7 ms·
Dunno, I feel sad about artists a bit. I hope they won't stop creating. I am sick of these flashy AI fakes.
by imhoguy 3y ago
Dunno, I feel sad about artists a bit. I hope they won't stop creating. I am sick of these flashy AI fakes.
- thih9 3y agoSick enough that it affects your spending habits? In any case AI companies will do their best to produce content that lands below that threshold.
- nness 3y agoI guess at the end of the day, they're just fakes like any other fake reproduction. They'll be sold on marketplaces, occasionally a few buyers will be duped. But most are buying the style, not the artist, and wouldn't care. The issue for this site is that they're using the artist names against the reproductions -- that could be argued as intentionally misrepresenting the origin of the works. I imagine, in no short order, they'll remove the artist's names or otherwise change the language to reflect that these are not the artists original works. I'm not sure what people would use these for, other than their own personal use? Maybe inspiration, mood-boarding, or concept art... Some printing at home? I don't know.
- dudeinjapan 3y agoNames are clearly intended to mean “In the style of ____.” No one would see “Van Gogh” on this page and think it’s an original.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pawelduda 3y agoA lot of these are very pleasant to look at.. yes, it's easy to spam them so it can get old very fast. But I'm in Midjourney socials and not gonna lie, everyday I see something that stands out and amazes me. Should I feel bad because I'm looking at a flashy AI fake?
- jprete 3y agoYes.
- throwaway743 3y agoNo.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoMaybe
- Brybry 3y agoThe people who are motivated to create art made art before they were being paid to do so. I don't think they're going to stop. They might release fewer pieces publicly out of style-copying fears. Or if they get paid less they might have less time to spend creating art. Personally I think generative models enable more people to make art and may even let professional artists create more art.
- drivingmenuts 3y agoAnd the people most likely to use AI to copy artists probably wouldn't have hired the artists in the first place. Some people are losing on opportunities, but I think. in most cases, those opportunities didn't exist to begin with.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago>And the people most likely to use AI to copy artists probably wouldn't have hired the artists in the first place I mean, sure. Hollywood has screwed over artists for decades now. But I don't think that's a good excuse to stop trying to make them pay. To be clear: however many new indie prompt artists come out of this will be swamped by large studios. I hope this isn't a take I need to elaborate on.
- croes 3y agoMore art = less value. Some people need to live off their art.
- maroonblazer 3y agoSomewhat of an aside - it occurs to me there's an analog in population ethics here, e.g. Parfit's "Repugnant Conclusion". Would you rather have a few people thriving and the rest not doing so well? Or is it better to have more people doing marginally better, at the cost of those few thriving exceptionally?
- gumballindie 3y agoI think gradually things will settle down. People are beginning to understand that many of these image generators are built on theft, and are pushing back accordingly. We need one or two Kim Dotcom adventures and the rampage will calm down.
- omnimus 3y agoDoubt any companies who needed commercial art will care at all. Most likely they will force artists to use AI to hyper speed up the process and fix some of the imperfections at the end. But there is no way they will be keeping artists exponentionaly so they can produce the same result the “inefficient” way.
- gumballindie 3y agoI am not against using machine learning, nor am i against companies doing so. What I dont want is stolen property, which a lot of ai currently relies on.
- The_Colonel 3y agoGenerative AI are trained on "stolen property" the same way as human artists are trained on "stolen prolerty". Both study previous masters, learn to copy their styles, "inspire" their own art from some combination of existing styles.
- gumballindie 3y agoPerhaps you are not familiar with how ai and machine learning work, and that’s okay, but ai doesn’t “study” and most certainly doesn’t “inspire” itself. It builds token databases that it then regurgitates. There no resemblance of human behaviour, just a simulation. Software always did that.
- GaggiX 3y ago>you are not familiar with how ai and machine learning work >It builds token databases Well, you don't seem to know either.
- acomjean 3y agoIt’s amazing you can ask a computer to create something and it does. But we’ve lost something too. At work we have a social gathering run by different groups each week. They put up posters. The past year it’s been very obvious the poster images are ai generated. It’s not like they’re going to hire artist to do this poster… The older posters were know for sometimes being topical and sometime ingenious (movie poster photoshops where clever). Now they have better custom images, but custom bland art. I guess it’s better than just clip art.
- keiferski 3y agoThis tech became available to a mass audience a year ago, tops. I would be a little patient: it will take time for people to learn how to use it and not just use the default settings.
- AStrangeMorrow 3y agoEthical concerns aside (which is a big topic by itself) having been quite invested in the generative scene for years now, no matter what some people say there is a core of more power users that push to experiment with the technology, the styles, the limitations and the weirdness of it. Not that it has crazy complexity, but some still. But at the same time the barrier to entry is really low. I now see AI art everywhere: in articles, on LinkedIn, on posters etc. But most of the time in the very most basic style. It feels like instead of searching for an image of X people just type "image of X" in MJ / DallE3 and co, and go with whatever generic stuff they get
- camdenreslink 3y agoA lot of these aren’t specific artists. I think it is quite interesting.
- nkozyra 3y ago> Dunno, I feel sad about artists a bit. Well this is coming for every other profession, so ...
- deadbabe 3y agoAs we go deeper down this path it makes sense to me why they destroyed and banned all the “thinking” machines in Dune.
