Yeah - I’m done arguing because it’s just clear you don’t care about people at the moment.

I’m glad you think your fantasy of living in Star Trek will happen.

I hope you find compassion and empathy one day.

> No they don’t lol. Do you think the even a sizable portion of those in the developing world try to emigrate?

Yes? Have you see the USA’s immigration situation? Lol.

Like sometimes shit hits the fan and it’s hard, but don’t act like people don’t actually try and emigrate from 3rd world countries. I know of artists who are from poor as hell countries, who had a family and did their artwork at night when the electricity is off and everyone was asleep - and now they work in the industry here in the West. I don’t really think the amount of people who do that really matters, it’s clear people do it haha. I had an Uber driver from Rwanda the other day.

> This is comical. So in your ideal world society is just made of money and instead of trying to fill socially useful roles with qualified candidates ppl should just do whatever the fuck they want? Like if I want to make mudpies for a living the state should pay me to do it? Do you really think a society like that would be prosperous in the long run?

Funny you bring this up because one of the pillars of the pro-AI, pro-Singularity rhetoric is the need for UBI. Which would very much be in line with your scenario here. AI would take all jobs, everyone has UBI, don’t have jobs, and we just … chill I guess? If we embraced the AI with no question - than yes you could make mudpies all you want.

> If the art suffers then it was never about self expression or actualization etc. in the first place. Because it will still be possible to do human made art without a monetary incentive.

I agree. I just fear that it will destroy the incentives for the kids of the future to pick up a pencil.

Like it has already for so many people (not everyone or everywhere, of course - where I’m from art is laughable but other places, it’s much more of a respectable job prospect). But, some of the most insane art exists right now because of the entertainment industry, and a world where you could be monetarily compensated for your hard work.

I agree we should shape it responsibly. Which means sometimes criticizing, let’s say, SD and LAION from scrapping medical records and copyrighted images from other artists who did the real work. And yes - it was knowingly done - because there is a double standard happening with Harmonai, which explicitly does collects via an opt-in approach.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/10/07/ai-music-generator-dance-diffusion/

If it’s hard to empathize, than maybe that is something you could work on.

Your points boil down to - (1) tech is inevitable so just don’t question, (2) we don’t know what could happen, (3) this tech is harmful to peoples psyche and social stability but I’m fine so just accept it. (4) leave the ones who question behind.

Like - duh, I want AI to be helpful for everyone. I want it used responsibly. I used to study Cognitive Science and NLP in college, I was all in. I want this tech to truly help everyone responsibly with just intent. But, I just don’t think gutting artists work opportunities - and creating a world where all art has the is shadow of doubt over it (I.e “was this made by a person or a robot? I can’t tell …”) - is the way to go. I just can’t imagine what good could come out of a world where someone who is suicidal picks up a phone - calls the suicide hotline - but isn’t sure if a real person is behind the phone. Hell, they may have not even bothered to call knowing it could be a robot and not a person.

> I said your assumption that most people do something they like is 100% untrue.

I never said it was - I said that most people want to do something they like - which you claimed was entitled.

>Just think about all the developing countries in the world, the poverty, the lack of education etc. Do you really think those people are doing something they want to do?

And you know what they do? They fight like hell to get out of it.

> I can't personally understand but I do sort of get it and have sympathy for the position y'all are in. It just doesn't change my opinion.

Okay - good for you, I guess.

> Of course I do. Do you think elevator operators deserved a good life back in the day? Do you think we should have kept them around because you wanted them to have a good life?

Yes - if they truly had the passion for it.

> They just won't largely do it for money. They will largely do it as a hobby without monetary incentive and have to reskill into another trade just like everyone else that's been automated.

Alas, the art itself suffers as a result.

I mean - I think society and people suffer if people have no meaningful employment.

Who said anything about being white?

> If you think it's valid then why are you trying to put art in a priveledged position over farm work? Both can be spiritual, both can lead to self actualization.

I didn't - because I think if someone wants to farm manually, they should have the availability to live a good life, economically to do so. Not just as a hobby.

> You can't have it both ways here. Just earlier today I was listening to an artist complain (rightfully so by the way) that friends/family always ask them to make them stuff for free and they get mad because their friends and family don't understand that it's work not just something done for enjoyment. Making art is work, it may sometimes be nice work to do, something you would prefer to do over other forms of work but it's still 100% work or those friends and family would have a legitimate case in asking for free shit.

I want to work, and in the future, I want work. That's the fucking point.

> I'm not trying to be rude, I'm not trying to be a dick.

