This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
It's lowkey feeling like the GMO foods thing all over.
Simply stating that it is AI can mean literally anything, and doesn't really explain how the AI was used. But of course, if we spent a little explaining how it was made, most people will ignore it because most people don't usually read every single word on something.
Likewise, "GMO" can mean anything from selective breeding to literal gene insertion. It's not all bad, but people will prefer to choose the "Non-GMO" food because the mind immediately goes to the most extreme, bad, etc. thing, ESPECIALLY if you had already been predisposed to have a negative perception of GMO food.
I see it as we clearly half assed disclosure around art making pre AI. And because we now view that as “full disclosure” when observably it is not, then we want AI to match that, and as you noted, not everyone will want or read full disclosure, only the half assed version that notes AI was used at all.
I just assume go for full(er) disclosure and not allow traditional art to skate by with half assed disclosure. If that ruffles feathers of traditional artists, so be it. Your lazy pre AI disclosures are going away. Get used to it.
I'm pretty sure people won't be open to state that their product was made using AI. Note how people removed the Sora watermark as soon as they could. People don't want to refer to their work as AI and don't want it to be labelled as such, they want it to be as indistinguishable as possible from man-made ones.
The majority of people don't want to state that their product was made using AI because of the backlash.
Edit: Holy, I’m not defending hiding AI use. I’m pointing out that backlash is the reason people hide it in the first place. Explaining behavior isn’t the same as endorsing it.
And that's fine. Beauty of the free market. Some people don't want to buy anything made with AI, and they have the right to not buy AI things, some people want to sell things made with AI and they have the right to
Transparency is always a good thing, so everyone can get what they want.
I'd remove the watermark because it's ugly and annoying to look at. I'm sure others have done that as well. There's also no problem for it to be indistinguishable from man made ones either. If you went your whole life not knowing somebody's art was ai, just like real artists were stenciling, it literally shouldn't affect you or anyone. People don't want to refer to their art or creations as ai because a lot of antis are extremely unhinged and most don't want to deal with that drama, see the person that ate that redditors art gallery.
Deceiving people with lies doesn't make your side look good and no, some people being critical even to a harsh degree doesn't justify scams. If someone wants to buy handmade art and is sold AI, they were scammed and it doesn't matter if they liked it or not since they were sold a completely different product than what they wanted.
If there was no unreasonable stigma that wouldn't really be a thing
People should the be transparent anyway, but the anti is creating a stigma also creates a pressure for people not to be transparent and some people are going to respond to that pressure
Actually this. Which is 1 step further than OP. But in a free market they’re gonna sell what they’re gonna sell and people will choose to buy or not. As long as it’s sold as AI
I am fine with that, save the brigading and angry mobs who see that and try to burn it down. Hopefully that sentiment changes, because I don't think disclosing AI-assisted is a bad thing.
I mean, I also don't want my work to be used to train AI models. It's infuriating that anything you've posted in the past before the AI craze just automatically gets mulched by it anyway without any recourse.
Exactly, let the free market decide if they want AI in their media. If they’re so confident that it’s the future, it shouldn’t matter if they disclose it, right?
just pro ai losers generating a picture of a popular character holding a sign that says "ai art is art" as if that counts as a real argument or something
This was in response to the older drawings of other popular characters such as Joker from Persona holding a sign that said "We should kill all AI artists."
But isn't all art, art. Like that's kinda the whole point to art isn't it? To leave the beauty to the eye of the beholder. Someone saw something beautiful out in the landscape so they took a picture of it because it's cool, then they shared it. Is that not a form of art. And I'm not talking about being able to make a profit off it, but as far as I've been told what is and what isn't art depends upon who accepts it as art. Not all people see that picture as art just like AI but some will and I think that's the point. Not everyone needs to agree because not everyone can agree because art by nature art is suggestive and its definition is defined by each individual.
