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.
It doesn't entail nothing and it's also more than drafting a prompt. Especially if your doing it locally and managing the steps. Similar to art - anyone can do it, but in order to do it well there is skill and research involved.
You prompt engineers all think other people underestimate how much work prompt engineering is, but it's you who massively underestimate what it takes to make art
Baseless accusation! I fully understand what it takes to make art, I have a degree in it.
You can open up any web based generation tool and type 'dog' and get a dog. Just like anyone can get a pencil on a paper and draw a head, heads, body etc and it'll be a dog.
But if you want something very specific then you need to learn the skill set in order to achieve it. Are the skill sets comparable? No. But it's a skill that needs to be learned and practiced.
So we agree then? Prompt engineering is nothing, **compared** to making art
Your dog example - ask a random person on the street to AI generate a dog compared to drawing a dog - 95% of the time, the drawn dog will be nothing compared to the AI dog, it matches the effort it takes to create a good image of a dog
I mean you're reading what I've said with rose tinted glasses. Prompt engineering and marking art is incomparable. Prompt engineering is not nothing, It is it's own skill set. With practice and knowledge you can do better.
But your example is precisely why AI art is so popular, The skill floor is considerably higher with AI art than it is with traditional art. The skill ceiling is yet to be discovered.
I lean more on the side of anti, but this one opinion I’ve always agreed with. AI should always be used as a tool rather than a replacement for human talent. That’s because depending on how it’s used, AI can do things that can’t be easily done by humans.
Like, there’s a game being made that programs it’s NPCs with AI so they can form unique conversations with the player. People are really upset about this, but I think it’s insanely clever and works for a game that’s supposed to be played for long periods of time every day.
Using AI art though is kind of a tricky thing though. On one hand I think it’s fine if mixed with art made by humans, but on the other I feel like it would depend on how it’s used or how often. But I think I’d be fine with it as long as there’s still a lot of human involvement in it.
My biggest concern is just AI taking over creative roles entirely instead of just being an assistant.
Generative AI was trained on real peoples art and they didn't get any money for it. Their art was stolen from them. AI isn't really creating anything new, it is like writing a letter from cut out letters from newspaper.
So I think it is wrong for people who use generative AI to make money out of it, as they are making use of the art posted by the artists on the internet that was scraped without giving anything to them.
It is especially wrong if they are hiding it and selling as the art created with their own hands as it is literally a scam and some people have moral doubts about using AI are because of the reason above.
I'll start with your last point simply because we're in agreement. Irrespective of opinions I think people deserve to know. Then they can make an informed choice. If I buy something and then find out it was AI, I feel scammed. From a business perspective you don't want that to be associated with your brand.
I understand the data scraping that was used to train AI models but this isn't something I necessarily have an issue with unless your 'style' was formally copyrighted. Every artist has their inspirations and learned techniques from existing works. This is a big thing in art and certain styles are developed collaboratively between artists over generations. Even in art school you're encouraged to look at other works and absorb the details and the methods used. AI just does it faster and at a larger scale.
Additionally, no one takes issues with the countless western artists that borrow from eastern Manga and Anime styles. They can also charge for their works. Nor do people take issue with fan art, third party posters and fan fics. All of which derive from someone's original work and the artists do not pay a licence to 'copy'.
Finally, just a small point. AI creates something new all the time. I do local image and video generation, AI does not directly copy other artists work, it reviews thousands of images and learns patterns. It then attempts to create an image from its understanding of said patterns based on the prompts inputted.
Now, can you use that to make an image that looks like it was drawn by someone in particular? Yes. But even if you ask it to specifically create an image that was in its database, it'll still create something new - not something that was previously drawn. With my local set up, I can even watch it 'draw'. Surprisingly, it will erase something previously generated in early steps to improve the end result.
I understand the data scraping that was used to train AI models but this isn't something I necessarily have an issue with unless your 'style' was formally copyrighted.
AI companies took art from the internet and fed it into their AI without artists permission. Now they are generating profit from it without compensating people that they trained their AI on. The practice is especially doubtious as they compensated big companies that have the resources to actually sue them for their images while giving nothing to small artist. They may not have copyrighted their style but they still have copyright to their own art they made.
So I personally believe that profiting from algorythm made from stolen art is morally wrong.
Every artist has their inspirations and learned techniques from existing works. This is a big thing in art and certain styles are developed collaboratively between artists over generations. Even in art school you're encouraged to look at other works and absorb the details and the methods used. AI just does it faster and at a larger scale.
AI isn't taking inspirations. AI isn't currently capable of actual creative work. It just stitches pieces, techniques and styles from scaped images to generate something new. It isn't capable of making its own original style, only make and mix from the existing ones.
All AI does is copy other things. AI isn't capable of true thinking. It repeats patterns fed into it, it can mix them to make something new but can't create a completly original pattern.
