I made my avatar with AI gen. Shit’s perfect for things like that.
Still would pay a real person to make something closer to what I imagine though. I mean … if I had money that is.
Comment on Not everything needs to be Art
Armand1@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Hey, as long as you don’t try to
- Sell it
- Claim it’s yours
- Use it instead of hiring professionals if you’re a business
not too fussed.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net 2 months ago
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.
Why not claim it’s yours? You wrote the prompt. See Pet Rocks above.
Not use it and instead hire a professional? That argument died with photography. Don’t take a photo, hire a painter!
So what if AI art is low quality. Not every product needs to be art.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.
Why not claim it’s yours? You wrote the prompt. See Pet Rocks above.
Because, unlike pet rocks, AI generated art is often based on the work of real people without attribution or permission, let alone compensation.
Not use it and instead hire a professional? That argument died with photography. Don’t take a photo, hire a painter!
So what if AI art is low quality. Not every product needs to be art.
Do you know what solidarity is? Any clue at all?
Seems like the concept is completely alien to you, so here you go:
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Do you know what solidarity is?
Do you know what a luddite is?
The simplest argument, supported by many painters and a section of the public, was that since photography was a mechanical device that involved physical and chemical procedures instead of human hand and spirit, it shouldn’t be considered an art form;
…wikiversity.org/…/History_of_Photography_as_Fine…
That a particular AI could have used copywrited work is a completely different argument than what was first stated.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Do you know what a false equivalence is? If not, just reread your own comment for a fucking perfect example.
I’m not wasting any more time and effort trying to explain the blindingly obvious to your willfully obtuse ass. Have the day you deserve.
pennomi@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Copyright and intellectual property is a lie cooked up by capitalists to edge indie creators out of the market.
True solidarity is making AI tools and freely sharing them with the world. Not all AIs are locked down by corporations.
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Those capitalists support AI because it would allow them to further cut out all creators from the market. If you want solidarity, support artists against the AI being used to replace them.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Solidarity with you bourgeoisie fucks is like the solidarity of the turtle with the scorpion
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Yeah, nothing is more bougie than independent artists, most of whom are struggling to make ends meet even WITH a day job… 🙄
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Says the person supporting capitalist corporations pushing AI as a replacement for real human artwork?
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I agree, except you’re the one showing solidarity with the bourgeoisie.
AI is a too of the bourgeoisie to suppress the working classEldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
Ah yes, how dare artists make $5 an hour instead of $0 while you pay a corporation a subscription fee instead. That’ll show those lazy artists that they’ve had it too good for too long.
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them
Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.
Not use it and hire a professional? If you use AI instead of an artist, you will never make anything new or compelling, AI cannot generate images without a stream of information to train off of. If we don’t have artists and replace them with AI, like dumbass investors and CEOs want, they will reach a point where it is AI training off AI and the well will be poisoned. Ai should be used simply as a tool to help with the creation of art if anything, using it to generate “new” artwork is a fundamentally doomed concept.
Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world 2 months ago
These articles feel like they aren’t really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I’m not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 months ago
Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.
I didn’t know that pet rocks were made by breaking stolen statues and gluing googly eyes on them.
turtletracks@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
If your AI was trained entirely off work you had the rights to, sure. But it was not.
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Why is it valid for you to be trained off of art you didn’t have rights to but not for an open source program running locally on my PC?
It would not be a copyright violation if you created a completely original super hero in the art style of Jack Kirby.
turtletracks@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
What’s the equivalence you’re trying to make? The program itself may be open source, but the images the model’s been trained on are copywritten.
And if you personally hand made it, sure. By nature, nothing an LLM makes is “completely original”
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Use it instead of hiring professionals if you’re a business
Why wouldn’t you though?
Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
Remember when corporations tried to claim that money you didn’t spend on their product was theft ? This way of thinking has been recycled by the anti-AI bros.
Turns out all the money you don’t spend on struggling artists is not only theft, but also class warfare. You stinking bougie you.
saltesc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Because then artists aren’t getting paid but you’re still using their art. The AI isn’t making art for you just because you typed a prompt in. It got everything it needs to do that from artists.
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 months ago
So it’s more of an ethical “someone somewhere is probably being plagiarized and that’s bad” thing and not really a business or pragmatic decision. I guess I can get that but can’t see many people following through with that.
Some people got mad at a podcast I follow because they use AI generated episode covers. Which is funny because they absolutely wouldn’t be paying an artist for that work, it’d just be the same cover, so not like they switched from paying someone to not paying them.
saltesc@lemmy.world 2 months ago
The issue isn’t similar to using other people’s data for profit. It’s easy to not feel that’s the case because “it’s the AI that does that, not me.”
There’s a lot of concerns around it. Mine is that it stagnates and we have longer periods of style with minimal variety because of artist stagnation due to lack of financial backing. Though, this is for all gen AI as it depends on humans for progression, else it stagnates. People are already getting AI art.fatigue because it feels like that old 2000–2015 Adobe Illustratorgradient vector art—it would be brming with that shit. It depends on more artists progressing our art to be able to do the same. But it won’t do that as fast if art.culture.is slowed due to lack of support.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
Because that’s a harm to society and economy.
It’s gutting entire swaths of middle-class careers, and funneling that income into the pockets of the wealthy.
If you’re a single-person startup using your own money and you can’t afford to hire someone else, sure. That’s ok until you can afford to hire someone else.
If you’re just using it for your personal hobbies and for fun, that’s probably ok
But if you’re contributing to unemployment and suppressed wages just to avoid payroll expenses, there is a guillotine with your name on it.Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 months ago
Please don’t use the “but it creates jobs” argument.
Me shitting in the street also “creates jobs” because someone has to clean it.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
It feels like you’re directing that at me, but I agree with you, so I’m not sure what tone that was written in
Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 2 months ago
I think what matters if you would’ve otherwise hired someone. Otherwise I can’t see it making any impact.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I don’t agree:
Before if you chose not to hire someone, you’d be competing against better products from people who did hire someone. Hiring someone gave them a competitive advantage.
By removing the competitive advantage of hiring someone, you’re destroying an entire career path, harming the economy and society in general.
nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 2 months ago
Also don’t call yourself an engineer. You’re a prompt monkey.
pigup@lemmy.world 2 months ago
So because I use chatgpt for help coding data analysis scripts, I am no longer a mechanical engineer?
skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
No, you are a mechanical engineer that uses AI.
“Prompt Engineer” is a “real” job title
Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com 2 months ago
Except it’s not used as a job title to describe people prompting Midjourney lol. A prompt engineer is a software engineer who specifically deals with LLM workflows.
nichtburningturtle@feddit.org 2 months ago
As long, as you don’t proclaim your proficiency in utilising generative AI as your only claim to the term. It’s fine.
PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca 2 months ago
I’d say that depends on how important data analysis is to the job of mechanical engineer, and the degree of help you get from chatgpt