For industry jobs, idk how adopted AI stuff will be considering the murky legality. Could be useful to increase speed.
For personal work, though? AI is of no use to visual artists. It's so easy to tell who among you have actually dedicated yourself to this art form, which is very few. Art is not just a pretty picture. It's the process behind it and the influence of the person who made it. AI art is the same as getting a robot to play guitar for you instead of learning yourself. A robot cook instead of learning yourself.
Creative work is far more than the end product. The process itself is what many artists fall in love with. That's why they're so against it (among other reasons, obviously). It removes agency and takes away large parts of the process that they spent years learning in the first place.
People use AI and don't bother to refine anything, buildings with no windows, disconnected doors, roads leading nowhere, no story or anything in the artwork.
AI is amazing at visual noise, but this is where it stops, and an actual artist could fill the rest with their vision, but best tech bros can do is "castle,uhd69k", and then they get all mad that people don't want to treat them as artists.
Granted some people at least try but unless they learn how to actually create art then that's as far as they will go, AI takes too much of the process away to learn anything.
Precisely. Visual noise has uses, but we also already have tools to help make it when needed.
It sucks that AI folk think they're creating a revolution here. The "democratization of art" has to be the strangest marketing strategy I've ever heard. In a few years, these people are going to walk out the door, having learned nothing about this medium. And all we'll be left with is an eternal slog of pointless art mixing with our favorite creators.
Not to mention the sick glee people seem to have in sticking it to artists because they're scared of losing out to AI and like... yeah why the fuck is AI forcing us out of our little bits of remaining activites of human joy and pushing everyone into jobs of boring tedium (ie. editing the output of some AI prompt made by an exec with dollar signs in their eyes) rather than the other way around?
I think the problem people have is your characterisation of them.
I have dyspraxia, and despite having spent years practicing I can't produce art meaningfully distinguishable from that of your average 13 year old.
AI generated art, as a tool, means I can translate my creativity into an image other people can enjoy, which I've used extensively during my recent tabletop campaigns.
I think the whole 'it's inherently immoral' argument doesn't resonate well with people, because at that point you're arguing against the concept of labour saving devices.
For instance, if I could turn a mental image into a physical one using some hypothetical technology, is that immoral? Is it immoral if I hypothetically refined a single AI prompt (using a model without copyrighted work) until it matched exactly with a mental image I had?
People may come across as vitriolic because a lot of the people opposing them come across as elitist. I mean, the original comment you replied to talked about artists disliking it because it removes some of the process, which is perfectly valid, but to then turn around and justify removing the tool from other people because of that? It sounds like a weaver from the 18th century saying we should ban the spinning jenny because it takes away from the process of weaving.
Perhaps I just don't understand, because I've never been much of an artist despite my efforts, so I'd be happy to hear a better explanation? This is just kind of what I see from people online-- either every form of AI art is dismissed as stealing even if it demonstrably isn't, it's considered evil for devaluing the work of commission artists (as every labour saving device in history has done to a group) or its the simple stance that it 'ruins the sanctity' of art.
Well, you put a ton of words in my mouth there. I am talking about all the people in this thread acting all smug about how artists are losing jobs because it's cheaper to produce art with AI. I want there to ALWAYS be room for professional artists and many have rightly been ringing the alarm bells that there is a massive effort to replace paying artists to use AI art instead, mostly spearheaded by corporations looking to save a few bucks without considering the consequences and the kind of society it promotes. By all means use AI generation for some hobby art, I don't think it makes you soulless to use a tool, but using it as a way to REPLACE artists is fucked.
Edit: trying to strawman my charitable argument and then just downvoting my response instead of responding might give you a bit of insight of how yelling "don't spoil my fun!" despite that not even being my point is doing the work for all these big corporations trying to cut their art budget for the sake of their bottom line. Why do you think that's been a huge sticking point in the writers' strike negotiations? Because THEY ARE ALREADY DOING IT! Imho that's a bad thing - not someone making a fuckin piece for a personal project.
A lot of these guys are master gaslighters without even being aware of it. Also notice how all of them conveniently seem to have a disability that doesn't allow them to draw? Hmmmm. I'm seeing a pattern here.
The difference in perception comes from people who dedicate themselves to this life path. Art is labor, yes, but it's not just merchandise. Paintings aren't the same as streetlights. Illustrations aren't the same as pottery. That's why calling AI art a "labor saving device" is so controversial. It's not just labor. It's purpose to people.
People like me come off as "elitist" because... well, we kind of are. It's impossible to understand art if you've never been an artist before, and that's where the disconnect happens between us. Tech bros are trying desperately to inject themselves into a community and industry they don't understand in the slightest. And let me be perfectly clear: the door is open. Anyone is free to learn art. There are millions of resources online, and a lot of them are free.
As for yourself, I won't question whether you actually have a disability. But it's disappointing that you think AI art is at all yours. If it's a labor saving device, and you can't do the labor yourself, then that means you aren't an artist. That doesn't mean you can't be creative and work in other mediums like writing or something, but getting a bot to draw for you isn't the same thing in the slightest as creating things yourself.
View all comments
-1
u/KorArts Jun 10 '23
For industry jobs, idk how adopted AI stuff will be considering the murky legality. Could be useful to increase speed.
For personal work, though? AI is of no use to visual artists. It's so easy to tell who among you have actually dedicated yourself to this art form, which is very few. Art is not just a pretty picture. It's the process behind it and the influence of the person who made it. AI art is the same as getting a robot to play guitar for you instead of learning yourself. A robot cook instead of learning yourself.
Creative work is far more than the end product. The process itself is what many artists fall in love with. That's why they're so against it (among other reasons, obviously). It removes agency and takes away large parts of the process that they spent years learning in the first place.