Bullying people who does no harm to anyone is cool now?
Many people use gen AI for completely innocuous tasks. And for many things that harm nobody. Still you take pleasure insulting and degrading Innocent people.
That’s not better than any other bully/oppresor.
Don’t act surprised when people stop helping and having solidarity with your fights when you have spent a decade insulting everyone around you.
And it’s not a bad life choice. Bad life choice is choosing to go online to insult a lot of innocent people in other to feed that bad human in your heart.
These latest years “”““left leaning””" spaces have been feeling more like right wing echo chambers of hate and bigotry towards more and more and more people.
Mark my words, this will have consequences, and some people may ask in a couple of years how is it that no one came for help when they need it. And they shall remember that the blatantly insulted those they will be asking for help and that people just got sick of them.
At least it’s what’s happening to me. There are many places I won’t show up for helping, that I would have helped in the past. But I cannot stand next to people who have show me that they have the heart as full of hate as the alt-right. We will most likely end up forming our own spaces I suppose.
Mark my words, this will have consequences, and some people may ask in a couple of years how is it that no one came for help when they need it. And they shall remember that the blatantly insulted those they will be asking for help and that people just got sick of them.
These comments just make me sad, because I have a feeling you are not talking specifically about artists mad at AI art when you say ‘some people’. You are letting the voices of a few people convince you to abadon the silence of a majority. And in this current political world, that could result in a lot of people who see eye to eye with you being punished.
It makes me sad too. But the amount of people who just push hate speech for every little thing in left leaning spaces nowadays is too big.
In this case the little thing is just insulting people using an AI tool (not even the big bussiness they are insulting the PEOPLE). But I’ve seen it more and more with a lot of different examples in the latest years. Another big instance is militant veganism, I’m sick of being called a rapist and a genocidal guy equivalent to Hitler for just eating meat, so they are alone until they got their shit together and start calling out the bigots in their spaces.
And like those two each year that passes there’s something new you have to blindly follow the lead or be insulted for doing nothing wrong. It feels like in the left community things are not open to debate anymore, and any dissidence of though is quickly punished. It’s almost ironic that the place for diversity does not feel like any diverse thinking is allowed anymore.
This AI thing have not even be debated anywhere, some people decided that it’s bad and that’s it. No further arguments are allowed, and it’s free season for hunting and insulting the PEOPLE that even dares to use a tool that’s everywhere to use right now.
I know is a vocal minority, and that’s the vocal minority I want to leave out, and I hope we can build spaces where this hateful people are called out. Because right now in the community spaces we have these people are not being called out, quite the contrary they are prone to reach positions of power and take hold of the communities, most probably because people prone to violence and conflict are far more likely to fight and achieve for positions of power. While peaceful people tend to get away from such conflicts.
Oh, so you are a right winger. That explains a lot actually. You don’t understand things exist at a deeper level than aesthetics and you failed to be creative, so like all the big talking heads you tried to fake a bunch of bullshit and failed again.
No. i’m not. I would consider myself between anarchism, communism and socialism. Those are the ideologies more close to my mind.
You know that I’m probably a better painter than you are, don’t you?
I have done a great deal of handmade painting. And whenever I’m doing some art is still my primary way of doing things. I took several courses in traditional painting back in university. Hell, I’m far better at doing other forms of art than at doing AI art, I have not dedicated enough time to the technique yet to be truly good at it.
I also play guitar and have some songs I’m quite proud of.
I’n just not a brainwashed radical, and I’m open minded enough to see that there are many different ways to do things or to see the world.
You know, if you’re not good at art, you don’t have to be an artist. Not everyone needs to paint the mona lisa. You can just do something you’re good at instead.
If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that’s cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.
Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don’t even dare to try to express yourself.
The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.
What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.
You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.
To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it’s not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths “”“defending”" art don’t even know.
That’s what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that “don’t know and don’t want to know” no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
When I see these pieces in museums I’ve seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it’s easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that’s totally ok.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don’t make you a master of graphite on canvas.
So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.
Once again I must repeat that you don’t even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.
How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?
You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.
Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art.
What’s difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.
Microwaving a premade meal doesn’t make me a chef. Generative AI is able to make fake copies and imitations of art, but it isn’t an artist. The prompters are just that, they’re reheating someone else’s creation and calling themselves chefs.
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
In all those cases you are reheating someone’s else creation.
Let’s be precise here.
In order to be an artist do you need to have been the sole creator of the object depicted? What level of modification is needed to make you an artist? please be precise.
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
None of these apply here. All of these are transformative.
You know what’s interesting?
A collage made by a person? Yeah, that’s art.
