Especially in art. With the implementation of artificial intelligence in the production of images and video, the future of the artist is grim. I am tired of hearing the argument that it will help people create art. It will only help soulless corporations. There will be no jobs in art. Even amateur artists will be sidelined. I used to think maybe someday I could escape my mind numbing job through at somehow, maybe get famous and do art full-time. Now I buy lottery tickets.



Fuck ai !

Anyone who uses free trash generation AI like Midjourney, Dali, or stable diffusion needs to be educated on copyright theft.

No one who uses those will EVER be able to create art. It's just theft and garbage for human turds.
It's basically the difference betwwen some office drone or a child putting something together with clip art and calling it “art” vs anyone at all at any skill level who can actually draw.

Or a “DJ” vs someone who can actually play music. One is a joke and has zero interesting skills and the other actually has the power to create.

Non-creatives VASTLY underestimate creative skill- It's not just or drawing or painting. When you know how to create you can easily learn to create ANYTHING, you skills are infinitely applicable.
I can create in any media from iron to paint to cloth, to 3D animation: I can easily model realistic figures from scratch.

It also means you can understand creations that they do not have the ability to comprehend. It means you have taste beyond what they can understand.

Use of generation tools only stunts you.

Holy shit.
The spam bots attributed my words to a gambling sight.

I think there will always be a good chunk of people smart enough to understand and appreciate the human touch. Look at it this way, you can play NFL on your Playstation but people still pay out the nose to go to the superbowl in person; you can buy high quality MP3s of your favorite band but some people would still sell a kidney to see their favorite bands live; and craft fairs still exist even though you can get cheap mass produced things like fudge, candles, etc. at your local Wal-Mart.

I'm sure there are articles and studies out there that can explain why better than I can, but I think we just have an understanding and appreciation for what it takes to build certain skills. That's not to say AI hasn't caused any damage, and I think that the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle there, but when all is said and done I do think there will still be people with the sense to know a real NFL pro from some dude who's pretty good at the latest PS5 game.

Hapoppo wrote:
I think that the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle

I disagree on this.
There's a common belief that technology is linear in progression (it gets better and keeps on going and improving from one point to the next), this is wrong. Tech is fully market based in the modern world and the market can kill things due to demand, regulation, laws, legal action, and many other factors.

IP holders are slowly coming to the fight and forcing AI pirates to change their ways on things. If people get their arses in gear and get them to delete their training models which were all based on piracy (effectively treating ALL actual creatives as slaves whose work is free for them to profit of), then things would change drastically.
They'd have to pay fairly for their training content and would then have to charge fairly for the use of their generators which would stop all the scummy arseholes who use chatGPT and midjourney for stuff.

The “genie” would get quite a kick in its crotch ;)

Regardless, even if IP holders don't force that change the industries providing the AI services are going to charge for use eventually anyway. People are living in an idiot's fantasy right now and thinking it will always be free to use AI, when the reality is they're just letting people use their stuff free so they can popularise and test the tech, and get investors.

Ozoneocean wrote:
Anyone who uses free trash generation AI like Midjourney, Dali, or stable diffusion needs to be educated on copyright theft.

Respectfully, the problem isn't education. They know full well what they're doing and they don't give a shit.

So, I'm not really liking what is happening over at DeviantArt with the A.I. thing. A.I. seems to be taking over on the sight.

That being said, I'm curious as how it works. I'd like to do an A.I. image and compare it to my real art. Not sure how to do that. It is some thing like using the Ouija board. Don't want to awaken any sleeping spirits.

I don't want an image generated to be based on someone else's work. I want to compare the AI to my own.

If all you do is enter a bunch of prompts and then the A.I. produces an image, it has to pull from images already there somewhere.

Isn't that the same as a image search using a search engine?

I think people aren't looking very fast in the future. Right now we are talking about it stealing images straight off the net. But ai is going to keep getting more powerful. Eventually it won't need to scrape the net. An autonomous ribbit could just walk around town, go into art galleries, peruse the internet and build up a visual vocabulary. Then it could do all kinds of fucked up art she nobody could claim copyright infringement any more than they could against a human doing art from the images they experienced when that happens we are truly fucked

lothar wrote:
I think people aren't looking very fast in the future. Right now we are talking about it stealing images straight off the net. But ai is going to keep getting more powerful. Eventually it won't need to scrape the net. An autonomous ribbit could just walk around town, go into art galleries, peruse the internet and build up a visual vocabulary. Then it could do all kinds of fucked up art she nobody could claim copyright infringement any more than they could against a human doing art from the images they experienced when that happens we are truly fucked

I visualize one of those robotic dogs with some kind of delivery label on the side as cover, going from place to place and scanning images and people to add to the all consuming AI databank somewhere in Cheyanne Mountain in the Skynet data complex a few complexes over from the Star Gate.

