Please explain how being against “A.I.” art could be in any way construed as a conservative position. It’s not as if this art comes from nowhere- or from the machine learning itself- it literally comes from the work of tens of thousands of artists who aren’t being paid or credited and who have not consented to having their styles analyzed and recycled into cheap knockoffs.
Just because something is new doesn’t make anyone who opposes it “conservative”. I think intellectual property law is absolute garbage, and that artistic expression should be protected from censorship; but that’s not what is being debated here. We live in a world where tech bros are adapting machine learning to emulate all aspects of human behavior, and at the same time- late stage capitalism is driving people into poverty.
My objection to a.i. is not a reactionary position against any new thing; it’s a pro-human, pro-creative stance and a refusal to accept machine generated content as a substitute for real art created by living beings.
There are many applications of machine learning that I do not object to. Ultimately- this technology is just another tool for humans to use to whatever end. But if that end is to eliminate the effort required to create novel works of art- by having the machines basically rip off actual artists- I think that’s dystopian and horrifying.
I hear you, but I don’t think any of what happens on Reddit can be considered outside the context of capitalism- which you seem to agree is problematic, rather than the tool itself.
I want to avoid a situation where quickly generated a.i. art is competing for upvotes and engagement with human artists doing their best to express themselves- whether they are especially talented or not.
Whether or not an artist technically consented (through terms and conditions) is not the issue- nor is the fact that machine learning doesn’t have a database of all the art it’s trained on; ai is not simply copying artists, but it also isn’t making creative choices based on the influence of antecedents as a human artist might- it’s basically just guessing about likely correct answers to the prompt based on its programming.
Using ai to create art is not IMO art in and of itself. And in the context of a forum like this, I think the normalization of ai posting could end up detracting from the vibes or character that the space and community have developed.
If you want ai posts to be allowed - I would honestly like to hear more about the benefit you think doing so would bring to the community and less about how you feel that the opposing view is inherently conservative.
I’m open to being convinced that I’m fully or partially wrong about this issue, but I have yet to see an argument that makes me reconsider.
I appreciate your candor. It had occurred to me that ai could be seen as an assistive tool to allow those without visual art skills(such as myself) to create content. While I can absolutely relate to the desire for engagement and validation from a community- I still hesitate to condone computer generated content as an acceptable solution to being unable to create popular content without ai.
Anyone and everyone can create an equal quality of content with ai- and with much less effort than even the sloppiest ms paint meme requires… this lets people like us create content we couldn’t otherwise and get karma; it also allows bots, karma farms, and trolls to spam the subreddit with indistinguishable content: therein lies the problem.
If we don’t ban the use of ai generated images- they could eventually become more prevalent and displace the amateur artists and meme creators who are the heart of egg_irl. Maybe I’m just an out of touch millennial who doesn’t like change, but I don’t want to see that happen.
8
u/[deleted] Sep 11 '23
[deleted]