“Anarchist” lololol
Yeah, using the corporate product that stole all individuals’ work to regurgitate abortions from billionaire oligarch’s algorithms is totally “anarchist.”
Exactly. I remember in Conquest of Bread when Kropotkin talked about freeing up more time by automating creative and intelligent pursuits so we can focus more on menial labor.
Obviously /s
He would say that to lure more people into his North Pole workshop
Anyone who claims “AI = anarchy” deserves to have a canvas broken on its head cartoon style
It’s not stealing if there are no rules whatsoever, which is exactly what anarchy is!
/S
There are rules. But rich people don’t have to follow them. It’s domination. Not anarchy/anarchism.
Edit: Okay now I see the /S. Not deleting though lol.
Uhhh I will get downvoted but I have to say, anarchocapitalism is still anarchism. And obviously disrespecting property rights is a very anarchist thing to do, so.
And many AI models you can run completely on your own hardware, no billionaire oligarchies have a say in what you do.
Most anarcho-capitalists, especially the Curtis Yarvin types, just want fascism, but with Inc. at the end, and call their dictator “Chief Executive Officer”.
Curtis Yarvin is a monarchist full stop.
anarchocapitalism is still anarchism
Sounds more like people who want to have luxuries and comforts and money but don’t want to have anyone telling them what they can and can’t do.
Sounds about right for the current fascist techbro community.
What classic art is transphobic. Lots of renaissance artists were LGB, the T came out when many of them painted themselves into biblical characters of different genders. It gets written off as because using themselves as models was more available than models, or vanity, but transphobic is far from the first description I’d come up with for the art history I learned.
bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL aMiRiTe… i’M sUcH aN aNaRcHiSt HyUcK hYuCk HyUcK!!!
It’s like these mentally lazy ignorant people look all around themselves, see how the horizon is basically at the same distance all around them, therefore conclude that they must be the center of the universe, then sprinkle in a few fashionable internet soundbites and catchphrases to “make themselves sound interesting” and “with it”.
This is cartoonishly obvious bait.
Engaging with bait like this is 90% of why the world is in the mess it’s currently in.
Counterpoint, but CREATING content like this is 90% of the reason, and these people should be remembered in history as the cockroaches they are. I can at least understand people who get mad at bait.
Our brains were never meant to be so over-exposed to so many conflicting messages all day, every day, and a lot of powerful people are exploiting this fact to an absurd degree.
So much of modern life feels like ‘internet troll’ became a personality affectation.
Obviously. I mean, even when AI could not do fingers (and today they are mostly fine), you could simply recreate the picture until you had something usable.
Having a picture like this and the over the top “negative/positive points” is done deliberately.
I’m not sure, in its early days, generative AI slop was kind of promoted like that. Then anyone left of Margaret Thatcher rejected it, and almost only the Curtis Yarvin type techbros embraced it, so it slowly became the “anti-woke” alternative to real art.
I mean, isn’t existing art misogynistic?
So is AI art. It’s designed to look like human art, with the same biases.
But I keep hearing the ai doesn’t know what it’s doing. Most crimes can’t be committed without intent, why are we saying an art crime can be committed without intent?
I don’t even really hate AI art but it produces extremely hypersexualised depictions of women almost by default. It does of men too but only a bit less so.
Just like anyone else who spends most of their time on a computer
I pressed the demo button on a keyboard in a music store once.
My second album will be out next month if anyone is interested.
Don’t create or spread bait.
Most people are too stupid to know the difference. Not you of course. You know what is up.
sorry consider the bait spread i personally have the opinion that bait inoculation is possible
I to have no talent and am unable to create traditional art.
But what about getting likes without any effort or personal involvement??! /s
-More Creative
-Creates the same thing over and over
-Cannot create new things like an overfull wine glass without reference imagesThe only thing it can do is regurgitate.
I think it has some value. I’ve been enjoying political deep fakes. Like that one of trump sucking musk toes.
I also think AI has some value for artist to use as a tool. Not to fully create pieces but to help.
If it’s used in that way it’s more ethical.
In contrast I’ve been using software in a similar way for at least 20 years. For instance, if I’m working on a painting, I often start with a real photograph. (My own or free to use reference image from a source giving permission).
I put it in Photoshop and use filters to increase edge contrast. Then I create a sketch over it. I print the sketch to scale and then transfer it to my canvas or paper. Or use it to make digital painting.
Another thing I do is use filters in Photoshop (the cutout one) to help me better able to see blocks of color changes. Because human perception makes it difficult for us to actually perceive these.
I then reference that image during the painting process.
Now that’s not using AI. But I am using software. Ai can be used similarly though.
With a specific AI you can apply a painting style of one image to another. This was actually the first free AI type art. It was called deep dream or something like that. About 5 years ago. The website is still up but doesn’t offer this anymore. But I found one that does.
So yeah you upload two images. A photo you took. And a painting you made. And set the percentage of change.
And it can help you plan a painting by making a version that will have your painting style applied. It’s actually kinda awesome.
But as you can imagine you could upload someone else’s photograph. And someone else’s art piece.
Stealing their style.
I still think this specific AI tool has the most value for artist to use.
I don’t have time to read replies like this.
Okay then. Just gives outline of how I use Photoshop and AI as a tool for traditional art.
