9 ms·
I feel for artists to an extent but no way are they going to succeed „ruining AI“ by poisoning image data sets. And even if that was feasible, what the hell do
by sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
I feel for artists to an extent but no way are they going to succeed „ruining AI“ by poisoning image data sets.
And even if that was feasible, what the hell do they gain?
This is the whole „photography is not art“ or „digital image manipulation is not art“ or „oil painting is not art“ discussion all over again and I can believe serious artists actually take pet in this luddite theatre.
- chii 3y ago> And even if that was feasible, what the hell do they gain? a few more years of employment, at best. It sucks, but it's reality. There's no stopping the onslaught of AI. Better start learning how to take advantage of the AI tools to make yourself not irrelevant.
- camillomiller 3y agoThe lack of humanism in comments like this one are worrying. The fact that you don’t understand art or the artistic process doesn’t mean they are not relevant to a healthy society.
- taylodl 3y agoPlus it ignores the fact that all of our jobs are going to go away to automation and AI. Which can be a utopia other than we humans seem to be hell-bent on creating dystopias.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y agoI for one am looking forward to our fully automated gay space communist overlords.
- chii 3y ago> they are not relevant to a healthy society. if they are relevant, then the proof would be that they'd be paid to create art by other humans who believe this notion of relevency.
- camillomiller 3y agoCapitalism is not the natural state of things
- chii 3y agoNo it isn't. The law of the jungle is the natural state of things. I dont know about you, but i'd prefer capitalism to the natural state of things.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> a few more years of employment Many less years than if they learned the new tools that magnify productivity.
- somewhereoutth 3y agoPhotography/manipulation/oils are/were done by humans with intent. Putting some prompts into an image generator and choosing which one you like is hardly the same thing. However, the idea of AI generated images could be considered art (a bit like Duchamp's toilet), but it is pretty much done now. Of course, 'paintings for hotel rooms' is something different, and indeed may be affected by AI
- wholinator2 3y agoWell, i think it's strange to assume a serious artist would just take the first crop given to them and not alter at all! After all, there are numerous ai tools for altering ai images to fit your choices better. You simply pick the best template and then direct the AI, with intent, at exactly which parts of the image you'd like changed and into what. It's a delicate balance of prompt engineering (knowing exactly what to say, sometimes terms not know by the lay public become necessary for the best creation of your idea), and actually having an artistic idea in mind. It takes inspiration, tact, composition, knowledge, etc. Sure, putting in "throwing up technicolor on the burger king riding a giant snail" is incredibly easy. Being able to fix everything the AI cannot interpret about your ideal, let alone having an ideal strong enough to differ from what your presented is artistic. I'm well aware there are people vehemently opposed to this idea, but there should be an advocate for the opposition
- danielbln 3y agoI concur, and I don't understand why a lot of artists still talk about AI art as if prompt -> end result is the only way of interacting with these systems. That may have been true in Spring of last year, but entire pipelines, flows, tool integrations, models etc. have been created since then. To really excert control over the generative process, you need more than Dall-E through ChatGPT, you need ControlNet, you need various models, and so on. It's technical artistry as 3D modeling is technical artistry.
- Philpax 3y ago> Putting some prompts into an image generator and choosing which one you like is hardly the same thing. At a base level, "putting some prompts [..] and choosing" sounds like intent to me. A user is choosing what they want to capture and making a choice, much like I, as a photographer, look for a particular scene (or happen across one!) and choose how I want to capture it. Of course, you can do much more in terms of control of image synthesis these days. ControlNet and friends make it feasible to control every aspect of the resulting image.
- beepbooptheory 3y agoSerious artists are going to be around long after the last GPU gets clogged with sand.
- plastic_enjoyer 3y ago>I can believe serious artists actually take pet in this luddite theatre. I think more people should participate in the luddite theatre. Luddites weren't against automation and technological advances per se but that the profits of increased productivity weren't shared. The people that are profiting off AI generated art today don't want to participate in distributing their profits more widely, despite generative models being based on the works of other people, some of whose art was used for the training without permission.
- namlem 3y agoIs anyone reaping great profits off AI art? After all, it's not even copyrightable.
- simondw 3y agoI think the idea is to profit off the generation of it, not the output works themselves.
- rf15 3y agoHave you seen stock photo sites lately? Many of them happily claim they're real photos, too.
- denton-scratch 3y agoPeople made money from creating art long before copyright was a thing. Copyright is not a pre-requisite for creative work.
- kazinator 3y agoCopyright was made necessary by the emergence of the means of mass reproduction (printing presses, lithography).
- kazinator 3y agoRain doesn't have to generate money in order to kill your gig of delivering bottled water to the desert.
- michaelcampbell 3y agoI remember when Waze and Google Maps came out and angry neighborhood residents would try to "poison" the traffic data set by reporting non-existant police in their neighborhood streets. That also didn't work.
- indigo0086 3y agoYeah, this is really just artists poisoning themselves hoping AI dies. It'll take away from them using their creativity to actually capitalize and they'll just spend their time trying to go against relatively intelligent people on their own turf.
- taylorius 3y agoWhy couldn't highlighting the fragility of such machine vision systems be an artistic endeavour?
- RugnirViking 3y agoit would potentially be, if it had any hope of working.
- davexunit 3y agoAI art is not art. AI art is copyright laundering.
- SirMaster 3y ago> And even if that was feasible, what the hell do they gain? More visibility by the world through news articles exactly like this? More visibility perhaps clues more average joes of the world into what exactly is going on. Maybe it gains them more people who might be on their side and have sympathy for them, etc. Even if they don't have a clear end game, doing something, anything they can probably feels better to them than doing nothing, and just going quietly into the night without putting up any resistance.
- spinach 3y agoThis is not the same as those things at all. The poisoning of the data sets only works because the AI is scraping the internet for images and stealing the artist's works. They are mad because their art is being stolen and they didn't consent to it. It's easy to call other people names when it's not your life's work at stake.