- ethanbond 3y agoA lot of other professions produce essentially solely economic value. Art and journalism are sort of inverted: people happen to be willing to pay for it which allows it to be produced, but the real value to society is external to that transaction. Thus: museums and archives. It doesn’t make sense to preserve analogous records for most other professions.
- WA 3y agoImagine you are an artist and have a specific style and one day you wake up and the computer program that ripped off your style gets credit for that particular style, as in "4000 midjourney artistic styles". Horrible.
- gfodor 3y agoSee it’s weird since I would consider this a form of immortalization. Some artists are seeing this way, but very few. It seems crazy to me more artists aren’t being amazed that their entire style is now “canon”
- omnimus 3y agoSee it’s weird when somebody is upset when corporation steals and uses their code I would consider this a form of immortalization. Some programmers are seeing this way, but very few. It seems crazy to me more programmers aren’t being amazed that their entire codebase is now “canon”
- distortionfield 3y agoI feel this way about my code being included in the GitHub arctic vault, but not about it being in CodePilot, for lack of a better analogy.
- The_Colonel 3y agoThat's a bad analogy. Artist style can be compared to a software pattern, neither of them are copyrightable. A finished artwork to a software project.
- gfodor 3y agoIf I had a style of coding (whatever that means) and it got embedded into the models in a way that would cause it to echo for eternity long past my death, and was recognized as mine, I would consider it a successful work of art.
- BadHumans 3y ago
- sheepscreek 3y agoI think artists who create art out of love and passion will be valued even more. Much like how handicrafts in an industrial and mechanized day and age still have their place. Also the countless “amish furniture” references I’ve encountered are a testament to that.
- ethanbond 3y agoThe artistic record is going to be stunning. “Now you can see an explosion in craftsmanship and diversity of perspectives from the Renaissance, when art became professionally viable outside of the patronage of religious/political institutions, to about 2020, when a new technology made it totally unviable for anyone to dedicate their life to developing artistic works. But hobbyist artists kept making it in their free time, so this is what we’re left with!” Brilliant.
- The_Colonel 3y agoMaking a living as an artist is often more a function of building a brand, having interesting personality rather than of the art itself. I don't think AI will affect "high art" much, it will rather destroy careers of "contract artists".
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- omnimus 3y agoThere is a difference in material. Mass industrialised processes clearly can’t always replicate what small artisans produce. But when the output is digital most of material differences are gone. There is no reason AI cant generate 100% same digital image or text as human would do. But if you wanted to recreate “amish furniture” you probably can automate some parts but you still end up having the person/artisan. Industrialization didn’t go all all the way as AI did yet if you read people like William Morris it’s clear we’ve lost so much.
- octacat 3y ago
- chmod775 3y agoOur vision of the future used to be one where every unpleasant job is automated, and humans are free to pursue higher callings such as art. It's increasingly looking we'll all be working in construction, scrubbing floors, or performing maintenance on the machines that took our pleasant jobs. The saving grace is it'll probably be just 10 hour work-weeks.
- The_Colonel 3y agoI don't see how generative AI changes the situation. Most people would always face an uphill battle, producing mediocre art which only a few (likely with some personal connection) would appreciate.
- lwhi 3y agoYou don't understand why people create art. You're viewing art as a commodity in a capitalist society.
- The_Colonel 3y agoThen please educate me: 1) for their own creative fulfillment. Generative AI makes no difference. 2) for enjoyment / appreciation from other people. Generative AI makes little difference here since the average person's art is likely to be mediocre with or without generative AI 3) as a way to earn their living. Here generative AI will make a difference in some art professions, but that doesn't seem to be the implied scenario of the comment I was replying to.
- lwhi 3y agoIf I copied everything that was unique about you as a person, and benefited from it .. how would you feel?
- The_Colonel 3y agoGenerative AI can copy the style, if they's all you have as an artist, then it's barely art TBH. AI can't copy the thinking / motivation / juxtapositions behind the art.
- loceng 3y agoI think it's a consequence of abundance, which can lead to excess and undue waste if we begin to lose control of self-regulation. Resources will have to fairly be being distributed; not through authoritarian collectivism mechanism, control and suppression isn't the answer - but through "a rising tide lifts all ships." Tyranny is extremely expensive, and abundance generates exponential riches for all - so long as the greedy and authoritarian don't capture systems and implement policy that suppresses various populations; why I believe Elon Musk said he thinks UBI is inevitable, however how that manifests is important. A corruptable-capturable centralized state government is too much of a single point of failure to risk such a mechanism, and if learning from the efficiencies of free market systems then in reality it will be the controller(s) of systems who then employ and fund their workers enough [who voluntarily decide they are the best employer to support to accelerate the values-processes of the organization's hierarchy] via their inherent built-in profit mechanisms to the organizational structure, to allow for those families to thrive, and fuel evolution towards such a culture winning out; otherwise "leave the dead to bury the dead [who are misguided off a cliff by tyrants]" - as Jesus said. I agree too, the "flashy AI fakes" are in my mind equivalent to porn, crafted to maximize excitement but void of soul-spirit-authenticity, etc; at least so far - I could see, as AI avatars begin to become a thing that an individual can refine to respond how they deem acceptable, could also craft or refine AI art generator styles to weight various aspects in much more nuanced way - that then reflects their own tastes and sensibilities.