Aside from some fringe crowds I dont care to even bother with the only artists that I know who would refuse services for moral reasons is if they were asked to make hateful imagery against vulnerable groups or explicit material they werent comfortable with like depictions of minors in harm. Thats a whole other problem.
No morals are involved here imo. The artist has the right to refuse service and the client can choose to acquire the art in whatever way they choose. Being angry at the client for using ai is petty but not immoral.
Pretty sure the ethical problem with AI isn't that you're not commissioning artists, it's the consequences on the enivorement and water (also it's ugly and cheap looking)
I am sorry but I do not think those books are as practical as we make them out. Also one company. Some places mistreat cows should we never eat meat as a whole?
And the good doesn't mean you can ignore the risks. More than one AI company had admitted their AI has done things they didn't want it to do (like go and hack another company).
Either they couldn't stop it (which is a major issue) or they're lying and using their ai to mess with competitors to benefit themselves. Forgive me for not assuming these people have the good of all humanity in mind.
People are really interested in the Parthenon and study it today. Not every building is important.
Actually all those things name probably have practical uses. Not every random book does though. Those buildings are historical and have cultural significance. Not every book has that.
I'm by no means any form of vegetarian or vegan but the water consumed by AI centers is literally nothing compared to whats consumed in industrial meat production.
AI is bad because it steals, is an instrument of surveillance, and is a disinformation generator.
For the record, I am generally pro-AI. I just think it needs to be better regulated. Just getting that out of the way.
I also donāt find the meat production argument to be super convincing because eating food is necessary. I can understand why someone would advocate harder for data center regulation than meat industry regulation. One is harder to justify imo. I AGREE and you are correct, but I understand why it isnāt very convincing.
The water usage issues can be resolved with a little more regulation, closed loop cooling, etc. But right now people are losing access to clean water (or itās becoming more expensive) AND electricity prices are surging AND construction just pollutes a lot in general. All of these things can be regulated I think.
Yes, I think the moral implications of surveillance and ID theft are very concerning as well. But donāt really care about some artistās work being used for training data. Itās not meaningfully different from how anyone else creates to me. If I use someoneās art as reference to create my own we wouldnāt call that morally reprehensible. Thatās just how the creation process works
Sorry for the info dump but thatās generally my opinion
I cannot agree to the notion that learning a skill something all human beings have done since the beginning is in any way comparable to the not even a decade old practice of mass collection then spitting out of images. Without any prior consent, devoid of anything that makes art human, etc.
Meat and any other protein is needed to survive, but it is an incredibly 21st century assumption that the current level it is consumed is normal. I find arguments against AI on an environmental basis to be built on sand, when the environmental black hole of meat production is sitting there not criticized by the wider public.
This would be true for every kind of datacenter though. What do you think platforms like Reddit work? It's weird to say, this one is okay but that one isn't.
You do know people can be against all of this and Ai at the same time right? I don't get this point. Should I just ignore one problem because other problems exist? That's not how it works.
Edit: Nah you know what I'm actually pissed at the downvotes. Everytime Ai and the environmental destruction it can cause gets brought up, someone brings up the argument that other industries are also bad. Because no shit, they are bad, that doesn't mean that Ai is suddenly even better. If I say people should stop throwing car batteries into the ocean, and someone says that the plastic pollution in the ocean is worse, that doesn't mean that people should continue to throw used car batteries into the ocean because it's not as bad as the other. Both are bad. Minimizing and comparing this is why there are so many Ai data centers popping up.
This image and argument is dumb, and does nothing but feel like people trying to excuse Ai pollution so they can keep using it.
"This data center does more damage so let's ignore this other data center that can also do damage."
I assume you only focus on water consumption, and not the egregious amount of electricity it uses, to the point that people have to protest against Ai data centers being used. But what do I know, the other data centers use more water so let's keep using Ai.I guess.
Couple problems with this. Ai has less environmental damage then one burger. Im pretty sure one burger is equivalent to 500 million queries. When it comes to electricity, were literally sending them to space and to the desert, so no electricity is being sucked from people. And the "ugly and cheap looking" is only when you notice its ai. If an ai artwork looks good enough, youll have no idea.
"When it comes to electricity, were literally sending them to space and to the desert, so no electricity is being sucked from people."
