I want to be able to create all the things Ive dreamed of creating my.whole life without spending 4-8 years in fucking art school, saddling myself in debt for a skill that was virtually impossible to make a living off of. and that was BEFORE ai. AI has enabled me to create things that would have been fucking.impossible for me to.create on my own and and absurdly.expensive to have commissioned. Its allowed me to create things that would be literally.impossible without it.
I had ideas. I just couldn’t afford to make it real. With ai I’ve been able to.
I never would have paid an artist to do what I’ve been able to done for myself. Even if I could have afforded it.
Ai may commodotize creativity but it democratizes art.
Jeans Pierre can still build a lifesized model.of Donald trump.out of tampons and I get an to cover my walls with viking chicks with huge fits that look like they’re painted by van Gogh, and oil paintings of my face instead of whoever the model.was on history’s greatest works.of art.
If you’re an artist pissed off about ai taking your money: you probably wouldn’t have made much anyway. Being an artist was always a reckless gamble.
Preach. Art is a hobby, not a job, drawing shit does not produce any value for anyone. Lithium mines and McRib cook lines is where artists belong under any economic system.
Look I got nothing against y’all drawing shit or putting together low fi hiphop beats to shit and piss to or writing some waluigi yaoi or other content production, but it doesn’t exactly put men on the moon, kapische?
The only reason any of you earn money as is is because advertisements can be served embedded into content, while corpos earn money mostly from landlording over IPs. Like all of marketing, it’s a drain on society from an economic standpoint.
So your argument is that putting in effort and investing money for a skill is ‘virtually impossible’ and that artists shouldn’t complain because they ‘probably wouldn’t have made much anyway’?
Following your logic generative AI would never come to exist, because there wouldn’t even be anything created for an AI to learn from.
So i had an idea for a thing. This thing did not exist. Parts of it may existed in some fashion, but the thing itself did not.
Now the thing exists. It hangs on my wall.
We may have different definitions of the term creation in mind here. Can you suggest a better word to use for using my input to make a thing that did not exist before? I can use that going forward.
And yes. Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.
I’m making an assumption here, and feel free to correct me if its incorrect, but I’m guessing that you feel its okay when a person blends artistic styles into something that is distinctly their own.
If this assumption is true: why is it legitimate when a person does it and not a machine? Or is it?
And another question: if the issue is with artists being compensated (maybe another assumption here, in apologize if I’m off base): would you support legislation to the effect that those that inspired or influenced another artist’s work receive recompense for it?
Second to last question: if an ai is trained solely on works in the public domain do you still have an issue with it?
Final question: if existing artists styles can be replicated using a genealogy of sorts using only those public domain works, and they’re combined in a manner that no one has thought to combine them: are there issues you have with that? What are they?
Honestly trying to get a better understanding of where the borders of right and wrong here for you are so I can better understand your position.
you’re correct and almost intelligent enough to spell so I obviously will lose if I continue this argument I started by shouting in my echo chamber of luddite artbros
Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.
Dude, just use Photoshop. That’s all you have to do. You just cut out the face of Lisa and put your own. You can also use blurring to make it look better. “Ai” isn’t needed.
I want to be able to create all the things Ive dreamed of creating my.whole life without spending 4-8 years in fucking art school, saddling myself in debt for a skill that was virtually impossible to make a living off of. and that was BEFORE ai. AI has enabled me to create things that would have been fucking.impossible for me to.create on my own and and absurdly.expensive to have commissioned. Its allowed me to create things that would be literally.impossible without it.
I had ideas. I just couldn’t afford to make it real. With ai I’ve been able to.
I never would have paid an artist to do what I’ve been able to done for myself. Even if I could have afforded it.
Ai may commodotize creativity but it democratizes art.
Jeans Pierre can still build a lifesized model.of Donald trump.out of tampons and I get an to cover my walls with viking chicks with huge fits that look like they’re painted by van Gogh, and oil paintings of my face instead of whoever the model.was on history’s greatest works.of art.
If you’re an artist pissed off about ai taking your money: you probably wouldn’t have made much anyway. Being an artist was always a reckless gamble.
Preach. Art is a hobby, not a job, drawing shit does not produce any value for anyone. Lithium mines and McRib cook lines is where artists belong under any economic system.
That’s sarcasm, right?
You do have more than 2 braincells, right? I hope.
Look I got nothing against y’all drawing shit or putting together low fi hiphop beats to shit and piss to or writing some waluigi yaoi or other content production, but it doesn’t exactly put men on the moon, kapische?
The only reason any of you earn money as is is because advertisements can be served embedded into content, while corpos earn money mostly from landlording over IPs. Like all of marketing, it’s a drain on society from an economic standpoint.
I think you have some real mental issues and you are feeling some sort of disconnect from the world. I’ll leave you be, you’re freaking me out.
Yeah scadoodle luddite
I hope you get the help you need.
So your argument is that putting in effort and investing money for a skill is ‘virtually impossible’ and that artists shouldn’t complain because they ‘probably wouldn’t have made much anyway’?
Following your logic generative AI would never come to exist, because there wouldn’t even be anything created for an AI to learn from.
Uh. No. You can tell because of how my post is.
If you weren’t creating before “AI”, you’re not creating after.
It’s like hiring a person to do art for you, but instead you took all their shit and used a machine to make a soup out of it.
Get fcked.
So i had an idea for a thing. This thing did not exist. Parts of it may existed in some fashion, but the thing itself did not.
Now the thing exists. It hangs on my wall.
We may have different definitions of the term creation in mind here. Can you suggest a better word to use for using my input to make a thing that did not exist before? I can use that going forward.
And yes. Ai combines things that other people have made before into something else. Usually the Mona Lisa does not have my face. Then I spent around and hour in stable diffusion and maybe two hours in gimp. Now the Mona Lisa has my face. I would call this new, as the Mona Lisa, to my knowledge, has never before had my face on it. Let alone looked like my face belonged on it.
I’m making an assumption here, and feel free to correct me if its incorrect, but I’m guessing that you feel its okay when a person blends artistic styles into something that is distinctly their own.
If this assumption is true: why is it legitimate when a person does it and not a machine? Or is it?
And another question: if the issue is with artists being compensated (maybe another assumption here, in apologize if I’m off base): would you support legislation to the effect that those that inspired or influenced another artist’s work receive recompense for it?
Second to last question: if an ai is trained solely on works in the public domain do you still have an issue with it?
Final question: if existing artists styles can be replicated using a genealogy of sorts using only those public domain works, and they’re combined in a manner that no one has thought to combine them: are there issues you have with that? What are they?
Honestly trying to get a better understanding of where the borders of right and wrong here for you are so I can better understand your position.
Based on your first comment, you’re not a person I want to have a discussion with.
Maybe someone else values their time less then I do and will indulge in your quest to find the right and the wrong.
My ROFLCopter goes woot woot woot woot.
You’re having a conversation with yourself here? Are you ok?
No I’m summarizing your post, summarizing is a good skill maybe ChatGPT can show you how to do it :3
Cognitive dissonance at work.
Lol, keep telling that to yourself.
Dude, just use Photoshop. That’s all you have to do. You just cut out the face of Lisa and put your own. You can also use blurring to make it look better. “Ai” isn’t needed.