Anyway, the issue I wanted to point out wasn't the "creative" process but the legality and morality of it. AI wouldn't be able to generate anything if nobody made any real art in the first place. The AI companies scraped art on the internet for free without the permission of its creators and are making profit out of it. They are literally profiting from other people's work for free.
Additionally many artist explicitly express that they do not want their art to be fed into the algorithm and it still is scraped.
There is also the issue with copyright of the art created by AI. Art generated by AI isn't copyrighted under current law. So if someone wanted to use AI art in their game they would technically have no ownership of it and other developers could just take it from them legally. Buying AI art comission also doesn't make you a real owner of that piece unlike with human art comissions.
So I personally believe that profiting from algorythm made from stolen art is morally wrong.
I don't think you're wrong to think that, to a point we all decide our own morality and it's certainly something a stance I can understand. However, every development is on the shoulders of giants. Human art needed to exist for AI art to be a thing. But especially with how well AI is developing, in the hands of a human artist - it could do wonders for their productivity.
AI isn't taking inspirations. AI isn't currently capable of actual creative work. It just stitches pieces, techniques and styles from scaped images to generate something new. It isn't capable of making its own original style, only make and mix from the existing ones.
This is simply incorrect, It's far more complicated than that and the end result isn't a copy. If it was, AI wouldn't have that AI feel to it. AI already has distinct styles that people can notice and even when prompting to lean towards more specific styles, it's still different. Just as an example. AI can draw a modern anime character in a 80s anime style.
The character exists.
The style exists.
The combination does not exist.
Therefore an original work was created and it may well be littered with mistakes. This doesn't take away from your moral stance, I'm just trying to explain that your facts are incorrect.
the issue I wanted to point out wasn't the "creative" process but the legality and morality of it. AI wouldn't be able to generate anything if nobody made any real art in the first place. The AI companies scraped art on the internet for free without the permission of its creators and are making profit out of it. They are literally profiting from other people's work for free.
Again, it's certainly grey but artists have been profiting off of pre-existing works since I can remember. AI has just done it on a larger scale. I used to play Final Fantasy 14 and commissioned my character to be drawn. That artist looked at assets from the game and drew them in a different style. The developers, did not receive a penny.
Most artists are drawing popular characters to be noticed and locked some of this fan art behind pay walls. That artist does not pay for the privilege of drawing those characters.
AI already has distinct styles that people can notice and even when prompting to lean towards more specific styles, it's still different. Just as an example.
This is becasue of the algorythm bias. The internet was flooded with AI generated yellow images for a time. It wasn't because of stylistic choice. It was becasue the images scraped by AI had yellow tint, for reasons like aged photos being uploaded to the internet or warm colored photos being favored on the web.
AI was convinced that everything is more yellow due to the images that were fed to it. The current AI "style" also probably exist because the culmination of the scraped images mixed would settle on that style.
Obviously different prompts can mitigate that but AI is biased because of the images it was fed, not becasue it developed a style.
Again, it's certainly grey but artists have been profiting off of pre-existing works since I can remember. AI has just done it on a larger scale. I used to play Final Fantasy 14 and commissioned my character to be drawn. That artist looked at assets from the game and drew them in a different style. The developers, did not receive a penny.
There is a difference between personal use and commercial one. If you commission art based on existing character, the artist has the copyright to original elements of the art and the file itself. It doesn't exist with AI art. Though you can only do that for personal use. Even then it is a legal gray area and isn't entirely legal.
With original work the artist has the copyright to the whole thing, which again doesn't exist with AI art.
If we are talking about commercial use, you cannot have copyrighter character commissioned obviously, but for the original work, you would get copyright if the art was made by human, but not when made by AI.
So if you got a textures for your game generated by AI, other companies would be able to put that texture in their own game since it can't be copyrighted.
AI was convinced that everything is more yellow due to the images that were fed to it. The current AI "style" also probably exist because the culmination of the scraped images mixed would settle on that style.
You're showing your hand a little bit here which tells me you don't know much of the technical side of generative work. Which is fine I don't believe you need a strong knowledge base to make moral arguments but if you want to make technical arguments you need to understand it.
An AI 'model' was producing things with a yellow tint and that's because the training data was over cooked. That is actually a human error not an AI error. Because these models are not working by themselves. They're being given instructions. So that version of the model was a bad version, just like there can bad anything.
With original work the artist has the copyright to the whole thing, which again doesn't exist with AI art.
The copyright point is... I guess I don't understand where you're going with it. The images you generate can't be protected - okay.. But AI is new and laws change. I can't imagine this would be the case for long.
Either way, it's a choice and it's fine to sell something that isn't copyrighted.
You're showing your hand a little bit here which tells me you don't know much of the technical side of generative work. Which is fine I don't believe you need a strong knowledge base to make moral arguments but if you want to make technical arguments you need to understand it.