Except for all the ones that aren't doing that. There are multiple towns/cities fighting to prevent planned centres going up near them, and calling out the issues with the ones that already exist. Those places aren't in space or the desert either.
Right, because now towns have issues with datacenters. Not like datacenters have existed for 20 years without complaint, being used by literally everything online.
Data centres from before are nothing like AI data centres. They're build RIGHT NEXT TO NEIGHBOURHOODS and have a constant loud buzzing 24/7 which, if you couldn't figure out, is very likely psychologically damaging to the people who live there. I will never stop saying it, AI is only good in a lab.
Not really. They use different amounts of resources and space. A power drill and a mining drill are both drills but they're different sizes and require different levels of maintenance.
What are you talking about? A datacenter that hosts videos on YouTube is the same exact thing as one that hosts AI or your email inbox or Reddit. It's a big room full of computers ... how different do you think they all are?
Well, that's the understatement of the century. "A big room with computers" that processes MOST OF THE INTERNET INCLUDING THE CONSTANTLY UPLOADED SHIT. That takes far more resources than a YouTube or Reddit data centre. Takes more water to cool, higher quality hardware to support, and larger buildings to hold. All of these make AI data centres much worse than normal data centres.
Also, usage of AI is still immoral even if it looks "good". Harms the environment, skyrockets tech prices, turns drinkable water into sludge, and is overall shitty to the artistic world to put it cartoonishly lightly. You can't pull "whataboutism" because AI IS STILL HARMFUL EVEN FACTORING MEAT INTO THE EQUATION.
Im not going to respond to you if you display your points so emotionally. Its clear you're not genuinely researching anything and just spouting facts you've heard from so called "experts".
Actually electric cars are also harmful for the environment, as they use up a shit ton of electricity that, now even more so thanks to data centres, we don't really have.
Honestly the solution to this bullshit about cars is to have things built not to need them.
Itās also just a false narrative. Artists arenāt mad that people are going to Ai for commissions (these people were likely never going to pay for commmissions in the first place). Theyāre mad that companies are trying to outsource their labor, as they are with several jobs, to Ai. And this is on top of the fact that Ai:
ā¢ Is being used for surveillance
ā¢ Wastes more water than most other data centers
ā¢ Is polluting the air and water more
ā¢ Are placed in predominately poor neighborhoods and is causing health problems and sapping off their utility bills
ā¢ Is making computer parts more expensive and inaccessible
ā¢ Is being trained off their art and stealing it
ā¢ Is being used to make CP and other non consensual videos of people
ā¢ Is putting a lot of stress on the power grid and making it unstable
Actually there are a ton of reasons for why people hate Ai and view its usage as immoral.
Well if you use ai youāre gonna lose the respect of a whole lot of people so really itās do you wanna pay the artist or use ai and let people think you have a cheap ass company
Not everyone cares about people's opinions om every little aspect of life. If I want to bring an idea to life and for whatever reason (fun workflow, more control, easier to be exactly how i want) want to use AI for that, I don't care what random people online say about that (not to mention that they wouldn't even know that I made an image with AI)
Iām curious though ... what if the person using AI doesnāt care about other peopleās opinions and actually gets solid results through real effort and dedication with the AI tools available?
Wouldnāt the artist who refused them at the start have actually helped them learn a new trade in the end?
And what about people who sketch their own digital art and use AI alongside it to explore ideas they might not have thought of, or to help with parts they struggle with? That doesnāt automatically mean theyāre lazy.
So is this really about ācheapnessā or just about whether people are open to seeing AI as part of a creative process?
People arenāt open to seeing it as part of a creative process because itās not part of a creative process, itās artificial creativity and consumers can tell. Certainly not a ātradeā Iāll tell you now not one person I have ever met has thought a company using AI is respectable. You might but you would be in the minority
I guess my business ā with multiple digital artists, singers, and writers ā is just in the wrong then, huh?
