AI Art and Ethics Debate General - Debate between pro-AI art vs anti-AI art here.

[WULULULULU]

In the wake of the recent trend known as AI Art, several users have grown cautious to the concept of AI-generated art, artwork that is automatically created by a sophisticated program that calculates and creates an artwork based from a database pulled from the internet.

This thread will be dedicated to slapfights meaningful and insightful points found from the Art & Literature and Internet & Technology subforums and anything related to AI art in general. Pro/Anti, you are here to preach your reasons. Let the shitflinging begin.

 

[The Last Stand]

AI-generated art should be classified as art in its own category. Human ingenuity with technology has improved significantly to where such a reality is possible. Of course, nothing can (or should) beat or outright replace a human artist's raw talent.

One concern I have is how indistinguishable AI mimicking can go from the actual thing. In the wrong hands through help from gullible people, who knows how far misinformation can be easily spread.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

AI-generated art should be classified as art in its own category. Human ingenuity with technology has improved significantly to where such a reality is possible. Of course, nothing can (or should) beat or outright replace a human artist's raw talent.

One concern I have is how indistinguishable AI mimicking can go from the actual thing. In the wrong hands through help from gullible people, who knows how far misinformation can be easily spread.

Slightly different take here. I don't see a reason why we should gimp an AI just because it's objectively better than us. If the art or music is pleasing, it shouldn't matter where it came from. I also do derive quite a bit of pleasure from the fact that all those pretentious liberal arts faggots have been rendered completely obsolete by a machine. They're only angy because a robot has definitively proven that they aren't special, creative little geniuses and never have been.

 

[The Last Stand]

Slightly different take here. I don't see a reason why we should gimp an AI just because it's objectively better than us. If the art or music is pleasing, it shouldn't matter where it came from. I also do derive quite a bit of pleasure from the fact that all those pretentious liberal arts faggots have been rendered completely obsolete by a machine. They're only angy because a robot has definitively proven that they aren't special, creative little geniuses and never have been.

There's a story where a guy generated an AI image in an art contest and won first place. What the competing artists miss is that he edited and picked three from 900 generated images TO create that piece.

 

[BULLY HUNTER_78]

There's a story where a guy generated an AI image in an art contest and won first place. What the competing artists miss is that he edited and picked three from 900 generated images TO create that piece.

Nice. Get fucked liberal arts majors.

 

[The Cunting Death]

ethics are for faggot liberals

 

[Kuchipatchi]

We should stop saying "Starving artists" and call them, "Famished Artists" at this rate.

I think in the long run, AI art can help get people stop throwing away real career opportunities for art. Get a real degree!

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

There's a story where a guy generated an AI image in an art contest and won first place. What the competing artists miss is that he edited and picked three from 900 generated images TO create that piece.

Because refreshing an image result a bunch makes him more talented.

The fact you have to point out how many times he had to get the machine to redo its own work is really more an indictment of the AI than it is an excuse for passing off the AI art as his own.

 

[Sperghetti]

As a professionally trained artist, (with a BFA degree and everything) I actually get a kick out of this AI stuff.

There’s a real entitled attitude I’ve seen with a lot of “artists” online where they act like the world owes them a living from from drawing, and that everything they do should be monetarily compensated. I just find that to be an awful attitude when it comes to art, because I personally feel that your primary motive should be that you enjoy it. The existence of photography doesn’t stop people who enjoy making photorealistic paintings from painting them.

Besides, the world doesn’t owe anybody a living for any activity in particular. There are plenty of things I like to do that I wish would pay the bills, but they don’t. If you can make your art your sole source of income, that’s great, but don’t expect it to be, and don’t get mad at the world when they don’t love your stuff enough to pay for it.

 

[umami's milk]

As a professionally trained artist, (with a BFA degree and everything)

>actually went to art school

point and laugh everyone

 

[Colon capital V]

Twitter artists should get fucking bent that their 200k coomer followers and their libshit takes aren't worth shit in the realworld if AI taking over is gonna give them this big of a reality check.

 

[SomeDood]

As for the extremely autistic discussion about if this is "art" and it's impact on the world, I'd say it's like every new tool we ever added to our toolbox. It might make some jobs obsolete, and if it does it will create new jobs - working it properly would became a new form of art and craftsmanship.
I might just be biased as I was really into the creation of Vocaloid back in the days, a software to replace singers. It obviously didn't - but created a lot of enjoyable art. A lot of people who would themselfs not create the art if they had no singer at their disposal.
It lead to the creation of loads of shit, as there was obviously still a lot of craftsmanship required to compose an enjoable song, and the best of the best even emulated emotions in the computer-manipulated voices.
And it's still a fun toy to mess around with.