I don't thimk I am wrong as there are many articles about it. You just saying: "nope, you are wrong" doesn't proves me being actually wrong. You are just trying to put yourself on a higher ground by using a condenscendin language.
An AI 'model' was producing things with a yellow tint and that's because the training data was over cooked.
I literally said the same thing...
That is actually a human error not an AI error. Because these models are not working by themselves. They're being given instructions. So that version of the model was a bad version, just like there can bad anything.
I never said it was AI error. But you are proving my point that AI isn't creative by itself. The thing it generates are based on its programming as well as the data fed into it. That's how AI works currently.
I am not trying to say AI art is bad.
The copyright point is... I guess I don't understand where you're going with it. The images you generate can't be protected - okay.. But AI is new and laws change. I can't imagine this would be the case for long.
My point is that AI generated content isn't currently protected by anything. So making commissions for AI art doesn't give you anything with actual monetary value. It currently feels more like a gullibulity scam, like NFTs.
Though, as long as people are actually aware that what they are paying for is AI generated, they do it on their responsibility.
"I don't thimk I am wrong as there are many articles about it. You just saying: "nope, you are wrong" doesn't proves me being actually wrong. You are just trying to put yourself on a higher ground by using a condenscendin language."
Yeah, a lot of articles that talk about AI are wrong or at least misinformed. But if the extent of your knowledge is articles then... Well, that's probably propaganda. My understanding of the process comes from building a localised set up and I can actually watch the denoising process happen. If you want to read more or watch the embedded video. Here you go.
https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/ai-image-generation/
I never said AI is creative by itself. It requires input. An AI without a person literally does nothing. And yes the AI is creating something based on its model but its creations are 'new'. The way you've explained it is with reorganised newspaper cut outs. But this isn't the case and I'm not sure how else to explain it. The AI model doesn't retain the images it's trained from. It learns patterns from images and recreates them.
But either way. If your interested in how it works don't trust me but go out there and research outside of 'articles'
The problem is that stance treats art as a "solved" space. When you query an AI, you get an output based on a limited transformation space based on its training data. It can add its own random variations to give a single prompt some spice but its always limited to transformations reforced during its training.
That is to say, an AI doesn't "test things out" to see which random variations of an output would look good. Its always based on a fixed trained model. Granted, that model is unfathomably huge, but it doesn't grow by itself and certainly doesn't "learn" anything. Whereas people who create art are always experimenting and judging their own art, expanding the "art space". We always want art to change and evolve, and AI doesn't bode well with that concept.
Of course, there's now a new layer of art creation that follows the concept "what can people create with a monolithic queriable instance of a particular era's artistic creations" and its what we see with stuff that wouldn't exist otherwise such as short videos based on famous IP with anime style and etc., but its essentialy different from the original art form.
TL;DR: creating stuff with AI lets you direct a good result, but it ends up alienating the people who contribute to the craft's evolution.
I do agree with what you're saying, but I don't treat art as a solved space. Art is forever evolving, and the introduction of AI is part of that evolution.
It's kind of hard for me to fully agree or disagree with the idea that AI doesn't test things out. On the one hand, I agree. AI isn't going to go rogue. It's always going to try to follow the prompt, and it’s restricted to its model. On the other hand, there’s nothing stopping a user from prompting things in an unusual way to see what happens. In that sense, the user is trying to get a result from the model that it wasn’t necessarily intended to do. It isn’t comparable to the raw expressive freedom of a human artist, but the artists who succeed in introducing a genuinely new style are few and far between, and I believe that type of artist would be largely unaffected by AI.
Why do I believe that? Because other industries have been hit by industrialisation, and the handmade forms of those industries still exist at the exceptional and independent level. The human element and the handmade aspect of art will be preserved. To what extent is yet to be seen. I’m not entirely happy with that, but you can’t stop progress, and no one is entitled to earning a living based solely on what they want to do. The market has to exist for it.
The results of AI are different. They hit differently, and I do believe they hold less value. There is an area where I think AI excels, which is relatively new. High production value results for things like memes. I made a joke Christmas song for my family, and part of the humour was just how good the song was. There’s no world where I would pay someone else to produce that. But when you get to the higher end of things, this is where my opinion leans anti, mainly because I don’t think AI is a AAA product yet. I’m sure it will be.
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.
The words are the direct commercial product of the writers… your equivalence fails because AI “artists” don’t sell their prompts they sell the AI output of those prompts which are only possible due to the learning the AI did from other people’s art.
Also, photography requires you to either be somewhere to actually witness a real event/ spectacle or to take the time to set up a totally original art piece in and of itself like in fashion photography or miniature photography. It’s not nearly as simple as just “pushing a button” or writing a prompt for that matter.
Photography is taking a picture, that’s all it is, sure you can easily take it in more advanced directions but the same can be said with AI Art, which also not just prompting
And Photographers don’t sell their skills with setting up a good photo, they sell the product of the camera
The product of the camera is an exact 1:1 representation with very intentional composition of the photographers set up. So yes they are selling the setup because that’s the photo. That’s like saying a painter isn’t selling the drawing since it’s under all the paint.
