Comment on ‘Mass theft’: Thousands of artists call for AI art auction to be cancelled
Zaleramancer@beehaw.org 1 month agoHey, thank you so much for your contribution to this discussion. You presented me a really challenging thought and I have appreciated grappling with it for a few days. I think you’ve really shifted some bits of my perspective, and I think I understand now.
I think there’s an ambiguity in my initial post here, and I wanted to check which of the following is the thing you read from it:
- Generative AI art is inherently limited in these ways, even in the hands of skilled artists or those with technical expertise with it; or,
- Generative AI art is inherently limited in these ways, because it will be ultimately used by souless executives who don’t respect or understand art.
barsoap@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Both are in there, and neither of those are wrong. Generative AI does have serious limitations when it comes to detail control, and it’s also used a lot by people (not necessarily executives) who don’t respect or understand art – even to create things that they then consider art.
The thing is that we’ve had the same discussion back when photography became a thing. Ultimately what it did was free the art of painting from the shackles of having to do portraits.
One additional thing is that I recommend extremely against trying to try and develop art skills by generating AI. Buy pencil and paper, buy a graphics tablet, open Krita or Blender, go through a couple of tutorials for a few days you’ll have learned more about what you need to know to judge AI output than what hitting generate could teach you in a year. How do I know that the eyes in that AI painting have an off-kilter perspective? Because, for the life of me, I can’t draw them straight either, but put enough hours into drawing to look at both the big picture and minute detail. One of the reasons I switched to sculpting.