Why do people keep insisting on this retarded lie? This exists solely to displace people at their jobs, nothing more.

So? All innovation was motivated by doing something faster &/or better.
Driving down costs, maximizing profit, being better than the competition is an inherent trait of any innovation. What we're debating is where the line ends, where people should be protected and our morals.
The best example I can think of right now is how the invention of automated dialing was specifically made to make phone switchboard operators obsolete.
I personally don't think that even the intention to innovate for the reason of automating jobs is inherently wrong in any way.
Also being able to synthesize a Voice didn't put singers out of a job, even fucking Russel Greer still hires people to sing instead of automating his 'work'.

I don't agree with the Vocaloid comparison because they market it as an instrument. It would be retarded to call yourself a singer for using it.

Just as it will be retarded in a few years to say vou've drawn that yourself will be in a few years, hopefully.
It was marketed as an instrument to replace the singer, which is just another part or a song, an instrument if you will.
This does of curse blur the line more as we can't yet synthesize a fully human sounding voice, thus there will be charlatains, as there were with every innovation, imagined or not.
But there is nothing inherently wrong with the technology existing, just like the atom bomb is not responsible for how humanity uses it.

 

[John Titor]

I'm of the mind that all this doomposting is just that: doomposting. It's too early to say what the ramifications are when it's in the spotlight since last month.

Speaking of entitlement, I had someone unironically tell me I need to lower my expectations because AI images have flaws. Lolno, if you're touting this as an artist killer that puts people on the same level as artists, I'm going to apply the same standards when I see a fucked up limb.

 

[Tree]

ethics are for faggot liberals

I wish but in the real world you're the bitch if you aren't the one deciding what is right and wrong.

Discussing them like faggots rather than just taking power and enforcing them is actually something buck broken conservatives tend to do more than liberals. Hell, they're so buck broken even when given de jore power they're all talk.

 

[umami's milk]

I've seen people discuss how prompting will be a new skill, but not many people discussing that prompting itself may become an AI-automated process too.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Just want to leave one last negative opinion, well fact actually, before I drop this subject.

You can't copyright an image created with artificial intelligence, this subject has already gone before SCOTUS and they slapped down copyrights for non-humans, because intellectual property belongs to people.

You can have stable diffusion make an image on your behalf all you want, but what it spits out will never be yours.

 

[TheRetardKing]

Weed-eater.

 

[Account]

AI generated images aren't art by themselves but they can become art. I think of it like photography of nature.

The "Pillars of Creation", as in the literal gas cloud that exists in space, isn't "art" because it wasn't created by a living thing. The raw data that the telescope read and gave to astronomers is also not art (in the same way nobody believes the phonebook is art, just a pile of data). What makes it art is the combined effort of finding it, capturing it, compositing multiple images together, modifying the image, cropping it, and giving it a name that makes the viewer relate the picture to the Bible. Each of the images were taken at different times by different people, but the mix of circumstance and their own individual modifications makes strikingly different renditions of the same object.

I can accept that an AI drawing of an apple or a generic anime girl isn't art. But if I take the apple/anime girl, tweak the settings to get it just how I want it, inpaint sections so the AI can fix certain areas, use image-to-image to generate background objects, composite the background objects in Photoshop/GIMP, add effects, give it a name, and publish it, then I have created art because I have put my own effort and expression in the final product. Just because you didn't take years to learn how perspective, lighting, and anatomy doesn't mean you aren't an artist and what you make is not art, in the same way that you can be a programmer without writing your own compiler.

 

[umami's milk]

But if I take the apple/anime girl, tweak the settings to get it just how I want it, inpaint sections so the AI can fix certain areas, use image-to-image to generate background objects, composite the background objects in Photoshop/GIMP, add effects, give it a name, and publish it, then I have created art because I have put my own effort and expression in the final product.

tfw when you discover what photobashing is

 

[Puff]

I've seen people discuss how prompting will be a new skill, but not many people discussing that prompting itself may become an AI-automated process too.

AI, like science, can tell you how to achieve your goals, but not what those goals are.
Also you're basically saying the prompting will get better, which is a given.