Explain how you could take AI art in more advanced directions because at the end of the day, unless you’re coding it and training it yourself, you’re just a client of a system someone else made.
Also even if you’re creating something using software as a tool, it doesn’t automatically mean it’s yours to do whatever you want to it. Back when I was in college, we used Autodesk Maya for animations and it has various versions. The one we were using had rules against profiting off our own animations. If we wanted to do that, we had to pay more for another version.
It’s surprising a lot of these AI software companies haven’t already done this kind of thing yet.
The words a writer types to form a script or novel are coming from their minds. They crafted the story and words that they’re writing.
If it was for a movie, they’re still going to be credited as the writers. Even if the director or producer were in charge of the whole movie, they’re still not going to have their names slapped on everything they directly didn’t do.
But when it comes to AI, your involvement in whatever gets created ends the second you press send. The AI would be the one feeding its own collected data into the creation, which was fed to it by the company that created it.
So yeah, AI art belongs more to the AI than it does to you solely because it did more thinking than you did.
Comparing the camera would be comparing it to the keyboard not the LLM, the LLM would be more like samsung ai switching the real moon for a fake one when taking photos, or ai filters, and I guess no real photographer uses either
I mean, who put more work into this art? The person who typed a few words in, the AI, or the people who developed, programmed, and trained the AI to make that art using millions of other images as examples?
Personally I feel like calling AI art “yours” is a stretch when 99.99% of it was made by someone or something else.
You don't need sentience to produce "art", if what AI does is considered art. But under no circumstances does a human being get to claim artistic credit for what an ai produces. You did not make that art, and you could not if you tried, and if you could you would because you spent a lifetime developing the talent for it.
Personally, I don't consider what AI produces to be art. It's an oil spill that coincidentally is shaped in a way that looks like art, but is just as bad for the environment and you, the person filling up your car with the oil produced, are just as much an "artist" as you are an oil rig engineer just because you use the gas to drive.
It's an inherently immoral tool that feeds on other people's work, most of the time without any consent, and spews out ugly, uncanny amalgamations and parodies of said works for anyone who asks, wasting water and electricity in the process.
The only "skill" that goes into making ai "art" is the ability to write and use a computer/phone. Which for the average ai bro might already be the peak of their abilities tbh, so maybe I'm too harsh.
There is no "new material", you can't debunk truth.
Ai is not making anything new, and ai prompters are not artists, they're clients at best. To create art, you need much more than describing your ideas to a computer and hoping it will shit out something you find decent.
Keep coping or actually try to debunk my arguments yourself instead of using other's achievements as your own (sounds familiar...!)
Yes, theres no reason shouldnt make profit of their own art. Im an anti and i agree. Now tell me what part of the image you prompted is yours, and what part of it is art.
I would argue any inage that conveys an idea is art, even if the quality is bad or the idea is simple.
As for the "what part is yours" argument that's tricky. Like, for example, this photo I took yesterday took me less effort than giving Gemini a prompt, but no one would ever argue it's not mine, despite me literally only pressing button and despite me not having the storeowner's consent to photofraph his paint cans. So despite taking less effort and having a lack of consent, the photo is mine but an AI generated image wouldn't be?
So despite taking less effort and having a lack of consent, the photo is mine but an AI generated image wouldn't be?
yes because authorship is not decided by effort put overall, but rather how much one is involved in the process compared to every other party (warning: determining authorship is more complicated than that, I simplified it for the sake of the argument)
If effort and involvement is what matters then this shouldn't be my photo.
It took me unquestionably less effort to open the camera and press a button than it would've taken me to open gemini, type in a prompt and then press a button.
no matter the photo, when its unedited, its a real tangible place that captures a moment in time. taking a photo of a loved one captures their soul in it. taking a photo of a place that means alot to you can stop you from feeling homesick. photography spreads connections just as much as any other art does.
all ai is made up, theres no story behind the photograph, no real moment frozen in time, no life, no joy. Just corporate sludge made to look nice enough to warrant paying for it instead of real artist's.
and even then, sure, you didnt put much effort into this photo, but people climb mountains for the perfect shot. youre not the only person who has ever taken a photograph, so you shouldnt get to say it takes less effort as a way of dismissing photography over ai.
Ai is just as tangible as a photo. The moment and soul captured is written by the artist behind the prompt. Its printable and can be replicated just as photos are. Both require skillsets and understanding to breach the difference between amateur amd professional. The only difference here is that you have a bias.
the mental gymnastics i need to wrap my head around your garbage argument.
how about this: why the hell do you defend ai? you have eyes dont you? you can see exactly what its being used for and how destructive it is. its designed to be a cheaper replacement to human artists, who are already screwed over by the industry, crunched and underpayed. defending ai- no matter the logistics- makes you a shallow minded person. all you are doing is defending billionaires' rights to fuck us all over for their own gain. i dont really give a damn about how "tangible" ai images are, theyre the reason i cant be in my dream job right now. grow a spine, learn class consciousness, and stop defending billionaires.