A collage made by my apple photo album? Nah, that’s stupid. Don’t really want to see it. I think it’d be weird if someone insisted I look at the collage their phone made.
You people never seem to grasp the personality and intimacy that makes art what it is. Yes, even when you flick your brush at a canvas like pollack.
Same as you don’t know what generative art is. You don’t know how AI art is made.
And sorry but I don’t have time right know to educate you, specially knowing that you will refuse to learn.
But, on the least, the refusal to accept knowledge saddens me.
Dogma thinking is clearly winning our society.
And please, just please, don’t give yourself vibes of “knowing the grasp of art” when you clearly don’t know much about art. Once again you didn’t know what generative art was, and you didn’t even bother to make a quick search to find out. You just read generative and thought it was “AI” because you probably never cared about art at all. You are just against something that they have told you that you have to be against.
It’s not really super interesting for me to argue what’s art and what’s not. Literally anything can be art. For me personally good art comes from self. It has meaning, soul, it often takes great efforts and time to make, and good art makes me feel and think and learn, good art is awesome and impressive.
I’ll admit that I’m biased when it comes to AI generated content. Sure it makes me feel (mostly annoyed, but also scared and frustrated) and AI stuff in general IS interesting from a technology viewpoint. I see it’s application as a tool, even though it’s not for me. But AI art doesn’t come from self or soul or whatever. It might be art but it’s shit art. Slop. Often also ugly to look at, full of mistakes and nonesense details. It’s lazy, it’s without imagination and requires no talent whatsoever.
If some piece of art is bad is bad, there’s no denying that.
There’s a particular style I really dislike and probably is why I’m also bias to defend AI, which is what I call twitter commissioner art. Which is a particular style of very badly made digital art, all look the same, very little detail or work in each piece, uninspired, and the spice of the cake is that people making it tend to ask for a lot of money to do commissions of that. And they tend to guilt trip a lot with them being “small artists” and nowadays they are some of the most aggressive pushing against AI (and I can see why, why would anyone pay for such badly drawn something when you can get it for free elsewhere).
BIG note here, I’m not referring to all small artists, most of them are cool, and a lot of them make really nice pieces of amazing art that’s better than anything an AI can produce (but for some reason I don’t see those being worried or being too militant against AI). I’m only referring to those whose work is actually worse than AI output but they refuse to acknowledge that.
But it’s true that I have never seen a 10/10 AI made piece. Some of them are ok though, I specifically enjoy those who make art of very small niches, like dark fantasy on a style that I’ve come to known a tik tok style (I literally know no traditional artists that do those ik that particular style, and I’ve look for). Or folk music about geek topics in my language (for instance I have a playlist of AI made songs about Warhammer 40k that I really enjoy, and no music group do those so that dude making them with AI is my only choice for these).
Using a camera doesn’t make you an artist either. Photography as art takes a lot of effort, just snapping a shot isn’t it. You aren’t very good at this.
Says you. I just don’t agree with your gatekeeping, and closed mind.
I just think that a lot of people how made their identify in “I’m an artist” are having a laughable crisis of identity in a world where producing art takes less effort each day
I’m not particularly worried about losing the “likes generative AI” demographic, especially if they’re not going to support more important movements because their poor choices are being mocked.
Glad you are ok with it. Because that’s what will happen. And you may not notice in the echo chamber but an big chunk of the population just uses generative AI for a lot of different purposes. And does not share your views about it. People is diverse, and that includes diverse opinions on copyright/copyleft morality.
And you will eventually lose everyone who is not exactly like you, because “you don’t care”. And then you’ll be alone.
And when they come for you, and you are alone you will post this comic strip of “first they came for…” And blame on others that you are alone and no one show up to stop them from taking you.
Bullying people who does no harm to anyone is cool now?
Many people use gen AI for completely innocuous tasks. And for many things that harm nobody. Still you take pleasure insulting and degrading Innocent people.
That’s not better than any other bully/oppresor.
Don’t act surprised when people stop helping and having solidarity with your fights when you have spent a decade insulting everyone around you.
There’s nothing wrong with making fun of someone for making a bad life choice.
Bullying people for things that they can’t change about themselves is different. That’s not cool
This level of insult is bullying.
And it’s not a bad life choice. Bad life choice is choosing to go online to insult a lot of innocent people in other to feed that bad human in your heart.
These latest years “”““left leaning””" spaces have been feeling more like right wing echo chambers of hate and bigotry towards more and more and more people.
Mark my words, this will have consequences, and some people may ask in a couple of years how is it that no one came for help when they need it. And they shall remember that the blatantly insulted those they will be asking for help and that people just got sick of them.