You may not be trying to, but you're not being very understanding of the artist perspective. Like, for me personally, I went to college for something I hated, because I thought (and was told) art wouldn't be a good career option. Then the depression and thoughts of suicide kicked in, I went and got help, dropped out of the MA that I hated being in, and decided to work odd jobs and do art on the side so that maybe I could have a future where I did care about my work. And this is taking a shit on that too. So, I do take it rather personally when I get called entitled, naive, privileged, or whatever the fuck else that diminishes the hours of lost sleep, blood, sweat, and tears I gave to be here right now.

You are right in that this is the course of history. But I ask - who's side are you really on here? Do you think artists deserve a good life or not? Because I do. Art is the actualization of beauty, changes so many lives, and helps a lot of people. I'd hate myself to be on the side against those individuals.

I mean - I just plainly disagree. By your logic, we should be happy with terrible work just because that's how it is?.

> I didn't call you entitled

You kind of did. You claimed my take was entitled for simply wanting a good life for myself by working in something I love. Silly.

Also; I find it strange to call someone entitled to want happiness for themselves. A little odd.

> As someone who has worked on a farm this is kind of offensive. Many farmers do not view their work as menial, tedious or a nuisance. I see no reason why art should be seen as intrinsically better than farm work.

I've got some news; I've worked on a farm too - grew up on two. And I addressed this - I did state that there are people who find joy in and that is valid. I think that was a quick emotional response, honestly. But we'd be having a different conversation if you forced the farmer to use a tractor.

> There are tons of middling artists that just do what they are told and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Not everyone can be a super successful artist.

There isn't anything wrong with doing something you need to do for survival. But, for your art practice nothing will kill it quicker. Again, this is predicated on the notion (that I prescribe to) that Art is a unique thing that isn't like a lot of "work".

> Dude I'm not trying to be rude but this sounds privileged as fuck. Where I'm from the majority of ppl hate their jobs and only do it because they have to make ends meet.

Hey, I do too. I do work a job I don't care about, I'm about to start another one to save more money. I'm from a place where this reality is the same. But I don't care what everyone else does. I will fight to do what I love - I won't give in. Period. Plus, this is an envious take. Just because some people have to work jobs, they don't like doesn't mean that should be the case for everyone by force; it sounds like "If I can't do the thing I love and make money, then no one can." Besides, I'm on the side for letting people do the things they love and make a living off of it - if you force art as a hobby for everyone I don't really see how that is fair. It feels like "knocking-down" instead of "bringing-up" people.

> No that would be insanely selfish, the world benefits from increased food production at a lower cost just like the world will benefit from increased art production at much lower costs.

Exactly, this is why I said farming is different from Art, in that it's a necessity. I admit that art only exits by spiritual, and luxury means.

You keep ignoring things that I blatantly admit.

I understand this perspective. However, it's not comparable to something like self-driving tractors. This is the problem I see all the time with this argument. It is reducing the art making process into something menial and tedious, or something that is a nuisance to do.

Which is incredibly insulting to artists. Because we actually enjoy doing these things. I'll tell you this, most actually successful artists have honed their craft enough to not have to worry about working on something they don't care about.

It is incredibly common for younger artists to get going on smaller gigs that they aren't as personally invested in, but they move on. It's not sustainable personally enough. It's just like anything else, really - and it happens all the time. Just go take a look at artists with online followings. Those who get stuck in this mindset of "I have to make this thing because it will get me more likes and exposure" end up burning out. The ones who stick around are the ones truly doing the thing they enjoy.

If you're working an office job you don't like, and you don't care about it at all - do you really think you'd stick around? Or be happy in the long haul?

Edit: Plus, farming physically is demanding and uncomfortable (some might find it enjoyable still, for sure). But - food is a necessity. Art is usually seen as spiritual or a luxury. I would even argue that the spiritual aspect of art is a necessity.

> An endless stream of personalized movies, shows, games, and VR adventures that are tailored specifically to your tastes and even for what you need to grow and mature sounds amazing to me.

You're naive and looking past the obvious here. We already have a tiny form of this. Go on any social media - YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, what have you - and you are fed stimuli that has been personally tailored to the choices and clicks you make. And - you claim we are mentally doing well because of these things? Aren't a lot of societies facing declining birth rates, increase rates of mental health issues and suicide, and political polarization?

> Especially since they will be better than anything humanity can possibly create.

These are the fantastical scenarios I was speaking about - riddled in AI-favored rhetoric. It's very predictable and not far from a sales pitch.