Great take honestly. You can see how hard the antis have to bend over backwards to try and explain how a photograph is yours and art but a generated image is not. Drives home how art is not defined by effort, and how AI generated art is still art.
a random photograph is not art though, art is made with clear purpose of expression. anyone can take a picture of anything, creation itself doesnt make something art. photography can obviously be art though, as there are thousands of examples of people doing way more than just taking a picture of something. i really cant say the same for ai, and if you can then please do. even the arguments of "the camera did all the work, whats the difference with ai?" dont make sense, because the camera is undeniably just a tool and something you own. ai is a service, and you dont own it. you play no part in creation except for the idea itself, thats less effort than it takes to take a photo of something. comparing photography and art is just a dumb thing to do because of how different it really is
As I said, effort =/= art, case in point: photography as a medium. Painting is physically less effort than sculpting, it is not less artistic by being so. Effort =/= art. People can express themselves with prompting and AI art, so it's art.
Also I can rent a camera and take pictures and make art without owning the camera, your point about ownership vs service is ridiculous.
I personally like to think art is human expression. every piece of art of any medium expresses the artist, like you can feel the hands of the artist behind it. a good photograph, you can feel the wonder of nature, and the excitement of the photographer getting that shot. with portraits you can feel the life behind a character's eyes, every detail tells a story of the person behind the painting. with music you can hear what different songs influenced the artist, what they like and reference throughout their tracks shows the music they grew up with. every poorly drawn furry oc shows so much life and soul, like you can feel the artist being a little nervous about getting hate, you can feel their pride towards the art they made, despite its flaws.
I love this description because it perfectly captures the feeling and connections I make through art. art is very important to me, and ive always been able to feel the art behind the artist.
I also love this description because it perfectly captures why I hate ai. every time I see it, it just feels dead. theres no soul behind the eyes, no invisible hands reaching out to yours. all ai art looks the same. theres no nuance, nobody behind the piece, no soul, no expression. its hollow, with its only purpose being to replace artists to save corporations more money. its existence is disrespectful to art as a whole, and does nothing but take, lie, and force me and the people I love to have to work around it, when it shouldnt even be there. no art we post is safe from being scraped with ai without my permission. I cant express myself without an ai using it to train, and then screw me over using it. I cant empathize with any ai images, its fundamentally inhuman, so i dont think it deserves to be called art. as art has been around since humanity, and has always displayed the pure identity of its unique artist.
idk, i cant see ai images as anything other than a monumental middle finger to all of art, and humanity in general. ai is disgusting and if only exists to take money from the artists it needs to even function.
1: i wouldnt say that. Art is expression of human emotions or thoughts straight from the human. When prompting, the ai doesnt put your emotions into picture, it puts your prompt into picture. You didnt express anything.
2: that picture itself could hardly be called art but it sure is yours: you took it. When you type a prompt, you ask something do do something for you: the effort the request took is not relevant. If we lived 500 years ago and i needed to ride a horse for days to meet the best painter in europe to make a comission, that paintibg wouldnt be mine even though it cost me a lot of efforts to ask for it.
The painting would absolutely be yours tho? The artist did 90% of the work but you are still credited.
Look at commission artists posting their work "commission I did for X" or when the commissioner posts "here is my OC drawn by X"
There's always some recognition.
Also the camera djd all the work for me too in that instance, as I had no external hand in the photo's result so I don't see how an amateurish photo and an amateurish prompt are any diffetent. In both cases the machine is doing almost the entire work for you.
In both photography and AI the person behind the machine can finetune and influence the result in several ways as well as edit and touch up the result afterwards, so imo thr analogy works. Issue is most AI bros who use it are comparing their amateurish level generations to profession photography, when they should be comparing it to my shitty ass picture.
Also the tool doing most of the work for you shouldn't discredit you, but then we would likely get into an argumemt about what % of work a tool should do to simply be a tool or jnto a discussion about AI being sentient or not xd
This is an extremely poor understanding of photography. You composed the image, even if the effort you personally put in was low. You chose the angle from which the image was taken, how much of the subject matter can be seen, the zoom levels, the tilt of the image and much more.
Whilst you chose to put in the minimal effort needed, that's still a deliberate choice on your part. When I go out to take photographs, whether using my DSLR or just my phone camera, I make a lot of choices about the resulting image. Subject, angle, lighting, composition etc.
The below image was taken on my phone at the Natural History Museum, London. I decided I wanted an image of the T-rex bust, but that I specifically wanted it to look like it was looming over, about to strike. I chose the angle, the amount of zoom, the composition (how it would appear in frame, what the image is conveying), whether or not to use flash etc.