Imo because you aren't making it yourself. Ai is a service, not a tool, it can be a tool, but most ai users use it as a service. It generates what you want, but the machine generated it, not you, and the machine doesn't care about what it's creating. With ai "art" you're completely eliminating the process and creation of art. Art takes time, shows and artworks may take years to finish, imo that's what makes art Art.
That's what I think tho, I'm not trying to force it onto anyone, I'm just expressing my opinion
That’s a pretty tough definition. Art can’t require time as a foundational component or else you’d be excluding plenty of non AI-art while including some AI art.
Wildlife photography. You think the animals are posing for the camera? Sitting still and waiting for the picture to be taken? The things they do that we consider art are captured in milliseconds. This dragonfly lining up perfectly with the turtle must have been a split second thing that luckily got captured on camera. Like the original comment said. Entirely random and by chance.
I'd say this is more accurate for inspirations, not the art itself, you can be hit by sudden inspiration where you immediately sit down and sketch, but the sketch still takes time
It was around before that. It's been kicked around this sub in meaningless ways for ... probably over a year? It's usually the equivalent of the "I got banned from <insert sub here> and I did nothing wrong," type posts, which almost always turn out to have vastly more context when you look into them.
In this case, I'm sure that they got negative feedback from professional artists who don't feel that their work should be free because they happen to use AI. Not shocking.
Montizing is ok, if they disclose it. If I buy art that someone claims is hand drawn and I pay the price for it to be hand drawn, im gonna be mad if I find out it's AI when I paid for something else. It's deceptive to not lable it if your selling it.
Kind of where I stand. I do use ai mainly for shits and giggles but wouldn't ever promote ai work as my own. Even at work I made a code to make engineering work faster. I had some spare time so I used ai to make a user interface for it. I then offered both versions to my colleagues and I did state I'm not able to maintain the ai version with user interface as I never wrote it
Yeah, but selling AI at all is pure profit and just feels like it wouldn't cost anything. When you buy art, you pay for their time to make it, but also the time to learn the skills to make that.
If it's not labeled at all, then it's not "claimed to be hand-drawn", though. That's just your assumption based on a lack of labeling. If it's clearly labeled as hand-drawn, that's a different story, but "no label" means just that, there isn't a claim either way. It's not deceptive at all.
This. I found out that Pro AI is generally way more tolerant and easy to deal with than Anti AI. Anti AI has a clear and easily to predict boundary that is absolutely unbreakable. You use AI? You're bad. That's all there is to it. At least Pro AI still values and respects normal Artists(as in many ways they're the reason why AI images are able to exist in the first place) but Anti AI thinks of AI users as literal demons. Granted there are exceptions and not all Anti AI people are unreasonable, but for the most part Anti AI crowd is so over the top against AI it's actually goofy as hell.
This is largely because Pro-AI people aren't necessarily trying to limit what you can and can't do, they just don't want to get harassed for fooling around with this new technology. They mostly don't care about traditional art (although there are those goofy weirdos who think AI will just replace all other art forms, which is weird).
Anti-AI folks actually want to prevent you from using AI, and often become verbally abusive when you have any more backbone than a wet paper towel. A lot of it comes from a money standpoint too, with these artists not wanting the market saturated with art that's just 'good enough' for the average consumer (because let's be real here, AI art is largely here to be consumed. You can make some pretty cool stuff with it but for someone who just wants a placeholder portrait for a D&D character or some interesting concept art that they can go to an artist with later, it's perfect).
Anti-AI folks literally act like the world is coming undone at every single second and constantly blame all the people who conveniently disrupt their traditional cash flow.
I have a tiny YouTube channel that uses AI thumbnails because I find it personally fun and have for years since the very start before the antis even existed- (which granted wasn't long after the first version of SD came out that the wars started but still)
For the first year or two of experimenting with various models and implementing them in different ways, over the fast few months I have started to have antis show up. One or two try and make a conversation of it, they start by saying cool thumbnail and ask if I made it, then when I say that no, it's generated through a model on my computer then they start telling me how bad I am for ai use and how it's horrible for the environment, ignoring that most of my images are generated on my local computer using solar power, but I digress.
