How does it work then? I see lot’s pf people claiming to know how it works… only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.
How is access limited and at the same time you are bullying everyday Joes who are actually using it?
Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.
Delete all software and turn off your computer or be a hypocrite.
How so?
The stuff they use for training is free for any artist to train on.
The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
You don’t own the definition of art and nobody you will encounter in a post of any sort is even doing it for major profit.
True. However, this argument should not be about semantics;
I got news for ya.
You don’t own the definition of art.
This is not about definitions, I won’t spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?
AI is for everyone, but is made for the rich to get richer, like literally everything else you see or do online
Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.
The fact that you think humans don’t use neural networks trained by experience to generate art (or anything else we do) tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
And I’m sure all the AI everyone gets to use, are “collateral” products, that were realized, while they keep the goal of creating the AI that will ultimately replace all the employees and make the rich independent of the very annoying human workforce in all areas.
Edit: lemmy kept converting the 4 and 7 to numbered bullet points, converting them to 1. And 2.
That’s why the formatting on the numbers is strange, using only blank spaces to separate.
I wasn’t wrong but i should have qualified it. There are instances where companies have pirated art, but the majority is stuff you can freely access online. I agree that they shouldn’t have the pirated art that was behind pay walls. What they do with it isn’t the problem there, it is that they have it. I should have said that the pirating of art isn’t fundamental to the process and really probably was due to overzealous people tasked with finding data to train on and who, like most of us, grew up in the Naptster/limewire era.
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art. The Meta lawsuit comes to mind. The one where they were caught illegally training their LLM on authors’ works without their permission, using a pirated source, while still trying to argue that it was perfectly fair.
If I use computer software to type up a letter instead of writing it, I’m not benefiting off the backs of everyday joes
If I use a computer to calculate math, I’m not stealing a working Joe’s job
If I use a computer to type a prompt for an image generator and it spits out an image, I’m benefiting off the backs and the works of the unknowing artists the AI vacuumed up
If I use AI to write a book, I’m benefitting off of the authors’ works that Meta never paid any money to, while shadily downloading all of their books from torrent websites
Your comparison here falls flat because AI image generation is a unique scenario. Computers aren’t the issue; corporate AI is.
The AI community had an opportunity to be conflict-free and fair. A public utility that wasn’t created via theft and exploitation. Companies had an opportunity to ask the art community to willingly contribute to it and have something everyone can equally benefit from. Capitalists took that opportunity away and fucked up the entire thing.
Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
Art isn’t all about money. That’s the point. AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated (or at least credited??). AI-generated imagery is 100% about profit only. It’s about pushing artists out of the picture—a thing companies have been trying to do for years.
Artists should at least have a say in where their work goes, even if it’s not about them being financially compensated. It’s about having a fair conversation, instead of billionaires dominating the conversation once again.
And yet everything in your comment was about who is “benefiting” from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after “art isn’t all about the money” is:
AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated
Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?
I am not corporate America, and yet the only language you’ve been using with me has been “money money pay money.”
This was originally about whether AI art was actually art. You started this with:
AI images ain’t art.
And
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art.
But the only actual argument you’ve come up with so far is that some artists are not being paid for it.
Okay, so let’s imagine a magical world where that happened. Every time an AI generates an image, the fraction of a penny that the image costs is shaved into millions of thin slices and distributed to everyone who holds copyright over anything that was used to create the model. Bigger pieces of that penny are going to companies like Disney or Getty, a few atoms of copper are going to randos on Deviant Art, it’s all nice and fair.
Does AI-generated art now count as art in that world, as far as you’re concerned? Did it pay enough to buy the title?
I don’t think art has to have a price tag on it in order for it to be art, personally. If I went to the Pirate Bay and downloaded a copy of a beautiful movie, let’s say Koyaanisqatsi, and didn’t pay one cent for it, would it not be art?
Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it? It’s a film made by humans. That’s art regardless of profit.
Meta and other companies made it about money when they stole work specifically to make a profit. How those artists get compensated is a problem for tech to figure out since it dug this hole. Maybe they can look at how streaming artists earn revenue as an example. Even if I was giving my work away for free, I’d like to be made aware if AI tools are using it—for profit or not—so I can opt-in/out.
I define art as something made by a being with consciousness. I choose to not define AI-generated imagery as art because in its current state, it’s made under questionable pretense and solely for profit.
Don’t bother trying to use logic or the actual definition of art with these AntiAI cultists. “AI art isn’t art.” is more of a religious chant with them than a well thought out position. Their types also declaired photograpy as “not art” back in the day. The NeoLuddites of today don’t remember that and don’t even know that they are aping the same misdefinition of art for the same reasons. But they are. Educating them is sort of an uphill battle as it is with any kind of Luddite.
Photography is art. You have to have an eye for a shot. You capture a moment with a device you’ve spent time learning and adjusting to get it just right. Art takes time. Typing shit into a prompt field is not comparable. But okay.