At least it’s what’s happening to me. There are many places I won’t show up for helping, that I would have helped in the past. But I cannot stand next to people who have show me that they have the heart as full of hate as the alt-right. We will most likely end up forming our own spaces I suppose.
This is the most ridiculously performative speech i’ve seen in a while, and i live on friggin tumblr
These comments just make me sad, because I have a feeling you are not talking specifically about artists mad at AI art when you say ‘some people’. You are letting the voices of a few people convince you to abadon the silence of a majority. And in this current political world, that could result in a lot of people who see eye to eye with you being punished.
It makes me sad too. But the amount of people who just push hate speech for every little thing in left leaning spaces nowadays is too big.
In this case the little thing is just insulting people using an AI tool (not even the big bussiness they are insulting the PEOPLE). But I’ve seen it more and more with a lot of different examples in the latest years. Another big instance is militant veganism, I’m sick of being called a rapist and a genocidal guy equivalent to Hitler for just eating meat, so they are alone until they got their shit together and start calling out the bigots in their spaces.
And like those two each year that passes there’s something new you have to blindly follow the lead or be insulted for doing nothing wrong. It feels like in the left community things are not open to debate anymore, and any dissidence of though is quickly punished. It’s almost ironic that the place for diversity does not feel like any diverse thinking is allowed anymore.
This AI thing have not even be debated anywhere, some people decided that it’s bad and that’s it. No further arguments are allowed, and it’s free season for hunting and insulting the PEOPLE that even dares to use a tool that’s everywhere to use right now.
I know is a vocal minority, and that’s the vocal minority I want to leave out, and I hope we can build spaces where this hateful people are called out. Because right now in the community spaces we have these people are not being called out, quite the contrary they are prone to reach positions of power and take hold of the communities, most probably because people prone to violence and conflict are far more likely to fight and achieve for positions of power. While peaceful people tend to get away from such conflicts.
You’re right, we should be more open. You want to do flat earth?
I’ll start.
…Uh, what am I supposed to say here…
“I can not see the curve in the horizon.”
Use that energy against homeopathy and pseudosciences that are prevalent in liberal spaces.
Oh, so you are a right winger. That explains a lot actually. You don’t understand things exist at a deeper level than aesthetics and you failed to be creative, so like all the big talking heads you tried to fake a bunch of bullshit and failed again.
No. i’m not. I would consider myself between anarchism, communism and socialism. Those are the ideologies more close to my mind.
You know that I’m probably a better painter than you are, don’t you?
I have done a great deal of handmade painting. And whenever I’m doing some art is still my primary way of doing things. I took several courses in traditional painting back in university. Hell, I’m far better at doing other forms of art than at doing AI art, I have not dedicated enough time to the technique yet to be truly good at it.
I also play guitar and have some songs I’m quite proud of.
I’n just not a brainwashed radical, and I’m open minded enough to see that there are many different ways to do things or to see the world.
deleted by creator
You know, if you’re not good at art, you don’t have to be an artist. Not everyone needs to paint the mona lisa. You can just do something you’re good at instead.
If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that’s cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.
Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don’t even dare to try to express yourself.
People with cameras choose what they take photos of.
People using AI also choose what they want to create.
And generative artists for instance, a lesser clue of what the final result will be than a AI artist.
Generative art is not art?
Collages are art?
Art gatekeepers are always funny, full of inconsistencies.
The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.
What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.
You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.
To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.
So generative art is not art?
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
The public has largely decided that it’s not. That’s why it’s controversial to use. Don’t waste my time.
Typical, talking all that much about art and don’t know shit about art.
Here, for your knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it’s not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths “”“defending”" art don’t even know.
That’s what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that “don’t know and don’t want to know” no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
This is true, however, i covered that in my previous response. The algorithm hand-made by a human is the art.
That seems a convoluted disticntion.
When I see these pieces in museums I’ve seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it’s easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that’s totally ok.
No, they do not. That is, in fact, the point of having a decision engine make decisions for you. I would know, I’ve used it.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don’t make you a master of graphite on canvas.
So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.
Once again I must repeat that you don’t even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.
How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?
You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.
But it does make you an artist.
Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art. What’s difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.
Microwaving a premade meal doesn’t make me a chef. Generative AI is able to make fake copies and imitations of art, but it isn’t an artist. The prompters are just that, they’re reheating someone else’s creation and calling themselves chefs.
So collages are not art? Taking a picture of something not made by you is not art? Fan art is not art? Cover songs are not art?
In all those cases you are reheating someone’s else creation.