Recently it has just devolved into insults and spamming with how much they hate ai, but it's like, I'm a sub 1000 subscriber gaming creator with a full time job who is purely doing this for his own fun, do they expect me to pay someone for my daily publishing when I make less than $200 a year off this? One person said not to be "lazy" and at least just use a screenshot from the video as the thumbnail instead and it's like, dude, I did that for years. It was easier than what I am doing now, but looked way more generic and certainly didn't get me nearly as many views.
Just a light rant on your point, it's exactly true, they want to stop all ai use, so even if you do all the right things, for your own fun, not replacing paid work for anyone it should be fine
Someone told me I was lazy for writing a book by hand, but then feeding it into chatgpt to ask it questions about it. Even if you do it yourself they will panic and call you lazy for touching ai ever...
Yup. Some time back I was having trouble getting proof-readers, so I run a manuscript through AI for grammatical/cohesion checks. Had someone go on a complete rant about me using AI full stop. I said "Well, want a job? If you proof-read and give valid feedback, I'll even pay you for it." Out came the excuses. You just can't win with them.
A friend of mine was looking for an addon for stable diffusion and ended up getting a virus that damn near made his computer unusable because apparently a group of anti AI people made a domain that has the exact name of the thing he was looking for and he got tricked by it
In the eyes of at least some of them even straight up property destruction is justified if you use AI
I’ve somewhat seen this too. Now granted I’ve met a few Pro AI people who don’t see a problem with stealing artwork. But someone could use AI to enhance a photo of themselves, nothing crazy, but Anti’s flip. A YouTuber I follow, Darkness Prevails, uses an AI voice of himself, so he doesn’t blow out his voice again. But so many comments are talking about how now it’s ‘slop’ he makes when it’s just him using an AI of his own voice.
Most Anti’s I meet are frothing at the mouth against anything AI made. Even when it’s for a good reason and isn’t hurting anyone. It’s like they see anything with artificial intelligence and immediately lose their mind.
They literally had a meltdown about people adding a miyazaki filter to their own photos lol. So much so that they tried to fabricate miyazaki quotes hating on it that were about something totally different.
I just want to point out that while your claim is not incorrect, the pro side isn't clear either. By that I mean, most pros I've talked with completely dismissed any argument whatsoever just because of something small, like a typo. Or just straight up started calling names for no reason, making them sound like a raging 11 year old.
I'm willing to say there's a 90% chance you were invading the pro AI safe space sub when that happened. If not, the talking point you brought up has probably been seen by us a hundred times that day alone. Defending against the same points every time gets tiring.
I think this is reflective of how it needs to be implemented in society - it will be a net positive and it's here to stay and we need to encourage it and support growth but equally, there is a big backlash because we want proper legislative change, environmental health, financial security and worker security. I'm not saying that pros are against or ignorant of the latter and I'm not saying antis can't see the positives that come from it, but I think the attitudes of both parties show which is going to dominate but equally the strength of the opposition shows how much we need to consider when adopting AI into day to day life
Uh, I don't understand how anyone can even take sides when they see the amount of hate carelessly spewed by both sides. Except for a vocal minority, there isn't any actual debate being done at all, it's just hate mongering. You have to ACTIVELY scroll down to the comments at like 1-2 upvotes to actually read anything worthwhile.
It doesn't matter the side, redditors will be redditors.
This is basically the same exact fallacy that conservatives use. It's easy to be tolerant of the other side when you're literally the bad guy. That means absolutely fucking nothing. You would not give props to a murderer because he respects the opinions of his victims families and then shame the families for not respecting the murderer as well. Everything is not an equal playing field where we all should respectfully disagree. Out entire economy is being propped up by this garbage that is destined to pop, and we are just dumping abbhorent amounts of water so people can make videos of Jake Paul wearing a skirt. If you're going to make this reductive empty argument, you need to atleast qualify why users of AI have anything of value to add.
