I mean, It's bad art and all but it's here to stay, maybe this will make it harder for weirdos making a living off of drawing bad art i couldn't care less.
What's wrong with weirdos making a living off bad art?
Go fuck yourself liberal
Anyone upvoting this dipshit lib needs to show themselves so i can harass you off this website you worthless fucking cowards
maybe this will make it harder for weirdos making a living off of drawing bad art i couldn’t care less.
From all my experiences I'm pretty sure it's not the artists that are the weirdos, at least not anymore than any other artists. It's just weird shit pays. Nobodys shelling out the big bux for "young blond women missionary sex", that shit's free, en masse, all over the internet.
AI art is only a problem under capitalism. If labor served the people, automating it would be cool and good. Unfortunately we live in a system where labor only benefits capital and the people can go fuck themselves.
"Make a living off of drawing bad art"
Well if it's so easy why dont you do it you stupid motherfucker
If you're poor and suffering because you can't compete in the market that's on you lmao
:porky-happy:
If I was a prole I would simply sell more expensive labor
Get a real job, if you can't afford my rent you're not working hard enough lmao
:porky-happy:
Are you having fun with this little tantrum you're having because you want to pick and choose which kind of selling your labor is selling labor?
Don't get baited into getting banned by someone's alt comrade woof 🐕
You should delete
If you put in a prompt and call yourself an artist that's very embarassing but I really doubt this will actually significantly impact people commisioning art
people have been worrying about AI taking all the jobs for decades now I just don't think it's happening
I see this thread got double posted and I posted in the less popular one so I'll put this here too:
I’m about as in favor of AI art as can be but I don’t think apathy is really the right reaction. It will impact the careers of a lot of artists, but it’s not going to be artists literally becoming obsolete overnight like everyone pretends it is.
For most of it that we’re used to seeing, we’re seeing art from people who were not going to pay an artist for what they made in the first place. People running pictures of Yellow Parenti through an anime model were never going to pay an artist to do that for them, without AI image generation they’d just… not do it. The artists would be no better off. This is literally the same shit record and film companies try to argue with piracy, that one download = one lost sale. That idea is bullshit in that context, and it is bullshit in this context.
The other main area we might see AI art more widely adopted in would be any type of art or photography that is repetitive but covers a broad range of subjects, like stock imagery. I can’t speak for people who work for stock image companies but I cannot imagine that being anything but soul crushing as-is, posing for and making shitloads of photographs of the most inane and specific things. AI still has a lot of catching up to do before it can consistently replace that, especially with human subjects, so there’s still time.
I think most people don’t think of the limits because most people do not have any experience with it beyond seeing whatever people put out with a smartphone app, then seeing moderately clearer images later on, and then they assume that it’s going to be replacing all artists by the end of next year. I have a fair amount of experience by this point with making my own AI art and I can tell you that regular artists will absolutely continue to be a thing for quite a while even in the worst case, if nothing else because AI is so terrible at making specific new subjects from scratch (at least without a LOT of manual effort) and I cannot imagine it getting much better any time soon. I’ve been trying to make an original character, with some fairly complex detailing, 100% from AI art with no prior references existing. In order to do that to any degree of usefulness, I have to make probably 50-100 completely flawless pictures of my character in varying poses, zoom levels, art styles, and backgrounds – I can do that with the AI, but it takes a lot of time. It took me an entire WEEK to get one picture completed, and I’ve only recently got remotely useful results straight out of the generator. The only reasons I am willing or able to do this are that I have the hardware to do it, I have a decent understanding of computer science, I have some very basic art skills, and I have a strong aversion to social interaction – plus I just like the novelty of the idea. Not everyone has all of that and I am the only person I know of that is attempting this. Most people will just either pay an artist for this instead (a vastly cheaper option, I assure you) or just not do it at all. For the foreseeable future, getting a specific thing out of an AI will take far more effort than 90-99% of the population is willing to expend compared to paying an artist to do it for them.
I hope you realize that professionally trained and elite artists are already retraining and adapting to stable diffusion, you're only celebrating the 90% most precarious workers getting culled because apparently doing cleanup and literally working with your hands non-stop for 8-16 hours a day isn't real work
90% is a huge overestimate, honestly. AI art is terrible at making entirely novel concepts, or at replicating a concept accurately without a bunch of existing source material, and it will almost certainly remain that way. And most of what people are actually using it for right now, are cases where the person wouldn't have paid an artist to do it if AI art were not an option.
If 90% of artists were primarily doing things that AI would easily displace, then I could not imagine why anyone would want to become an artist in the first place if AI image generation wasn't a thing. Actual art skills work a lot better, machines don't really have a good sense of taste nor are they innovative on their own.