I hate how misogynistic traditional art is! Just last week, when I was drawing, my pencil started ranting about “feeeeemales.”
I tried to draw a bunny rabbit for Easter and instead I drew Harvey Weinstein! shakes fists Aaaaaart!
Hate when this happens
When I was a kid, every time I tried to draw something it just ended up being a dick and balls.
Please tell me you gave him the bunny ears and if so where I can purchase this masterpiece.
And transphobic! My baby blue and light pink pencils never draw straight lines!!!
Oof, you must have gotten a shipment of Ferengi pencils, they can be a little… “Eccentric”
I’m tired.
OP: Nothing’s better than AI art!
Me: counts fingers suspiciously
Thats the scary part, in 2023 that was a good way to identify AI slop. Its getting tricky now and you need an eye for detail and lighting. By 2027, I fear people wont be able to tell the difference.
Next up is music. It’ll start with jingles and the background music for commercials, then background music for movies and eventually most of the beats you hear on the radio will be made by AI.
I think the industry will still want to have real singers, so they can still make money on concerts. But the AI will be writing a lot of the lyrics for many of the big pop hits.
Your kids will be fed this garbage all throughout their childhood, and when they’re old enough to develop a critical sense they will just be used to it.
I mean have you seen the slop the music industry is already putting out? Top 40 pop stars have been overproduced manufactured garbage for literal decades, what difference does it make if its one producer writing all the shitty samples and lyrics for 100 pop stars or if its AI. Real music will still exist and the true art will be confined to the fringes, as it already mostly is. Soulless music is soulless regardles of if its being made by a machine or a hack.
Next up is music. It’ll start with jingles and the background music for commercials, then background music for movies and eventually most of the beats you hear on the radio will be made by AI.
Suno is already making ‘Radio Quality Pop’ music, of course because ‘Radio Quality Pop’ music is a very low bar
I take it you’re not a fan of Obscurest Vinyl
To be fair, sourcing vegan-friendly art supplies is often significantly more frustrating than finding vegan food. But as others have said, doing - do I call it ‘traditional digital’ art? - is going to have a much smaller environmental impact than AI generation systems that are dependent on servers. A used Thinkpad x230 > Midjourney?
Also wanna add that in theory I’m not against AI art generation, only the way it’s usually implemented. All creativity is derivative, and as long as the user is remixing free and public domain content, I think the gained accessibility for far more people to bring their expressions to life where they otherwise would not have been able to, is worth far more than the perceived threats felt by a stagnant copy monopolist industry.
But the key thing here is proper implementation. It’s like every time we get a new toy, we forget all over again that software freedom is a moral imperative in all forms of software.
Freedom relies on consent and mutual reciprocity, otherwise it’s exploitation. AI art diffusion models that scraped digital art portfolios and did not gain the consent of the artists nor did the artists get compensation is exploitation full stop. There is no freedom in exploitation.
None of the hypothetical methods I described would do that.
None of the hypothetical methods I described would do that.
So it’s exploitive then.
No, it’s not. Why are you like this?
The present models are, is the point i think the other person is making.
I haven’t looked into it too much, because I don’t bother to use these things myself. But if I remember, there are some systems that are open-source, can be run locally, and then a person could train those systems on only public domain and freely licensed works. That is the kind I’m talking about, so bringing up the systems I’m not talking about is just a strawman.
if traditional art is transphobic how are drag queens a thing
(i know drag !== trans but still)
That’s a pretty long pencil
And wobbly.
Something is making me suspect this is AI generated, but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
also sharpened by some wacky sharpener that leaves an off-center tip
I mean, the shorter an object is, the harder it is to snap.
theres no thumb just another index finger …
Digglet thumbs
Sometimes non vegan… it’s boiling the fucking planet.
I mean, the impact AI has on the climate is nothing compared to the animal product industry
The impact per work of AI vs, say, a set of pighair brushes is massively higher.
Which is the fairest way of comparing them, per artwork.
There’s probably a bigger impact when you consider how paint and brushes are manufactured and the fact that it’s most likely shipped here from other countries.
It’s also laughable how little actual energy one picture takes to generate.
It’s a non starter when you actual compare it to something physical. It’s like saying sending a normal letter is better for the environment then an email.
The issue is the infrastructure and scale. Hundreds of thousands of these images are created every day.
I don’t know your workflow but it usually takes quite a few iterations before someone gets the image they want. It’s the literal definition of inefficiency because its rebuilding the diffusion every time, be that from cached memory or a new vector path.
Both of those things have a really small impact, to the point that it doesn’t matter. Generating one picture using AI takes like 30 seconds of your GPU running at full power. Besides, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison in the first place. Pighair brushes are not the main animal product people consume and generating something using AI models isn’t what’s using the majority of the energy but training the models is. The metric that’s actually important is what both industries as a whole are contributing to climate change, otherwise we can just keep picking examples that prove the other one wrong.
Lololololololololol. No. Unless you have a massively expensive GPU, no. The image is not being generated by your device. It’s being generated by a mile wide server bank that churns through petrochemicals like a city all on its own. That’s the part of AI people are talking about when they reference it being bad for the environment. And if you do own a massively expensive GPU and generate AI images offline, you are not part of the conversation because your activities are an ounce in an ocean.