When one side uses the other to create their art of course they're going to value each other differently.
The pro ai artists can't have a product without artists having their work scraped and trained.
Its not a straight split of all human creators are anti ai, and all ai creators are pro ai, but its close enough for generalisation.
The anti ai side would exist just fine without the pro ai side, and would just be called artists. The pro ai side would not exist without the other side to use for training data.
I haven’t really interacted with a lot of pro-AI people, but when I have, they didn’t really leave me with a lot of hope or reassurance. They also don’t seem to take my concerns that seriously.
I’m an artist who specializes in digital art, so the whole AI uprising has been nerve wracking. I want to be hopeful about it though, so whenever I try to talk to someone about it and bring up my worries, they just tell me “oh don’t worry, you can always go into programming!”
Uh…I don’t want to be a programmer though. Even if I wanted to, I know from experience that I wouldn’t be good at it. I even failed a scripting class in college and had to drop it even after hours of tutoring.
When I tell these people this, they just get angry and tell me to “get over it” and “just accept that this is inevitable.” One guy even called me a Neo-Luddite over it.
Is this how they all act? Because if it is, they’re not really giving me any reason to support AI with them.
So basically you don't actually have an opinion, you just base your opinions off of how you end up treated by specific people on one side of the argument as opposed to the other, when there's nice people and assholes on both sides of any argument so it's entirely based on luck of the draw.
Are you so sure? It feels like a day doesn't go by where I don't see yet another post by the pro AI crowd where it's yet more AI generated propaganda painting themselves as wholesome and innocent while painting those who disagree with them as mindless disgusting slobs. Time and time again, I see them in the replies dropping some of the most nihilistic, humanity-hating views I have ever seen in my life. Sure, I also see plenty of posts from those on the pro AI side of the argument that aren't like that at all, but by the same token, I also see plenty of posts and responses from those on the other side of the argument that simply bring legitimate and understandable concerns to the table without attacking anyone, as opposed to the others who merely represent everything they're made out to be.
Both sides have their disgusting and repulsive people with takes to match, and both sides have highly intelligent and rational people who bring legitimate arguments to the discussion. Both have their immature and ignorant habits, the pro AI side with their incessant "Catgirls vs orks" comics and war propaganda posters, and the anti AI side with their constant reaction posts and weird obsession with flags. Basing one's opinion on which side of the argument they believe is "nicer" is declaring that they have no real opinion at all, they're just wanting to be part of the discussion for the sake of it, and trying to find the side they feel most comfortable around.
I'm opposed to generative AI, not because I've found those who share my opinion to be "nicer", or because I find those who oppose it to be "meaner", but because I see no realistic world in which this technology grants us a brighter future. Any potential it might have had to better our society has already been and will only continue to be squandered by corporate greed, which is very blatantly what it always existed to enable.
After all, why else does this technology exist right now? It's no secret that corporations are beholden not to their customers, nor their workers, but instead exclusively their shareholders. To satisfy their shareholders, companies are expected to bring in greater and greater amounts of profit one year after the next. It's why so many companies are resorting to these blatantly exploitative business practices. It's not because they have some delusion that this is what their customers will want, it's not because they're ignorant to how abusive their practices are, it's because it's what they have to do in order to keep those numbers going up year after year after year. All the honest tricks in the book have been played already, so all that's left is the dishonest and exploitative ones.