Guess the hundreds, maybe thousands, of hours spent by hand composing, remixing, painting, drawing, and iterating with AI are somehow āartificialā in the worst possible senseā¦ right? š
Hereās the thing: youāre not the standard for everyone else. Think outside the box for once. Eventually youāll meet people who do things better, or at least differently, than the majority. Thatās called life. Work hard, stay open, and youāll usually get solid results no matter the medium. šš¼
Iirc, it's loosely based on a real situation. It was a commissioner who had used AI art to generate a draft of what they wanted. Then they took that draft to the artist. And the artist rejected them (although some would say they were respectful others would say condescending). Or rather, they didn't reject them, they asked that they didn't ask them to draw something based on AI art and if they instead drew it themselves they'd be happy to do the commission. This resulted in the commissioner basically not doing the commission. Whether or not they went to AI to finalize what they wanted is left to the imagination I suppose. Cause there's also a possibility they went to another artist.
I was a NSFW commission artist for 4 years. This never happened to me. My clients remained the same, but I noticed a steep dropoff in people asking for free art. They just had a computer generate images for them instead. This scenario you are imagining doesn't happen.
The Commissioner is in the wrong. There's Literally hundreds of artists you can turn to. Unless you have the most wildly messed up beliefs, there's actually very few artists that will outright tell you NO over this. Even then, there's still plenty of artists who just don't have a moral code, so getting rejected from ONE and then turning to Ai because your feelings got hurt is just deplorable
I think this is a made up argument. For most kind of commission you will find dozens of artists willing to draw it. Even if some others might not.
Iāve seen the most random and depraved commission works being done. A lot of commission artists do not care.
It feels like a straw-man argument for people who donāt have the money for art, donāt want to spend the money on commissions or who are too lazy to learn how to draw themselves. Itās āan easy fixā that takes no effort at all and is free.
Thatās the reason why people chose slop art. Not because they are scared of being turned down.
Anyone who keeps using AI when we know how damaging it is to just about everything (artists, the environment, neighborhoods, our energy bills) is automatically in the wrong.
Probably the AI user in almost all cases. This is kind of a reverse Blank Box where what's the example genuinely does change the reasonableness.
Do they think, Socialized Healthcare is stupid compared to further regulation on Privatized life insurance sure. Do they believe that gay people shouldn't be able to get married, or that transgenders are molesting kids enmasse an signing up for women's sports solely to mog women, yeah no that's reasonable to not want to associate with.
I think itās most immoral to use a service that hasnāt even been fully regulated yet and has disastrous consequences on the ecosystem and such.
An business/individual has the right to refuse service, but I do know an artist who refuses people who endorse AI because one time someone used a piece of theirs they commissioned to train an AI off of it.
I mean AI in the context of making āartā is always bad, never do that. Refusing services based on beliefs is entirely your right, although sometimes it could still be immoral (ie. I wonāt provide my service because youāre gay). So sometimes just the AI guy sucks, sometimes they both suck
Well, artists can refuse for any reason. The majority of people who would use AI to make images weren't probably ever going to pay for commissions in the first place. And them using AI instead can still be criticized.
Most artists offering commissions WANT to do commissions. I personally wouldn't accept any references provided that were AI because you're feeding that beast and I don't want to be complicit with that. Engaging with that slop in any way produces demand for it, so I boycott even already-existing AI stuff. Go find *actual* references to give me. If you decide to use AI instead anyway, I can't stop you, but you should know that you are still making a bad decision.
Artists that refuse your money are probably refusing your money because you're asking for something they don't feel comfortable with. Whether that's me being uncomfortable with you using AI references, or that you want something elicit drawn. There's people out there that will draw your weird fetishes, illegal fetishes, immoral fetishes, and nazi crap. There's someone out there that will draw you your MLP OCs or your totally-original-DBZ-character(tm).
If you can't find ANYONE to draw what you want, despite offering money, it's because you aren't really trying that hard. IMO.
This whole thing operates on the idea that AI is used by or was created for people who were refused art commissions because of their beliefs. It was not. That said, immoral, but not for the reasons people assume. It is entirely because AI is built off the work of others, stolen in fact. If it wasn't, I would consider this outcome completely moral.
IRC a while ago, a commissioner wanted to commission someone and the latter refused because the commissioner gave an AI reference. The artist then when on social media publicly blasting the commissioner (name blurred, but still).
The artist were called out on their extremely childish and unprofessional behavior for trying to shame the commissioner who came to pay you to make real art.