I'm considering clean-up and the stuff that gets outsourced as part of the 90% that will be made redundant down the line, the graphic designers that make horrible :corporate-art: too, that work is extremely tiring and mind numbing but at least it meant working with your hands
My perception might be skewed but I don't see a lot of what gets put out, especially a lot of commercial art being the kind of rehashing that AI can do pretty well
If those animation sweatshops are automated it still means people that enjoyed their work (despite horrible conditions) being out of a job and being left to work the other horrible jobs in the periphery
And it means people that can't attain a high enough technical ability to compete or seamlessly edit AI output being left out in the cold, it raises the barrier much higher and probably compromises a lot of undertrained (people not trained since childhood by under bourg upbringings) out in the cold
Editing AI output is actually one of the easier things to do, since you can literally just mask off part of an image and tell it to try again. The most you'd ever have to do is draw a crude sketch of what you want to go there (probably a limb that was missing). The barrier of entry for running stable diffusion locally, at least financially, is probably somewhere around $300 for a used graphics card made within the last 4 years or so, and maybe lower than that. You can get a lot more done on more expensive hardware and with more specific technical ability, sure, but... that's not completely new. The tools for using it are not as user friendly as they could be, but they're at a point right now where probably anyone who can do digital art could start doing AI art well within a few days. And knowing how to draw on your own is extremely helpful and speeds up the process massively, so people who are already artists have a huge advantage.
Honestly I think too much of the AI art discourse is rooted in misunderstanding. I don't think we can shove AI generation back into Pandora's box, and I haven't seen any serious proposal contradicting that, so I'm mostly concerned with mitigating impacts and having people get the most benefit possible out of it. I like to inform people about what it can do, because I sincerely believe it can be an overall beneficial tool, but half the time I get screamed at by people who are just in fight-or-flight mode over it, and who also tend to believe that a straight text prompt can generate anything that isn't just shitpost quality when it simply doesn't work like that. I can understand why, but it doesn't make it any less tiring.
My friend is a professional artist, I'm a professional writer. Both of us are getting paid less and less for our labor. This is not good.
I find it complicated because like, sometimes people lose their jobs to progress, tons of people would lose their jobs if we moved away from fossil fuel production but that's still good and necessary. AI art is cool and fun and wouldn't be a problem if not for capitalism, but its main use now is/is going to be paying workers less and cutting entire positions once held by real actual people. Not to mention the AI doesn't really create art, you need to feed it art already on the internet for the algorithm to do its thing, so in a way its stealing everyone's labor to then take away their labor. (I also think it might lead to a more homogenized media scene, due to popular things already having a lot of art, leading them to be made easier and better into a self fulfilling prophecy)
I dunno, its complicated and I'm too close to it. Sorry to ramble.
There's nothing all that new about what will happen (if it doesn't fizzle out), technology has advanced before. What's threatened isn't the art world with all it's mysticism and tax evasion, but the current shape of what you might call the commodity visual arts industry; gig-economy commission stuff, but probably even moreso stuff like graphic design in advertising. That whole sector will realign around the new socially necessary labour-time and division of labour involved in producing certain visual outputs. As always with capitalism, that process will screw over some of the workers in that industry just like it has done with scribes, typesetters, draftsmen, and a thousand other trades.
The way that existing art is stolen and reused in the process is somewhat new though, in just how much it alienates art from artist. At least with things like stock photography libraries there is a theoretical system of royalties and licensing to give the actual creator some kind of credit/compensation. I'm sure there will be new additions to copyright/trademark/IP law, but only in service to those capitalists best able to lobby for and profit from them. Even an ideal system, e.g. where inclusion in the training data is voluntary and the AI tools find ways to asign credit through to the works drawn from, still sounds hellworld and would probably lead to the data getting filled with SEO-hacked garbage trying to farm the system.
Weirdos making bad art contribute more to this world than you ever could, worm
Why would disabled artists fare any better when their field is being gutted, if anything disabled artists are going to be the first ones made redundant
Weird pull for "why aren't you also upset about X workers" when you're talking about a field that gets thrown into the exact same 'feminine' barista/womens-studies/sexworker/artist/stay-at-home-parent jobs
What's more likely, this one field being culled not being worth talking about or defending (a field that coincidentally found a haven in the Soviet Union) or a handful of self-described socialists having deep-rooted patriarchal programming coming through about what "real work" is and being happy some perceived cultural other is getting owned
You're talking about a field that like half the world population would choose to work in under a socialist system? Even under horrible capitalist work conditions? Of course workers are going to be upset that the bottom 90% of workers are getting crushed.
Should we not mourn when the GDR fishing coops were gutted just because it's a job that people genuinely liked doing or if it was made obsolete by fully autonomous robotic fishing trawlers?
The job that a huge percentage of workers imagine retraining and escaping to, becoming realistically unattainable (or even the vast majority of commission artists that only work it as a second job) is a huge psychic loss for workers across every field
Every worker that would rather be a novelist, etc
I.e nobody genuinely expects a socialist revolution to happen in our lifetime but everyone can imagine escaping to a job they'd actually like or have wanted since they were children
RIP disabled people who can't afford human-driven taxis, transport workers just get a new job lmao
That's as dumb as saying me raising your rent you're going to die. If you think this threatens housing you know nothing about rent or working.
Muh Baristas are bourgeois, work is when men coal mine
Homosexuality is bourgeois decadence, they're not even creating new workers
Transport workers (30% of the workforce) aren't real workers and aren't allowed to complain because they can be poorly automated and also an Uber driver was rude to me once
Wow you sound like you need a subclass of prole to punch down on so you can feel better about your place in the hierarchy, like you're having some kind of response to some category of workers that you dislike getting too big for their britches in your eyes
Maybe you should reconsider your beliefs
