Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TinyBurbz OP t1_iysjxm0 wrote

Reply to comment by TheDividendReport in this sub by TinyBurbz

>you are also more than free to see some cool things and maybe even use it as your own inspiration.

I dont hate AI art. I hate prompters that act like that generated images are "better than what humans can create" which is absolutely delusional because it was trained on art by humans. Not only that, but a majority of the time the images generated look like shit to someone with even slightly critical eyes.

Let's not even start on the fact that people who produce art don't want to use AI most of the time, because the production of the art is the fulfilling part. Which brings us back to the OP

−1

TheDividendReport t1_iysm1jj wrote

Sure, a person saying that human art is now useless is an idiot, because 1. Clearly humans are still capable of insane art and art quality that outperforms AI and 2. Art is subjective by nature. Who is to say 1 persons art is better than another’s?

But I very much enjoy chiptunes. Music made by actual mechanical board sounds and video game music. A person that informed me that my enjoyment of this type of sound is poor because only vibrations from horse fiber can be considered tasteful is insane.

Undoubtably, there are a lot of toxic prompters and trolls using AI art to poke and prod the reactions of artists that have poured their souls into their own style. These people do suck, of course. But it’s a story as old as art, in my opinion, and misses the real headline: AI is going to displace more people, faster, and we all should be beneficiaries of a technology that wouldn’t be possible without our data

6

TinyBurbz OP t1_iysw2eq wrote

>misses the real headline: AI is going to displace more people, faster, and we all should be beneficiaries of a technology that wouldn’t be possible without our data

AI is coming for Ad generation first; something folks need to understand.

1

FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyvz52v wrote

Yeah that's ridiculous AI art is not better than humans right now but I would be careful with the argument it can't get better than us because it was trained on human data argument. We have models that perform at superhuman levels that were trained on nothing but human data. Really image generation and deep learning in general are young fields that are changing fast. It's very likely in the next few years we will see image generation systems approach human skill level.

Also stability AI is currently working on a completely licenced dataset in which they've either bought the rights to the art or it's copyright free. I don't think this will stop artist's anger one bit lol because ultimately it has nothing to do with perceived theft, that's just a rationalization and everything to do with the fear of replacement/unemployment or loss of the thing that gave them their identity.

3

TinyBurbz OP t1_iywkju4 wrote

>Yeah that's ridiculous AI art is not better than humans right now but I would be careful with the argument it can't get better than us because it was trained on human data argument. We have models that perform at superhuman levels that were trained on nothing but human data.

In what regard? What do you mean by 'better'

1

FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyx6lrk wrote

In the economic sense. Where instead of hiring a professional artist even for high quality artistic products in a corporate environment it would be more effective to use a machine learning model unless the client specifically wanted something handmade for sentimental reasons. Right now we're aren't there yet because AI still struggles with a lot of stuff like hands and specificity but that won't always be the case.

2

TinyBurbz OP t1_iyxaq14 wrote

I actually use AI for texture work myself. This tech is definitely going to displace a lot of labor.... but I have low expectations for productions who use AI for everything.

1

FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyxvxrd wrote

I agree short term. Ten years from now though I think there's a case to be made that the market for digital visual artists is going to look a lot like the market for work horses. Very niche and not really a viable career option for aspiring creatives. Image models will be so good by then that it literally won't make sense to employ a human to do it.

2

TinyBurbz OP t1_iyxxvqm wrote

>Ten years from now though I think there's a case to be made that the market for digital visual artists is going to look a lot like the market for work horses

So human made art will be an expensive highly valuable luxury item? Sounds like aspiring creatives can get very far.

1

FilthyCommieAccount t1_iyz695l wrote

Not really. The market will be very small. Like ask yourself was it easier making a living as a handcrafted furniture builder (or just craftsman in general) before industrialization? Yeah because now the vast majority of the market but stuff made from an assembly line. Sure there's a very small group of elite furniture builders that stuck around but in general it was bad for the people who did that for a living. This is the assembly line for digital art.

1

Cryptizard t1_j0cwdbp wrote

The vast majority of people on this sub, and Reddit in general, are not capable of appreciating art. That is just becoming more obvious now because of AI art generation, and it is infuriating a lot of people.

1