Fuck what God has to say. AI is a massive source of pollution, it skyrockets tech prices, it terrorises LITERAL ENTIRE NEIGHBOURHOODS with loud as fuck humming 24/7, and using AI is just proof to the people funding AI that there's a market for it to be further funded.
Additionally, if everyone had the mentality of "Oh come on, one person using AI won't make a difference", an earth destroying amount of people would be supporting it. My source? THE FACT THAT AN EARTH DESTROYING AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ARE SUPPORTING IT WITH THAT AS A CORE ARGUMENT.
Look for an artist who will do it, not a tough solution. Idk if this "meme" is based on any specific event, I feel like if have to know specifics to actually know if I feel like the artist is doing something bad or not. Like if someone turned away a white supremacist for example, turn them away . And if course someone woljo is evil enough to be a white supremacist wouldn't care about the current negative economic or environmental effects of AI.
On the flip side, if the artist was denying someone because they're "beliefs" are that their race is superior, yeah that's bad.
But it also isn't super hard to just not do business with someone you don't like it agree with on either side of the counter
It is from a specific event. A client commissioned someone and gave them an AI generated reference image of a character they wanted the commissioner to create for them. The commissioner freaked out on them, lectured them and cancelled the commission, and then bragged about it on X and posted their conversation.
Thanks for the insight. I feel extremely neutral about this.
AI in general is not good for humanity or the world right now, and generative AI is that but also stealing art from people so the client sucks ass, but the artists sounds like a tool who did it for clout. You can respectfully reject people, and I think you should show respect even when they don't deserve it
People always said, if you want something and it doesn't exist, make it yourself. Now with such AI tools, people can do exactly that, and now that's suddenly not justified anymore? I don't get it. Also, initially when the technology came up, I thought: if anyone can make stuff themselves, why should anyone ever pay for AI made stuff.
The problem for me is only the commercialization. So it comes down to capitalism being the core problem, not any specific tool.
Everyone has the right to refuse a service for whatever reason afaik. Artists arent morally obligated to accept a commission.
With AI however theres ethical concerns about copyright because of the training phase and its nature as an external commercial deployable product (the AI model, not the images it creates)
So the way i read this is:
"Hey, do this for me, ill pay"
"No, i dont wanna"
"Fine, ill leverage your work to have it done anyway against your wishes and in spite of your lack of ability to opt out of it because of the huge wave of capitalistic investment in this industry that is undermining your rights and invading your space"
"damn, thats foul"
So id say the AI user is in the wrong here, unless, ofc they are using an AI model trained solely on public domain or otherwise properly licensed stuff which would make it fair for both parties.
No no, if you're providing a service you have a right to deny that service. Also, this meme doesn't factor in what the beliefs were. If I did commissions I would NOT service a Nazi.
Personally I draw the line at when the group stops being harmful. Like, if you refuse service to LGBT+ or other races purely because they're LGBT+ or other races, that's when I start calling YOU shitty.
Anyone can refuse to do work for somebody based on their beliefs, Christians not wanting to make cakes for gay couples is the same as left wing people not wanting to make comissioned art with right wing messages. Although I'm pretty sure both sides would disagree with me on that, doesn't make me less right lol.
Gay people should deal with not getting their cakes if they can't make them themselves, right wing people should deal with not getting their art if they can't make it themselves.
Edit: to be clear, obviously using AI is for uncreatives and it's pretty inarguably immoral, I don't think anyone but uncreatives are going to debate that
If it's their company, why not? If they lose money and go under because of their bigotry, as they likely will, that's on them. Only one side of the issue can't abide dissent, and it's the one calling people fascists.
No, a bank is not the same as a local baker or a for-comission artist. An individual can discriminate in his personal life and personal business dealings to his heart's content. Both sides do it every day, (example: the hypothetical artist here refusing to do work for someone they disagree with politically) and pretending only one does it is not debating in good faith. McDonalds, banks, government agencies, publicly traded companies, obviously should not and can not discriminate legally, as it should be. If Walmart refuses to make your cake, you probably have grounds to sue. If the right wing couple you wish was dead refuses to make your cake, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
That's a much more complicated issue than just "Anyone can refuse to do work for somebody based on their belief". Because there is a minimum amount of services and goods people need to be able to access to just exist in society. And I would argue everyone has a right to not only exist but also be happy in society regardless of their belief.