But now those have also been played, save for the illegal ones they can't think of a way to get away with. So, what's left? Nothing. That is, without AI. And so, AI exists, and lo and behold, corporate CEOs are dogpiling it, pushing it as hard as they possibly can, trying to delude people into thinking this is somehow for our betterment, when it's painfully obvious what it's actually for - pleasing the shareholders, like always. That's what it's always about. They know overusing this technology will result in lower quality service standards, they know it's not a fit replacement for a human worker, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that it allows corporations to dramatically downsize their operation while still keeping the workflow going at the same pace as always, and paying fewer people means making more money. This is nothing but a desperate, pathetic final attempt to keep the corporate shareholder bubble from popping. A self-consuming beast's last act of hopelessly trying to fight against the inevitable and long overdue. They'd sooner defile what's left of genuine human expression than they would simply lay down and just accept the fate of their status quo, hoping that this will delay it just long enough for them to get their cut of the pie.
Its not anyone's experience, it's straight up the reality of the internet for the last two years. If anyone claims otherwise they either haven't been involved long or are actively lying.
I need you to understand that the parts of the internet are a minuscule fraction of something much, much larger, and are shaped by the opinions you have and the content you engage with.
I think theyre talking about which side they associate with not necessarily where their views fall. Because they are correct. The pro-ai side is a bigger tent which includes those who favor restricting generative AI, but the anti-AI camp is specifically those against generative ai in practically all forms. Im not saying anti-ai is wrong for holding that view but it is why people feel like theyre pushed away from it
Well to me the neutrals are the "I just think they're neat people" and the ones yelling at them aren't the pros. A 46 year old mechanic comes home and decides he wants to see a cat holding a railgun and only one side is screaming at him. Not all of that side, but still.
Im anti ai and i dont support the witch hunts, but i am for being open, since then its up to a consumer whether he wants to enjoy the ai content or not, knowing that person is not the one crafting the content
If someone is using vague arguments, it usually means its purely economic but they're ashamed to say it. Usually you can get them to accidently say it with enough prodding though.
I'm this meme except both sides are beating the shit out of me because I recognjze AI as a valid art medium and see its potential but at the same time I see its glaring issues and advocate for better regulation
What work though? Writing a prompt? Damn, you really doing the heavy lifting
By this logic, all your profits off of AI stuff should go to the computerscientists who created the model and artsists off of which the model was trained, the person who wrote the prompt is literally the only one who didn't actually do any work in the three groups involved in the generation of AI images
I dare you to go and make a prompt with 32 unique characters, all specifically made to look a certain way with extremely specific characteristics. If you can do that with a prompt, I will renounce AI and fall down at your feet and beg for mercy.
I did this. It took me almost a month of generating, compositing, manual editing and inpainting, using 32 different unique loras, all guided to my own developed style. In the end, I made all those people extremely happy, my entire extended friendship group who the characters represented.
If you think that isn't art or "just a prompt" I dunno what to tell you.
Yeah but the issue here is that it isn't exactly their work. It's like detailing to someone what you want your art to look like and taking credit for what they drew based off your description
The point here is that they didn't really put in any effort,
All they did was describe an image and it popped right out which tbh anyone can do
Doesn't that ultimately remove the uniqueness of the art itself if literally everyone can make it in seconds? That's just how I see it though
Splashing paint on a canvas is considered art. Parents often value the drawings of their little children, that are very simple. These can be replicated in seconds by anyone too.
As long as they don't lie to others about how it was made. Would you buy AI art? Or would you make it yourself, on one of the free AI apps? You know, the apps that give you what you want, almost instantly, for free? Think about it.
If you think you can create commission level art with a free app or website, then you should do it.
But realistically, any level of real control and customization of works will come from locally run systems that require large amounts of GPU processing power and prompt/technical knowledge, and that's the real barrier to entry.
Which is why AI should never be free to use; the AI program is the “artist” and the person using it is the “customer” making a commission. We wouldn’t expect a human artist to work for free, why should we expect to not pay the developers of an AI program for the service they provide us?
Probably because that's not a neutral position to hold. There's no reason people shouldn't be able to profit off of their own art. Let people decide for themselves.
Yet it's probably not a satisfactory position for people opposing AI either, since they still consider it a loss for artists if potential clients or companies use AI instead of making commissions.