Yeah, I know don't give them ideas.

Ozoneocean wrote:

People are living in an idiot's fantasy right now and thinking it will always be free to use AI, when the reality is they're just letting people use their stuff free so they can popularise and test the tech, and get investors.

I'm afraid that this idiot's fantasy may go on for longer than can possibly be good for anyone. I totally agree with the notion that there is no such thing as a free lunch, but that doesn't mean this will be over any time soon. This is because idiots are incredibly resourceful when it comes to keeping up their blissful idiocy.

As soon as the now-popular AI companies start to charge users, there will be some freaks starting to create an Open-Source version (if you can call it that with something that is supposed to program itself as it goes along): bored IT students, geeks interested in the technical aspects, perhaps even deluding themselves into thinking they're doing something good for the world in general, you name it. They'll produce even shoddier results than the original AIs, and eventually, it'll of course be more of the same, as the people behind it sober up and at least ask for donations.
There may be free trial versions, too or something pretending to be free. When was the last time you actually paid money for a browser? Have you ever paid for the use of a search engine? Which is to say, of course you did - we all pay for these things, only not in a fair-and-square way like buying a user's licence, but with our personal data and direct advertising or being coaxed into some fishy subscription scheme for the necessary extras and whatnot.
For every AI requiring payment, a new “free” one might pop up, even if it goes through the same process in the long run. We won't have seen the last of these bloody things when Dalle and suchlike are ready for their owners to cash in, mark my words.

PaulEberhardt wrote:

As soon as the now-popular AI companies start to charge users, there will be some freaks starting to create an Open-Source version (if you can call it that with something that is supposed to program itself as it goes along): bored IT students, geeks interested in the technical aspects, perhaps even deluding themselves into thinking they're doing something good for the world in general, you name it. They'll produce even shoddier results than the original AIs, and eventually, it'll of course be more of the same, as the people behind it sober up and at least ask for donations.

I think you're right in that they will try that but by then the lawyers will be involved and their models will be handicaped because they won't be able to base them off stolen work like the current ones do- Because there will be coded defences against it plus laws and civil legal action will be weaponised for it.
The big companies (google, Apple, Facebook etc) won't be tacitly helping AI or sitting on their hands anymore because they will have gotten what they needed at that stage and the rebel AI idiots will be on their own.

Your browser example is off- this is like the Tube sites and music sharing (because they're based on original IPs of other creators to work). Those things still happen but the VASTTTTT majority of it happens through corporate sites and services.

PaulEberhardt wrote:

because idiots are incredibly resourceful when it comes to keeping up their blissful idiocy.

As we used to say in the navy, every time they make it idiot proof - someone builds a better idiot.

PaulEberhardt wrote:

When was the last time you actually paid money for a browser? Have you ever paid for the use of a search engine?

The nineties. Bought either Netscape or Netscape Commander.

Well, “artists” who use AI to generate their “art” are fighting back with their own arguments! (Here's a meme I found floating about on the net. God, I hope this is a joke.)

fallopiancrusader wrote:
Well, “artists” who use AI to generate their “art” are fighting back with their own arguments! (Here's a meme I found floating about on the net. God, I hope this is a joke.)

WOW!
Even as a joke that still deserves physical “correction”…

One word:






Devin






More like 😈 Devil 😈

fallopiancrusader wrote:
Well, “artists” who use AI to generate their “art” are fighting back with their own arguments! (Here's a meme I found floating about on the net. God, I hope this is a joke.)

That can be claimed by all thieves. It doesn't make the act any less criminal.

How can I steal something that wasn't theor property to begin with?

I made a mistake in my post above when I referred to users of generative AI as artists. Apparently, they prefer to be referred to as “prompt engineers.”
Why, you can even take a course in prompt engineering now, and soon you'll be raking in the big bucks!

fallopiancrusader wrote:
I made a mistake in my post above when I referred to users of generative AI as artists. Apparently, they prefer to be referred to as “prompt engineers.”
Why, you can even take a course in prompt engineering now, and soon you'll be raking in the big bucks!

LOL! I didn't know you had to take a training course to learn how to be a talentless, tasteless loser?! O_O

As with a lot of courses and schools, the true earners are always the ones who set them up rather than the students hahaha!

I just had a horrifying revealation… A.I. is basically the Super Saiyan version of the “Original character do not steal” trope…

fallopiancrusader wrote:soon you'll be raking in the big bucks!

I started making the big bucks when I moved up to fries.

Ozoneocean wrote:

LOL! I didn't know you had to take a training course to learn how to be a talentless, tasteless loser?!

We had a lot of courses like that in the nay-vee.