> I don't feel compassion for people who yell at clouds.

Just because people don't blindly believe the same things you do, and question how to use certain system, tools, or whatever, responsibly - doesn't make them people who are yelling at clouds. Besides, why not? Show some kindness.

No, everyone isn't preparing for AI because not everyone agrees with you. It's as simple as that. I mean, hell, if you sit a person down in front of a screen and they play their favorite video game all day long, you aren't going to have a very happy, satisfied person. This is measurable right now, actually.

> yes

Really sad. That won’t be good life.

> I don’t care about the mental health of future artists or consumers.

Even more sad. Empathy and compassion is not just for the other person. It’s good for yourself.

Lol. I mean, there it is - you were going to art school for monetary reasons and not for art reasons.

Side note; I just don’t think 8 hours is very substantial. Amazing drawings can take way longer than that. Try a 25 hour drawing.

And no it’s not enough tbh - because theres tangible advantages now, but how will this effect the future? What’s the end goal, really? 10, 20, 30, 40 years down the line? Do we want to be in a world where media, art, games, shows, movies, etc are not worked on but just generated at a whim for what we want? Are we considering how this could impact the mental health of future artists or consumers?

Because we kind of already have this reality in other realms of modernity.

Like - movies and TV for example - amazing tools exits now, movies, VFX, and special effects are so advanced now. Yet - you go on the street and most people complain that everything is a reboot, or that nothing good is made anymore.

I honestly believe people want to spite artists in this way because of how hard image making can be, and we are socialized to believe this starving artist trope - yet when we see successful artists (in an age of the most commercially successful contemporary artists to every exist), we must now “democratize” it because people feel “how come they can do what they love and get paid for it, but I can’t?!?”

> SD dramatically reduces the time and money requirements to make a game so I'm seriously pursuing it now.

Right - because now it's easy. And you work for a living. So do artists now. And now you want a piece of that too. Hence the FOMO. And it will take the work opportunities away from the other artists in the process.

It kind of is a fantasy, do you know what you will make after your game? Or what those more interesting and complex things even are?

>That is more complicated than just generating some pictures.

Wrong - it's difficult in its own way. I'm sorry, but you seem very ignorant on the actual amount of work it takes to make great imagery. This is that narrow view of art I was talking about, you are only viewing art in terms of "good", "bad", "hard", "not hard", and assigning a worth and value to it. Sad really.

I'm not denying that it can or will happen, I'm arguing that it shouldn't. Two different things.

I'm not saying this as someone who is pissed that the work I put in is not needed anymore. I'm saying this as someone who values human-made hard work, and that it is a valuable thing.

> I do think creating art with AI is the same thing as creating art without it, though, in terms of the "essential human experience".

That is where I believe you are wrong. The experience of making and constructing a picture is different than what you do after the picture is made. In a practical, modern sense, you are playing the role of commissioner and art director, not the hands that make the pictures.

> Every serious artist I've ever known (admittedly they were my 2 best friends growing up and a 3rd semi-bestie) had an incredible amount of self-loathing in regard to the work they produced...

You aren't wrong here, that is all internal battles we all handle. But you talk about it as a negative experience. Your friends came out better artists and I'd assume are in better mental states, yes? And you want to - automate that experience away? You just want to be super good right away no work or journey involved? I look back at my old work like looking back at a kid or old friend. I'm glad they are there, because it means I can be glad for what will come. To see your old work like that is a rather unloving and, and quite frankly, sad thing to experience.

> I just don't care if he were to use my work (I am not famous or great) or the works of others to make a powerful tool.

You should, he is actively trying to make artists lives worse.

Also, this isn't a tool. Sure, you can use it as one ignoring the obvious issues. But really, no tool is conceived or dependent on the works of others. People like to compare this to photoshop, but it is in no way the same. You still have to know how to paint and draw in photoshop. The hammer needs a hand - the hammer doesn't hit the nail itself or decides what needs to be hit.

>I do, because once SD is better, I can do more experiments. For example, I'm already trying to generate 3D models from SD using Unity to generate images and using Meshroom to produce the mesh. Some success, but cohesion throws it off a bit. There's a delicate balance between transforming the original vs keeping coherence that I'm still trying to tune. Once successful, I could use these models in a game I'm making and that excites the hell out of me. Perhaps I can create something amazing without hiring 100 artists? That wouldn't be possible without tools like SD. It would allow me to focus on story and gameplay.