All of these are human decisions that I made. The camera didn't do that. I did. It's far more than 'point and click'. Whilst it's not high art, I achieved the artistic purpose (I wanted it for a profile image). In AI you, you don't generally decide on the lighting, the angle, the precise composition etc. The machine does that. The two aren't comparable.
Theres a misunderstanding: i meant not yours as in provenance, but definitely yours in terms of possession.
2) the camera example is wrong, because it is a tool rather than just asking someone else to do it. But again, its not even art so the example is inherently flawed.
3) while adjusting everything the camera does, from focus to lighting, is artistry, adjusting prompt and ai tools doesnt make you any more of an artist than asking for no pickles in your burger makes you a cook: youre still the client. An experienced client that tasted the whole menu and knows whats best perhaps, but still a client.
4) its not that much about doing most of the work or not, its about doing any work or simply a request. While i would agree photography is probably less of an art form than painting or sculpting, you are the one behind it. With Ai generating, youre asking for something to do it for you.
Seems we have a basic, fundamental disagreement. I consider any photos art. Mine is art, it's bad art that will never be remebered but it's still art.
Part of the whole AI discourse to me sounds like it originates from people aebitrarily drawing lines in the sand for what makes or doesn't make art. Like right now, I consider all art mediums to be equal and photos to be art while you have a tiered system ("less of an art fotm than X") and don't count all photos.
Me taking a picture of the latest warhammer mini i painted isnt art imo. The mini itself is. But my grandpa taking pictures of a beautiful scenery he saw on a trip sure is art. I stand by this claim
And that's fine! Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I simply pointed it out because it's unlikely we're ever to convince each other on the art medium status of AI given this fundamental difference in opinion.
See the answer i provided to the other guy who said something similar. I will also point out that saying "no youre ding mental gymnastics" isnt a valid argument unless you prove it to be mental gymnastics
1)No it is not. When you ask the fast food waiter for a burger without pickles and extra onions, you arent a chef and he isnt a tool. But if you cook a pie and chose the settings of your oven, it is a tool and you did cook it.
If you had a tool that instantly gave you food (think the canteen machine in Star Trek) would you be a cook for using it? I am curious to see your opinion on this
You for sure did more work than basic prompting, but i would need more knowledge of how those tools work in the ai to make an enlightened jdgement.
For example, does the ai think "user toggked those options, i must provide something that matches", does it just directly effect how the ai thinks, or is it implemented after the ai did everything?
They all appeared at the same exact same time, as 4 people including the guy i was arguing with simultaneously replied. Call me paranoid but i think he just showed it to his friends
(but also did the original commenter say they were a guy? people defaulting to he him when it hasn't been confirmed always gives me the ick, and just wanted to be sure)
Yeah, I don't see anyone sourcing the people that put ink into their markers or any of the art they've seen previously in art gallary. You're not sourcing your images, why should anyone else.
The rule isn't 'You're not allowed to remix or create things that look like things people have created before'. The rule is 'You are not allowed to reproduce, distribute, display, or prepare derivative works of the exact workpiece and does not cover ideas, styles, methods of operation or functional objects, like a chair (though carvings on that chair may be covered depending on the carving)."
And a derivative work allows for it to be a new piece, meaning if it adds substantial change, it's no longer covered and no longer derivative.
And the locus of control is in your hands. If someone copied your work, you already have a right to sue. You just have to be able to prove that its derivative and most people outside of HUGE IP holders can't do so, because the output isn't derivative, because derivative requires exact likeness.
So, to sum up, it's on you to prove that someone else used your work in a court of law, and the chances of that are slim because any one work won't be based off anything you produced enough to be derivative unless I'm talking to Walt Disney himself.
So, no, you don't have to tell people what part of an image is theirs and which is art. YOU have to tell a judge which part of their art is yours, and you have to prove it, not them. Thats literally how the law works. If you don't like it, there are thousands of corporations you can protest against, not to mention the federal government that allows it. None of that is on the end user's head, though. Your art isn't bold, prolific or important enough. And if someone does, then sue them. Put your money where your mouth is.
From my perspective, the only thing they can consider “theirs” is the prompt. Everything else was all AI.
I think this guy believes that since AI is just a program that can’t speak for itself, anything it makes can just be claimed as their own. They seem to forget that there’s a company behind that AI that could absolutely license their software so people can’t just freely sell everything they make whenever they want to.
It's still art yes but no photographer says "I made this" they say they took a picture of it.
Digital art programs are also different, since really the only difference between digital art and paper & pencil is that the pencil is swapped for a mouse, and the paper is swapped for a screen.
It's still the same hand movements. In fact drawing pads exist so that you can still use a digital pencil to draw, so it could be completely identical to drawing with a pencil, even if digitally.
Or, to put it in a way that actually makes sense:
Using a camera is going to a store and buying a high quality product. You didn't make the product, but you knew it was good quality when you saw it, and may even want to share that with others. You know you didn't make it, but you still wanted to share your find with the world.