The funny thing is I’ve been in tech for 20 years. I’m a digital and traditional artist that has been drawing in some form since I was a kid. My dad worked for NASA and was a big influence. I’ve built software that uses AI. So I’m not some dummy that is against all technological advancements. I’m against tech that is used to exploit artists, and tech bros that claim to be artists because they wrote a prompt in 5 minutes.
The word you are thinking of is not ‘art’ it’s ‘skill’. A stick man that takes 3 seconds is art. The person who sketched it is an ‘artist’. A painting a master works on for a decade is art and the guy who made it is an ‘artist’. One takes more skill than the other, but they both get to be called art. Nobody of note is claiming the skills are comparable, but you are trying to gate-keep the terms ‘art’ and ‘artist’ pretty hard-core. The same as the people who claimed photograpy wasn’t art because all the person did was “have an eye for the prompt… I mean shot. And curate a generated image, i mean capture an image on film and pass it off as their ‘art’.”
“Skill” is indeed better suited here. The problem is also who holds the keys. The current state of capitalism wants the shortest route to produced assets because it means they can cut even more costs and reduce headcount. Get rid of writers and now artists? That’s more money in their pockets. It’s amazing tech that has been created with the wrong goals in mind, by people that had these conversations behind closed doors, with all key figures excluded—and I haven’t even touched on the environmental impacts.
Art for me has always held unique power because I think of the steps the creator went through and the pivots they made. Why they decided with this color palette; what inspired them; what it means to them. All things that are devoid in AI-generated art. I’m also heavily biased as an artist and former graphic artist—both roles that are very quickly vanishing. I got lucky by pivoting to programming.
Marx predicted that automation would bring about an era where people would work alongside machines to maintain and keep them running smoothly. The human’s job would be made easier. Turns out the real capitalist desire is full on replacement of the worker in a lot of cases and IMO that has tainted the idea of modern day AI.
![[Rusty Creates] 'Artists'](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/ee6ccbcc-d001-4b28-a88f-d39c2b75f860.png){kind=link}
How does it work then? I see lot’s pf people claiming to know how it works… only to not actually know how the training works exactly, only a superficial understanding.
Ah yes, because people in 3rd world countries earning $1 an hour or less to label that data for the image gen can 100% afford the $10/month for a subscription or a pc to run locally.
How so?
The fact that you think AI training and humans looking at thinks are the same thing tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
This is not about definitions, I won’t spend time arguing semantics with you. Also, why re-state yourself?
Without social development, all forms of technological development will do nothing but allow for greater forms of torment.
The fact that you think humans don’t use neural networks trained by experience to generate art (or anything else we do) tells me you don’t know how humans art nor how machines train.
How does it work ?
Paywalls limit access, cost of hardware to run locally limits access.
Can some people access it, yes, is access limited, also yes.
Strawman? maybe?, it’s unclear how it’s related and as a singular statement is mostly nonsensical.
It absolutely is not, there are several ongoing lawsuits and repeated strikes about this exact thing.
This i agree with.
I agree with this also.
AI is for profit, not for everyone.
The major difference here is the scale but you’ll have to look in to that yourself.
4 Is definitely wrong
7 Yes
And I’m sure all the AI everyone gets to use, are “collateral” products, that were realized, while they keep the goal of creating the AI that will ultimately replace all the employees and make the rich independent of the very annoying human workforce in all areas.
Edit: lemmy kept converting the 4 and 7 to numbered bullet points, converting them to 1. And 2.
That’s why the formatting on the numbers is strange, using only blank spaces to separate.
I don’t care how you perceive the term art. This ain’t art. The Meta lawsuit comes to mind. The one where they were caught illegally training their LLM on authors’ works without their permission, using a pirated source, while still trying to argue that it was perfectly fair.
If I use computer software to type up a letter instead of writing it, I’m not benefiting off the backs of everyday joes
If I use a computer to calculate math, I’m not stealing a working Joe’s job
If I use a computer to type a prompt for an image generator and it spits out an image, I’m benefiting off the backs and the works of the unknowing artists the AI vacuumed up
If I use AI to write a book, I’m benefitting off of the authors’ works that Meta never paid any money to, while shadily downloading all of their books from torrent websites
Your comparison here falls flat because AI image generation is a unique scenario. Computers aren’t the issue; corporate AI is.
The AI community had an opportunity to be conflict-free and fair. A public utility that wasn’t created via theft and exploitation. Companies had an opportunity to ask the art community to willingly contribute to it and have something everyone can equally benefit from. Capitalists took that opportunity away and fucked up the entire thing.
Capitalism is the core of the problem and AI art ain’t art.
Literally everything you just said to justify the position that “AI art ain’t art” depended either on money or on legal decisions.
Art is all about money? Laws dictate what is and is not art?
Art isn’t all about money. That’s the point. AI requires money and resources that only multi-billion dollar corporations can cough up (which is counter to what art and access to art are about), and they still couldn’t be bothered to have a discussion with artists and come up with an agreement where they actually get compensated (or at least credited??). AI-generated imagery is 100% about profit only. It’s about pushing artists out of the picture—a thing companies have been trying to do for years.
