with the premise… but to clarify, the AI is equivalent to a paint brush or phototshop… a tool used by the prompter to create (extremely derivative and hacky) artworks. i have seen a lot of very expressive works generated by AI, where a concept thought up by the prompter is expressed to humorous or sometimes grim results. but every AI image i have seen has tells of being AI generated.
every AI image i have seen has tells of being AI generated
Except the ones you didn’t realize were made by AI. You by definition can’t know how many have passed for you as “genuine”.
and by the same logic, you cant know if i have or have not been duped by an AI image. thanks for asserting expert knowledge of my perceptionsl capabilities, but you’ll understand that i am extremely skeptical of that assertion. based on how i consume media, the likelihood that i have been exposed to AI generated images without my knowledge is pretty low. but do continue to tell me what my experience of the world is … its kinda hilarious
It’s a rather safe assumption. I too like to tell myself a story about how I can always spot fakes but I know it to not be true.
Gave you an upvote. This is an unpopular opinion shared on unpopularopinion.
Personally I find AI art to look like “AI-art” if that makes sense. It has this generic look and feel to it. It might just be that people have to prompt it differently to get something that does not look generic.
In my view it can be art, but it is just other peoples art regurgitated by a machine with lots of filtering (to prevent nudity and other things that art historically often contain)
I think the biggest issue with LLMs / AI is that it is a loophole to use other peoples work and avoid copyright and licenses.
Personally I find AI art to look like “AI-art” if that makes sense.
I know what you mean and while I generally agree I must still note that this only applies to the “bad” examples. It’s conceivable that you too have seen pieces you truly liked but didn’t realize were made by AI. This is something people often don’t seem to consider; AI art is only bad untill it isn’t.
I think you’re confusing art with « content ». When I experience art (of any kind, painting, music, writing, highbrow or lowbrow), I’m interacting with the artist, their intention, sensibility, politics, etc. I don’t feel that connection with statistically generated images or prompt engineers, sorry.
I do photography and I’ve heard people analyze my work and try and find some meaning, intention or a message that I’m trying to convey with it.
The reality is that I took 150 pictures and that was the one I liked the best. There’s nothing to it for me except how it looks. The fact that I managed to capture that specific photo is hardly anything but an accident. There is no meaning to it and whatever meaning one imagines seeing there is just in their mind. It’s a story you’re telling yourself and you’d come up with a similar story from a piece made by AI that you didn’t realize was such. If it stops being art at the moment you learn it was made by AI but you accept it as art when it was made by human even if it was, in fact, an accident, then that’s exactly the gatekeeping I’m talking about.
You took the pics and you chose the one you liked best. Enough said.
Kudos op for a very unpopular opinion (at least on Lemmy).
I’d add that people trying to gatekeep what is and isn’t art are missing the whole entire point of it. I get the same vibe about AI art on Lemmy as when boomers criticize modern art on Facebook.
Any group that adds quotes around the word art (as in AI “art” or performance “art”) instantly loses any legitimacy on the subject. They’re virgins discussing sex acts.