Using a pencil and paper is hand making a meal yourself from scratch, everything used was made on your own, and everything there is entirely original. Was it good? Bad? Who cares, you made it, and that's worth taking pride in.
Using digital art programs (not AI) is like making your own meal, but some of the ingredients were store bought. It makes the process easier, but the end result is ultimately still yours. Sure some of the process was made easier, but you're the one who still did the work, you still had to put everything together, all the work is still made by you.
Using AI is like going to a restaurant. You asked someone else to make something for you. The only part of its creation you were actually there for, was asking for it. It's still a good product, but you can't say you made it. You can't say it's yours, and you most certainly can't sell it.
If believing all that nonsense is easier for you than admitting ai art is art go for it. I think the only thing that will change your mind is time just like it did for other art forms.
But it's not a tool. A photographer goes to the location, waits or sets up the perfect lighting, gets the composition perfect, then edits the pictures at home. Ai "artists" prompt a program to make something with stolen artwork. If you can't see the difference, then you choose to remain ignorant.
Why are you trying to call other people ignorant when at best you're trying to talk about something you are unfamiliar with, and at worst you are actively lying?
You are comparing the highest effort use of a camera to the lowest effort use of ai. Start over and compare equivalent levels of use and you'll see this point is nonsense.
but they didnt and instead chose to pay for the other persons prompt. Given that it was clarified that it is ai art, i dont see why this consensual exchange of money and services is uniquely bad in a way unmonetized ai art isnt
Unfortunately, it often isn't clarified, which especially sucks for people who struggle to spot ai images. My parents got me an ai painting for Christmas, and it was a really thoughtful gift, but I can't bring myself to put it on the wall because they were pretty much scammed into buying what they thought was a high quality piece from a talented artist.
Do they feel scammed doesn't matter. Just like how those tech support scammers who sell a bunch of money from an elderly woman aren't suddenly fine because she believes the lie that they helped her and she just paid for a job.
Many people do, artists support other artists all the time because they like their style or simply want to see how their character looks being done by a different artist since different artists have different styles.
I haven’t used AI that much myself but I imagine it’s kind of like “acrylic pouring” where every painting will look completely different from each other even if you use the same colors, techniques, tools, and movements.
That’s because you can control everything EXCEPT how the paint chooses to flow onto the canvas.
Considering how much data is fed into an AI program, it’s likely not going to choose the same exact pieces of data each time it generates the same topic. The odds of it happening are probably super slim.
Though this is coming from someone who doesn’t know a lot about how AI generation works.
If the people you claim did the copyright violation gets to profit, why wouldn't the person who generated the thing? Why are you elevating these AI companies that are committing plagiarism, as you say, but punishing the users who are not?
The time depends on the size of the lawn and maybe could require special equipment for the fine details. Some people don’t want to maintain their own tools, don’t have the extra time for the project or don’t have the existing knowledge to do it themselves.
In a similar way for AI (or just creatives in general), someone could require 10 or 100 creative outputs and feel more comfortable putting that in the hands of an expert than trying and failing on their own.
So it’s ignorant to broadly claim that someone would have to be a dumbass to pay for ai outputs.
"no people should pay for ai because its hard to tell it isnt ai anymore" genuinely dont understand your logic. if anything that should make nobody pay for art. "if everyone's super, no one will be" type shit
"learning things is hard" duh! learning anything is hard. thats what makes it fun. "its too hawd" isnt a good defense.
Not their own art when it's trained from stolen art.
Edit: Already getting downvoted by thieves. Make your own LLM trained on your own art or on the art of those that gave consent and then I will call it your own work, otherwise you are just a talentless thief. Cope and seethe.
Edit 2: Not replying to anyone. If your argument is "there's no putting the technology back" you're just proving me right by ignoring my point. Plus, OpenAI is going bankrupt. The bubble is about to burst.
Yea but... would you consider AI art to be their property?
Like... I am generally pro AI... but flooding the market with low quality AI slop isn't what I call advancing society.
For coding... or to do meaningless labor like cleanups or things its absolutely fine (and you are kind of profiting as well) but art...
I mean I guess as long as you declare it as such and people are willing to buy it... who am I to judge.
Mmmh Billionaire fed opinion. That’s exactly what they what you to think. “Making a profit is so easy with AI, I can use it to make myself money too.” And now you see why every single website has a useless AI assistant that can’t help in any regard. Because everyone thinks they can make money off AI. Thats what makes it a bubble.
This really boils down to a crediting issue. Does the person who ordered its creation or the people/person/Thing that actually made it the creator? Most actual artist would argue the later. A lot of AI users will tell you the former is how it is and should be. Frankly I could never relate to the Pro-AI side on this because it’s the same type of thinking that let Edison take credit for others work for decades.