Artists should at least have a say in where their work goes, even if it’s not about them being financially compensated. It’s about having a fair conversation, instead of billionaires dominating the conversation once again.
And yet everything in your comment was about who is “benefiting” from it. Then the very next thing you say in this comment after “art isn’t all about the money” is:
So it’s not about the money, but gimmie money.
Desiring that the people who make art not starve to death is too much to ask now? We live under Capitalism! It’s money or death.
Meta pirated a fuckload of written literature for its training data. Books that those artists sell to make a living as an author. It’s not all about money but sometimes it is, isn’t it? And if you want to speak a language that corporate America understands, it’s money. Should the authors not be compensated?
I am not corporate America, and yet the only language you’ve been using with me has been “money money pay money.”
This was originally about whether AI art was actually art. You started this with:
And
But the only actual argument you’ve come up with so far is that some artists are not being paid for it.
Okay, so let’s imagine a magical world where that happened. Every time an AI generates an image, the fraction of a penny that the image costs is shaved into millions of thin slices and distributed to everyone who holds copyright over anything that was used to create the model. Bigger pieces of that penny are going to companies like Disney or Getty, a few atoms of copper are going to randos on Deviant Art, it’s all nice and fair.
Does AI-generated art now count as art in that world, as far as you’re concerned? Did it pay enough to buy the title?
I don’t think art has to have a price tag on it in order for it to be art, personally. If I went to the Pirate Bay and downloaded a copy of a beautiful movie, let’s say Koyaanisqatsi, and didn’t pay one cent for it, would it not be art?
Why would it suddenly stop being art because you pirated it? It’s a film made by humans. That’s art regardless of profit.
Meta and other companies made it about money when they stole work specifically to make a profit. How those artists get compensated is a problem for tech to figure out since it dug this hole. Maybe they can look at how streaming artists earn revenue as an example. Even if I was giving my work away for free, I’d like to be made aware if AI tools are using it—for profit or not—so I can opt-in/out.
I define art as something made by a being with consciousness. I choose to not define AI-generated imagery as art because in its current state, it’s made under questionable pretense and solely for profit.
Your whole argument so far has been that AI art isn’t art because the copyright holders of the stuff the models were trained on weren’t being paid.
Ah, finally a different argument. Though it now simply transfers the question to how one measures “consciousness.”
Found art isn’t art, then? Or algorithmic art? Photography?
Don’t bother trying to use logic or the actual definition of art with these AntiAI cultists. “AI art isn’t art.” is more of a religious chant with them than a well thought out position. Their types also declaired photograpy as “not art” back in the day. The NeoLuddites of today don’t remember that and don’t even know that they are aping the same misdefinition of art for the same reasons. But they are. Educating them is sort of an uphill battle as it is with any kind of Luddite.
Yup
Photography is art. You have to have an eye for a shot. You capture a moment with a device you’ve spent time learning and adjusting to get it just right. Art takes time. Typing shit into a prompt field is not comparable. But okay.
The funny thing is I’ve been in tech for 20 years. I’m a digital and traditional artist that has been drawing in some form since I was a kid. My dad worked for NASA and was a big influence. I’ve built software that uses AI. So I’m not some dummy that is against all technological advancements. I’m against tech that is used to exploit artists, and tech bros that claim to be artists because they wrote a prompt in 5 minutes.
The word you are thinking of is not ‘art’ it’s ‘skill’. A stick man that takes 3 seconds is art. The person who sketched it is an ‘artist’. A painting a master works on for a decade is art and the guy who made it is an ‘artist’. One takes more skill than the other, but they both get to be called art. Nobody of note is claiming the skills are comparable, but you are trying to gate-keep the terms ‘art’ and ‘artist’ pretty hard-core. The same as the people who claimed photograpy wasn’t art because all the person did was “have an eye for the prompt… I mean shot. And curate a generated image, i mean capture an image on film and pass it off as their ‘art’.”
“Skill” is indeed better suited here. The problem is also who holds the keys. The current state of capitalism wants the shortest route to produced assets because it means they can cut even more costs and reduce headcount. Get rid of writers and now artists? That’s more money in their pockets. It’s amazing tech that has been created with the wrong goals in mind, by people that had these conversations behind closed doors, with all key figures excluded—and I haven’t even touched on the environmental impacts.
Art for me has always held unique power because I think of the steps the creator went through and the pivots they made. Why they decided with this color palette; what inspired them; what it means to them. All things that are devoid in AI-generated art. I’m also heavily biased as an artist and former graphic artist—both roles that are very quickly vanishing. I got lucky by pivoting to programming.
Marx predicted that automation would bring about an era where people would work alongside machines to maintain and keep them running smoothly. The human’s job would be made easier. Turns out the real capitalist desire is full on replacement of the worker in a lot of cases and IMO that has tainted the idea of modern day AI.