I'm glad you are creating the things you want. However, let's not pretend that you couldn't have done this before this tool. If you wanted to learn to draw, or write, or make a video game, and actually cared enough to do it, you would have done it already, or have been trying to. I mean sure, you can make the argument that you don't have the money, time, or resources. But that will always be the case. You will die one day. I will die one day. We as artist have to learn to accept that we will never be able to make all the things possible that we'd want. That is a part of living.

And it's great that you can focus on the story and gameplay. This negatively impacts the visual art industry now, but how are you going to feel when the story and gameplay industry gets automated away, too?

It's sad really, when I see people say things like this, I just see a person who is experiencing intense FOMO, and trying to live forever, as if they haven't accepted that they won't and that some things just can't happen.

Also - when you say the 100-artist point - I just think of 100 potential artist losing work that they for sure deserve.

> I see AI tools as just tools we can use to make better and more complicated stuff. One day I think AI will replace almost everyone's current field of work and maybe create a few new ones. I think it's inevitable and that's why I think I'm pragmatic about all this. It's going to happen whether artists like it or not.

This whole "better and more complicated stuff" notion is weird. It's all fantasy, really. There is no way of knowing what will actually happen, but I think it's dangerous just to believe in promises that don't have any concrete plan or critical approach. Seems more like a religion of technology to me.

> I was responding to "So you’re anti-human, essentially." when I said I'm just pragmatic.

You're missing the point - art is a very human thing. If you'd rather allocate art commission to machines, you are directly rejecting a very essential human experience. You can feign pragmaticism all you want, but it doesn't change the 40,000 years of artistic expression humans feel need to do.

> I disagree. I mean, everyone says you can view art however you want. I choose to think that art with bad proportions, bad lighting, bad whatever is bad art. I don't shit on people for producing bad art because it's a skill that takes work to hone. I do judge it harshly though and there's nothing wrong with that.

Yeah, you can do whatever you want, but judging "bad" art never bodes well for people internally in the long run, especially artists. It's almost like you accept that it takes hard work, and that it's okay to work at making your "bad" art "good", while also judging it harshly? Why? Perfectionism? That's proven in many fields to be a very unhealthy way of living. I've seen so, so many artists lose their artistic spirit due to toxin that is perfectionism, the narrow mindedness of "good" and "bad" art, and hyper capitalisitc world views.

> I don't think you can know this unless you know the devs personally.

Emad Mostaque is very vocal on twitter and online - I don't have to know someone personally to gauge how they view me based on how they speak of people like me in interviews, tweets, or what have you. He sees you, and me (artists), as just tools who do a menial task that get in the way of progress. It's pretty clear. The sleaziness of that is the LAION data set is also pretty apparent.

> using SD feels exactly the same way

It doesn't for me. Most of the fun is the experience of making the picture come to life and reacting to what marks are made on the screen or page. Do you really think getting the image you want immediately will make you a more satisfied, better, or well-equipped artist? If you do, you're in it for all the wrong reasons, and it's not sustainable. This isn't a new idea either. Rennaissance artist knew this.

> but once I no longer need to, I'm sure people like you will get mad for some reason.

And I'm sure people like you will stop making art because it's lost all its human meaning. I keep seeing it happen, people get on Midjourney, play around with it, claim they worked really hard for 1 and half hours to perfect and an image, and a week later they've stopped posting.

Art isn't pragmatic - lol, people have been doing it before there was monetary, pragmatic reasons to do so.

And I look at "bad" art all the time, I enjoy seeing people be creative. If you go around labeling art as "bad", or "terrible", you're just making an ass of yourself.

Again, anti-humanist behavior, and it just shows that the people who make these models are so, so very far removed from how art is actually made - and what it feels like to actually make art.

So you’re anti-human, essentially.

And art isn’t about being competent or perfect.

Exactly - it’s no different.

So why not let the human do it?

I think that is the main issue.

It actually has been explored. Go to any major artist whose working in the industry now, for vary large clientele, and you will see plenty of exploration.

The idea of training an AI off of data isn’t weird. But when it’s done consciously to spite actual humans who have copyright laws that are meant to protect those individuals from intellectual property theft - it’s pretty messed up.

By this same moral standard, Stability should use all the music and audio files it can get its hands on just as with visual art.

In a way - they pretty much just told the world and artists “fuck you lol”.

Of course.

Seems that they knew/thought they could fuck over visual artists and get away with it.

Funny how this model uses a data set made of exclusivey non-copyrighted material and voluntary audio samples.

Very different from Stable Diffusion.

Weird…