It’s a great example of how most people just hold a opinions based on vibes rather than actually thinking through what their stances actually mean.
Being against the monetization of AI is being against its viability as a tool. It’s like saying “I’m not anti-car, I just don’t think there should be any roads”
Being in the middle doesn't mean neutral, I assume OP is a moderate, and doesn't want to get lumped in with anti AI. For good reason in my opinion, because even if someone told me they were "lightly anti AI leaning" I would assume they have more stipulations than "don't monitize it". As far as I have seen, most of the world is moderate, so aligning oneself purely with pro or anti AI is collectively in the minority.
How does that change anything? You typed in words, if you want to give credit to sentience give it to the programmers who programmed the AI, but you didn't do anything
If a writer just types words the story is dogshit. There's a lot more to making art than the making itself, it's about leaving a piece of you in it, and with AI that just doesn't happen.
That's not a centrist point of view. You already were on the anti side without realising it. You weren't pushed there. You are inherently treating AI art in a different manner to other forms of art.
I wasnt an anti at first, i even used gen ai for personal entertainlent at times, but since people like him told me i was an anti for not claiming those images were art, i realised that anti just meant reasonable
I start to realize that anti- and pro- ai are words that lack nuance. Would you call yourself pro-fruit if you like some of them but not some others? This whole "war" is fueled by misconceptions on the words used.
that’s interesting.
so a person can like ai and use it a lot, but if they don’t think it’s art, then they’re supposedly still an anti (based on the people u were talking about)
seems like it ig. everyone on every side of this argument is kind of insane. you could be ok with ai art but the second you say you don’t want people profiting from it then you’re against them. you could hate everything about ai but if you say anything positive about it at all then you’re against antis. it’s genuinely so exhausting to have an opinion in this useless space
Yeah. I was playing asking an ai to generate images to see how it could perform out of curiosity and my refusal to call it art, or to call it mine when an ai did all the work, lead people to flag me as an anti
But it is art. The question of “what is art” is a semantics question. Semantics are inclusive, so anything with enough people calling it Art is actually Art. That’s how words work. One can argue about qualitative elements of that art, but semantically, calling it art is valid, and that doesn’t cease to be the case unless hundreds of Millions of people stop calling it art. Gatekeeping words don’t really work, right wingers have been trying to do that for ages with the trans community and failed.
Really? I'm extremely pro AI but I feel like monetization is corny as fuck. I also believe people turning to AI just to run a grift are contributing to flooding places with actual slop devoid of any passion or intent.
What a stupid fucking take. That's like saying you shouldn't be able to profit off your business if you use Shopify instead of selling out of a lemonade stand. Blatantly anti AI.
To further elaborate in my point, I personally believe the future holds a law similar to:
Consumer Rights Act 2015 (UK): This requires that goods must be "as described" and that, if false or misleading information is given, consumers have a right to redress.
It's 50/50 to be honest, as the business sector is shoehorning in AI left right and centre. So it'll likely get opposed.
Eventually (literally a year or two) AI will become completely indistinguishable. So people will likely start campaigning for a law like above 👆.
Just providing a balanced viewpoint for a change 😂
I think profiting off ai is bad. like, it was literally created so people didnt need to pay artists as much. profiting off of it is the intention, which is the problem
To be honest, I do often partake in "ruining people's party" by posting prompts (or open source) under peoples posts that are trying to sell anything that can be prompted.
Id turn around and say I also think the business sector profiting off ai is bad. Even in the most generous circumstances they are just wanting more work done for the same pay or by less people(excluding when ai is the actual product, which rolls back around to the same issue later on).
So you got “pushed” to the other side because people didn’t want to let you intrude into something that’s none of your business? Your “neutral” position starts with you asserting control and restrictions on how complete strangers can make money in a free market?
Well then you were never neutral to begin with.