Let’s be precise here.
In order to be an artist do you need to have been the sole creator of the object depicted? What level of modification is needed to make you an artist? please be precise.
None of these apply here. All of these are transformative.
You know what’s interesting?
A collage made by a person? Yeah, that’s art.
A collage made by my apple photo album? Nah, that’s stupid. Don’t really want to see it. I think it’d be weird if someone insisted I look at the collage their phone made.
You people never seem to grasp the personality and intimacy that makes art what it is. Yes, even when you flick your brush at a canvas like pollack.
Same as you don’t know what generative art is. You don’t know how AI art is made.
And sorry but I don’t have time right know to educate you, specially knowing that you will refuse to learn.
But, on the least, the refusal to accept knowledge saddens me. Dogma thinking is clearly winning our society.
And please, just please, don’t give yourself vibes of “knowing the grasp of art” when you clearly don’t know much about art. Once again you didn’t know what generative art was, and you didn’t even bother to make a quick search to find out. You just read generative and thought it was “AI” because you probably never cared about art at all. You are just against something that they have told you that you have to be against.
It’s not really super interesting for me to argue what’s art and what’s not. Literally anything can be art. For me personally good art comes from self. It has meaning, soul, it often takes great efforts and time to make, and good art makes me feel and think and learn, good art is awesome and impressive.
I’ll admit that I’m biased when it comes to AI generated content. Sure it makes me feel (mostly annoyed, but also scared and frustrated) and AI stuff in general IS interesting from a technology viewpoint. I see it’s application as a tool, even though it’s not for me. But AI art doesn’t come from self or soul or whatever. It might be art but it’s shit art. Slop. Often also ugly to look at, full of mistakes and nonesense details. It’s lazy, it’s without imagination and requires no talent whatsoever.
If some piece of art is bad is bad, there’s no denying that.
There’s a particular style I really dislike and probably is why I’m also bias to defend AI, which is what I call twitter commissioner art. Which is a particular style of very badly made digital art, all look the same, very little detail or work in each piece, uninspired, and the spice of the cake is that people making it tend to ask for a lot of money to do commissions of that. And they tend to guilt trip a lot with them being “small artists” and nowadays they are some of the most aggressive pushing against AI (and I can see why, why would anyone pay for such badly drawn something when you can get it for free elsewhere). BIG note here, I’m not referring to all small artists, most of them are cool, and a lot of them make really nice pieces of amazing art that’s better than anything an AI can produce (but for some reason I don’t see those being worried or being too militant against AI). I’m only referring to those whose work is actually worse than AI output but they refuse to acknowledge that.
But it’s true that I have never seen a 10/10 AI made piece. Some of them are ok though, I specifically enjoy those who make art of very small niches, like dark fantasy on a style that I’ve come to known a tik tok style (I literally know no traditional artists that do those ik that particular style, and I’ve look for). Or folk music about geek topics in my language (for instance I have a playlist of AI made songs about Warhammer 40k that I really enjoy, and no music group do those so that dude making them with AI is my only choice for these).
Using a camera doesn’t make you an artist either. Photography as art takes a lot of effort, just snapping a shot isn’t it. You aren’t very good at this.
Says you. I just don’t agree with your gatekeeping, and closed mind.
I just think that a lot of people how made their identify in “I’m an artist” are having a laughable crisis of identity in a world where producing art takes less effort each day
I’m not an artist,
I’m just better than you on a philosophical leveli just respect artists.I’m not particularly worried about losing the “likes generative AI” demographic, especially if they’re not going to support more important movements because their poor choices are being mocked.
Glad you are ok with it. Because that’s what will happen. And you may not notice in the echo chamber but an big chunk of the population just uses generative AI for a lot of different purposes. And does not share your views about it. People is diverse, and that includes diverse opinions on copyright/copyleft morality.
And you will eventually lose everyone who is not exactly like you, because “you don’t care”. And then you’ll be alone.
And when they come for you, and you are alone you will post this comic strip of “first they came for…” And blame on others that you are alone and no one show up to stop them from taking you.
‘No harm’
How much CO2 was generated in the creations of these shit posts?
Could that energy been used in some way that generated something more than chuckles?
Less CO2 than playing a videogame.
I can generate an AI image with my graphics card at 100% in 5 seconds, probably less.
I gaming afternoon can be 5 hours with the same graphics cars at 100%.
I suppose you are also worry by the increase of CO2 usage in 3d art, or in digital art instead of pen and paper art. Are you not?
For me it takes less processing power to generate an AI still than to render a frame in blender with a lot of lighting, shaders and whatnot involved.