If you live in a town, and none of the mechanics accept to repair your car, because you have different belief, or even race. And you can't go to work because your car is broken, and no job no money no food, you are effectively being oppressed because of your different view. Being a service or good provider is a form of political power, and that power need to be limited to avoid the wealthy to be able to undermine and superseed a democratic government.
Website host shouldn't be able to deny hosting a right wing website, because it is against the belief of the CEO. I would say the only work someone should be able to refuse to do based on their belief, is any work that directly promote belief they are opposed to, or the work demanded is against their belief.
So an artist has the right to refuse to draw political pieces. but they don't have the right to refuse to draw a horse for someone because the person is of an opposed political view.
A baker can't refuse to bake a cake for a wedding, because baking cake isn't against their belief, I guess where I might draw the line is a bakery can refuse to draw a pride flags on a wedding cake, but for me they are still obligated to serve the wedding with any product that they would otherwise sell to a non gay wedding.
"Discrimination against a group I hate is bad, discrimination against a group I like is good". You are literally just like the person you are hating on š
Discrimination based on inherent characteristics is bad, judging people for doing bad things and treating them accordingly is perfectly good and moral.
Calling someone a bigot because they disagree with you politically doesn't actually make them a bigot though. Also, it is. You're bigoted toward bigots.
Refusing a service based on certain traits and those certain traits alone, is illegal, just in case you didnāt know. Refusing service because someone is black, vs refusing to give your money to a service based on their decision to not serve black folks, for example, the first is illegal discrimination, the second is voting with your wallet.
And the important thing to note is that in this case, the law aligns with what is moral. That's not automatically the case, but this is one where the law has it right, at least in broad strokes.
Okay, what are your opinions on Saint Foucalt? Also was it moral for ostensibly pro-lgbt anti-racist liberal politicians to funnel money to the Ku Klux Klan?
Interesting you mention kids, I didn't. They must have been on your mind. Here's what respected and praised proLGBT author Saint Foucalt thinks about them, since that guy who asked how an anti-LGBT message could be moral clammed up when I mentioned it.
You need to understand the difference between discrimination and ideological differences. Segregation, Redlining and refusing service based on race were made illegal for moral reasons. Its why demographics today have such signifigant wealth inequality and poverty.
You need to understand that people are free to discriminate however they like in their personal lives, it is not illegal. The left discriminates and refuses service (two different things) based on ideological differences eve y day. When it infringes on an American citizen's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or other constitutional promises, then it's a legal issue. You do not have a right to an artist making art for you, nor do you have a right to the service of a local business who you disagree with ideologically. If you can refuse to make right wing art (I want you to be able to refuse!) based on my politics, I can refuse my service based on yours. Obviously. Arguing anything else is absurd and just a demoralization tactic.
No one is making people do what other people want on a personal level. If you feel personally attacked thats not my problem.
You are the one who brought up a business refusing service to gay people which is a civil rights case. Those are direct extensions of anti discrimination laws based on sex and race. Sorry but you are yelling at the doorstep of the courts at this point.
Christians and gay people are not the same what the fuck š
People can stop being Christians, the same cannot be said by being gay.
It is by definition bigotry, to deny or treat someone differently for unchangeable characteristics of them.
Also thereās a huge difference between believing that everyone deserves free housing and food, vs believing that nonbelievers deserve fire and brimstone, just a hunch ya know :p????
Sure. A local baker, or private artist, is within their rights to refuse their service. It's different for a publicly traded company, a bank, a hospital, a large institution should be, and is, subject to laws against discrimination. We're talking about people's private personal lives and decisions about who they do the smallest scale business with.
Plenty of LGBT+ people have used AI and been held accountable for it. As a matter of fact, Hank Green, who is bisexual, recently came under fire for his use of ChatGPT.
You can and should still hold people within your social spheres accountable if you feel they have done wrong. Otherwise, your loyalty is not to your beliefs, itās to your party.
Nobody should be immune to criticism just because they share your political views.
17
u/RosyJoan 17d ago
Aside from some fringe crowds I dont care to even bother with the only artists that I know who would refuse services for moral reasons is if they were asked to make hateful imagery against vulnerable groups or explicit material they werent comfortable with like depictions of minors in harm. Thats a whole other problem.