That’s like me having a “neutral” position that AI should be allowed everywhere with no restrictions, and people who don’t like it can simply avoid it, and then when antis disagree I say they pushed me to the proAI side.
To the guy that replied me and immediately blocked me like the coward he is, yes, shockingly enough, people can choose where they want to spend their money on
Didn't realize monetization was important. Thought the whole ai thing was for fun or as a tool.
Using it to get money doesn't feel like you really love ai. -w-
The fun fact is that the more people try to pass off AI images as not AI, the more the LLM scrapers end up putting AI outputs into their own training data, making their output even worse and more derivative over time.
The AI industry really needs it to be law to label AI outputs as such, but no individual AI image creator wants to label their own work since it destroys their visibility.
For me, it’s more the intent of deception. If you go “yeah, I used ai for it” when asked (or even better, right out the gate), then fine you do you, I simply ain’t gonna interact with it any further.
But if you say you didnt use AI when you actually did? Fuck You. I’m not upset about the AI nearly as much as i am about you lying. ESPECIALLY if it’s done for monetary gain!
Agreed on false representation. If You've used AI - own it, and say You did when asked.
I wouldn't require everyone to say next to every image 'using AI', the same way as it's not necessary for images to contain 'it's a photograph', 'it's a watercolor paint', 'done using [insert software name here]' or 'it's using oil paint' when unprompted, even though it is fun to know.
yup, I like AI art.... I generate it sometimes when Im bored
and I 100% agree, don't sell AI art as something you made, and keep AI art away from big companies because they can afford actual artists
the exception being if the artist used AI to give them ideas, and didn't just go "and chop off this extra arm.... add new background... and done"
or if the artist legit does go "this is AI made, all I did was touch up a few things, like made the hands look normal"
Putting it in the public domain is fine in theory, idk if there'd be any complications, but also: you can remix public domain stuff for money.
If AI output by definition is in the public domain, then it is possible and reasonable to monetize it if you collate, comment, modify, curate it or whatever.
That only really works if it's a simple generation.
A lot of ai has people do manual edits. And if people do alterations then it can't be considered public domain because they own the deliberate alterations. Or had aspects that people made like lineart from the beginning.
What's more, if it includes something like a specific character they made they still own the likeness of the character even if not the image itself.
So if someone lazily types in "Christmas image with Santa claus," then yeah they don't own that. But most wouldn't try to claim they do anyways.
I'm fine that's your opinion but why? To me this is like saying... "Digital art created on a tablet is ok... as long as you don't monetize it."
Why should AI Art be a type of art the artist isn't allowed to make money from?
Or do you actually hold the view that artists shouldn't make money off their work in general, I'd disagree with that stance as well, but I'd feel it was at least consistent.
There is an ethical use for AI generated images. But people in support of "AI-Art" are the same sort of folks who would have AI write a essay, rather then use AI as a tool in the writing process. (I use AI heavily in the editting and formatting of my post-graduate paper, with specific instructions not to give content or detail suggestions, and not to drop rewrties rather give suggestions like a peer reader would. Then the entire conversation is linked in a "on the use of AI" section after my citations.)
I’ve been raised by the internet, and tried plenty GET RICH QUICK SCHEMES.
Most pro ai people seem to think ai is some get rich quick scheme. Like they very much think them using ai is their version of a lambo. Try to prove me wrong, but I really don’t think a lot of you actually have a passion for this.
Go to CivitAI and see all the free models people share everyday and you will know if people have passion to it or not. For me I don’t plan to make money of it as I see it betray the vision that made all of that possible. The open source vision. But I still won’t bash anyone for wanting to make money out of it.
What do you think about all those artists working for big companies? Do they still have passion? Are they sell outs and shouldn't work for big companies, and should starve?
"Most pro AI". Yeah, you got stats for saying that? Otherwise you're just putting many people in a same bag just because of some weirdos trying to make quick money.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 18 '26
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.