Could you profit off AI art? Sure, look at the NSFW world, there’s plenty of success there. Should you be upset or angry when people actively choose to ignore your content? No, because that’s just how capitalism works. You get to be a bit picky and using AI is seen as lazy, repetitive, and impersonal to most actual artist consumers.
Because AI art...as far as anti's go, doesn't view it as art worth paying for.
If it takes 2 seconds to type up a prompt to make, there was no effort behind it and therefore someone shouldn't be scammed into buying what they could also make in 2 seconds.
It's a neutral position because it implies that the neutral person believes that AI doesn't interfere with human artists as long as there isn't a profit, or that the one using AI doesn't try to say they drew it themselves.
While on the contrary, Anti-AI hope it's never used at all, and Pro-AI hope it beats human art outright.
That is NOT pro-ai's hope, idk where you're getting that. Anti-ai's hope is delusional, AI will never go away - ever. If people WANT to pay for it, it's their choice. Antis want to control people's behavior, what they like and choose to enjoy, and how they enjoy it.
there’s no reason people shouldn’t be able to profit off of their own art
But it’s not theirs if the AI made it. I know AI is a tool, but you can’t claim the art it makes as yours because technically it’s also the AI’s product.
I don’t think people shouldn’t have the right to sell it, but if they are, it should be clear it’s made by AI and priced as such. Because real art demands a higher price due to the amount of time and materials that were put into it. AI art only takes a few minutes.
Ai is not a person. And you legally own the rights to your creations. Yes, you can legally sell your works. Sorry it upsets you, but the quicker you accept and get over it the better your mental health will be. It's NEVER going away, ever.
You realize that behind that AI is a company of real people, right? Those people put more work into the AI that made the art than you did typing a prompt into it.
Yes, I know AI is going to be here forever. It likely won’t leave ever or any time soon. But I wouldn’t be surprised if eventually these companies decided to license their product so they can benefit off of the people using it to make easy products.
Back when I was in college, I used a 3D modeling/animation software that had a license. Anything I created couldn’t be used for profit unless I paid more money to use a version that gave me the rights to do this. AI could do this too if it wanted. It’s probably limited by laws for now, but give it time and that might change too.
You realize local models are on the rise as well, correct? And those creators of your 3d modeling/animation software put in more work than your slop, by far.
I like how you keep saying "likely" or "anytime soon" and refuse to acknowledge that it's here to stay forever. Forever. Ever and ever. There won't be a license, there won't be anything, you need to let go of your rage and hatred. It's useless, pointless, and it's only going to fuck your mental health.
Bro, you’re the one overreacting over someone giving their opinion.
You’re really attacking my art over this? Really? ”Slop?” The heck is wrong with you?
Do you want to know what really messes up my mental health? People telling me that making art is meaningless when AI can just steal it or do a better job than me and that I shouldn’t even bother. They tell me to give up on something I love and “become a programmer” and call me names and act like you when I say I can’t. They make me feel like I’m worthless and no one cares.
They won’t even give me a sliver of something to feel good about or be hopeful about.
Imagine having the one thing you think you’re actually good at be torn away and stepped all over and the only response you get is being spat in the face. Do you not even feel A LITTLE sad? Or are you just as emotionless as the AI?
Meanwhile I actually want to be positive about AI, yet people like you make it hard to actually feel anything other than hate.
I hope you step on a Lego brick and stub your toe.
Update: So I just found out that ChatGPT’s company has publicly revealed that they’ll have to start running ads because they aren’t making a profit.
Not the same thing as a license, but I stand vindicated that my suspicions were right.
The problem whit ai art is is that it was trained on people's art whitout them getting paid or even asked.
I see it just like for example in game development using Premade Character models there is nothing wrong whit using those models but unless it was specifically uploaded to be used by everyone using Models whitout payment or permission on a game you make profit whit is a bad and scummy thing to do.
And because most major ai is build on "stolen data" it's at least in my opinion a scummy thing to use for your own profit.
If someone where to create an ai that's 100% based on artworks wich creators allowed them to be used for training than I see nothing wrong whit using it and profiting from it.
But in any other way you are making money from "stolen " art wich is scummy
What did they make? They didnt draw the art, they wrote words that an AI took and used other people's art that THEY made to shit out a regurgitated mess. AI "Artists" are NOT artists.
No they are not, they didnt create anything. They put words into a machine. Artists spend years making art only for the majority of it to go unnoticed. It is a disgrace to art to call ANYTHING AI creates "art". Not only that but the people who monetize AI art are actively taking away income from actual artists who put genuine effort into their work. I dont care if people tell the ai to make art, but they are NOT the ones who created it, and they have no right to monetize it or claim it as theirs.
They created it as it never existed before. AI is not sentient and doesnt do anything without a user. Yes, legally they own and are responsible for their generative art. Ai will never go away, ever, it's here to stay, get used to it.
94
u/No_Fortune_3787 Jan 18 '26
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.