#AI Art isnt real art

[mentallhealthmatters]

Unholly fuck this is just sad. This is a story about a PoC lil girlie, and thats great more power and volume to POC voices.. minus one little issue.

The art for this ad, and presumably the whole book is done by AI, not real people.

And while its a kids book and not for adult audiance that doesnt excuse using AI art just because a kid is not gonna know better or may not notifice the difference.

Just pay an actual fucking artist. Jesus fucking christ.

[jaquivise-scrimblesquire]

If you defend this shit then you can fuck off.

[just-simpins-blog]

AI "Art" is taking art posted on the internet and claiming it as an original piece. It also puts artist out of jobs and taking job opportunities from actual artists.

[pin-poo]

residents (2024)

[sag-dab-sar]

Clarification: Generative AI does not equal all AI

💭 "Artificial Intelligence"

AI is machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing, and more that I'm not smart enough to know. It can be extremely useful in many different fields and technologies. One of my information & emergency management courses described the usage of AI as being a "human centaur". Part human part machine; meaning AI can assist in all the things we already do and supplement our work by doing what we can't.

💭 Examples of AI Benefits

AI can help advance things in all sorts of fields, here are some examples:

Emergency Healthcare & Disaster Risk X

Disaster Response X

Crisis Resilience Management X

Medical Imaging Technology X

Commercial Flying X

Air Traffic Control X

Railroad Transportation X

Ship Transportation X

Geology X

Water Conservation X

Can AI technology be used maliciously? Yeh. Thats a matter of developing ethics and working to teach people how to see red flags just like people see red flags in already existing technology.

AI isn't evil. Its not the insane sentient shit that wants to kill us in movies. And it is not synonymous with generative AI.

💭 Generative AI

Generative AI does use these technologies, but it uses them unethically. Its scraps data from all art, all writing, all videos, all games, all audio anything it's developers give it access to WITHOUT PERMISSION, which is basically free reign over the internet. Sometimes with certain restrictions, often generative AI engineers—who CAN choose to exclude things—may exclude extremist sites or explicit materials usually using black lists.

AI can create images of real individuals without permission, including revenge porn. Create music using someones voice without their permission and then sell that music. It can spread disinformation faster than it can be fact checked, and create false evidence that our court systems are not ready to handle.

AI bros eat it up without question: "it makes art more accessible" , "it'll make entertainment production cheaper" , "its the future, evolve!!!"

💭 AI is not similar to human thinking

When faced with the argument "a human didn't make it" the come back is "AI learns based on already existing information, which is exactly what humans do when producing art! We ALSO learn from others and see thousands of other artworks"

Lets make something clear: generative AI isn't making anything original. It is true that human beings process all the information we come across. We observe that information, learn from it, process it then ADD our own understanding of the world, our unique lived experiences. Through that information collection, understanding, and our own personalities we then create new original things.

💭 Generative AI doesn't create things: it mimics things

Take an analogy:

Consider an infant unable to talk but old enough to engage with their caregivers, some point in between 6-8 months old.

Mom: a bird flaps its wings to fly!!! *makes a flapping motion with arm and hands*

Infant: *giggles and makes a flapping motion with arms and hands*

The infant does not understand what a bird is, what wings are, or the concept of flight. But she still fully mimicked the flapping of the hands and arms because her mother did it first to show her. She doesn't cognitively understand what on earth any of it means, but she was still able to do it.

In the same way, generative AI is the infant that copies what humans have done— mimicry. Without understanding anything about the works it has stolen.

Its not original, it doesn't have a world view, it doesn't understand emotions that go into the different work it is stealing, it's creations have no meaning, it doesn't have any motivation to create things it only does so because it was told to.

Why read a book someone isn't even bothered to write?

Related videos I find worth a watch

ChatGPT's Huge Problem by Kyle Hill (we don't understand how AI works)

Criticism of Shadiversity's "AI Love Letter" by DeviantRahll

AI Is Ruining the Internet by Drew Gooden

AI vs The Law by Legal Eagle (AI & US Copyright)

AI Voices by Tyler Chou (Short, flash warning)

Dead Internet Theory by Kyle Hill

-Dyslexia, not audio proof read-

[holleighgram]

Riku to Joshua "you think I'm a dreamer?"

Sora behind riku with a gun: "always have been"

[nynehells]

COMMISSIONS OPEN || NYNE.ART

!! HOLY SHIT GUYS, REAL HUMAN ARTIST ALERT!! Please enjoy a full plain text explanation of pricing & plain text TOS for both organic and synthetic screen readers. If you might be in the market for art, use my contact form to get in touch.

Commissions not in the budget right now? You're not alone, and if all you can spare is a reblog, I still appreciate it - just share this post!

This post is queued, please contact me via the contact form on my website or your message may be missed!

[citruslullabies]

Hello everyone!! You're all looking lovely today<33

So this is not a fanfic, and I'm terribly sorry, I'm working on them. But I'm actually posting this to inform you all to be on the lookout for "AI art" accounts.

They usually start with "evil" (ex. @evil-witch-jenna, @evil-christmas, @evil-cox and more.) and they make some.. weird posts.

Especially evil-cox, I do not recommend looking at that account at all if you are not comfortable with images of breasts or sexualization of actresses. Or just any account for that matter.

What's the issue with them?

The issue is that they are spam posting AI generated images onto Tumblr under the tag "art" or "artists on Tumblr" when it's not art. It's a picture that AI generated for them from a prompt and.. creepy images at that.

Why do I have such an issue with it personally?

Well, for starters, it's just creepy and unsettling. But it's also been drowning out actual art on my feed and that makes me so sad. Also the fact that they keep posting these weird sexualized pictures of actresses is concerning, especially because in some pictures they take on a more child-like body.

Why should you beware of them?

Because ai "art" is wrong and giving them likes and reblogs encourages them. Just block them and call it a day, and I'm sure there's more accounts than I mentioned. I know some amazing artists who pour their time and effort into each drawing they make, and it's just insulting to see the tag made for their lovely work and many others being swamped with something that took maybe 5 seconds max.

Well, what if you're the owners of those accounts and you see this?

Stop posting. I will literally beg you to stop posting and delete your accounts. I do not condone bullying or pressuring someone off the internet but you have been told multiple times that it is creepy and you keep posting creepier and creepier things and act like a child when confronted anyway. Stop and go outside or learn how to draw and put some actual effort into artwork rather than posting creepy images of actresses with their breasts hanging out and a snake wrapped around them or an actress who is in a sexual pose with the body of a little girl. Stop it.

[kraniumet]

i think image gen can be used like any other artistic tool but I don't really think the big commerical proponents of "ai" are advertising it as a tool, they're adertising it as a solution. I also think it's intellectually dishonest to argue that image generation is exactly like "using photoshop/taking a photograph" because of some generalized "those were also criticized at their conception for being new and scary and disruptive" soundbite. they were not even really criticized for the same reasons. find a better argument.

[ink-the-artist]

I saw some of your tags on your recent reblogs, and it made me wonder what you tink of the recent outcry against "AI art" tools? With your tags, it sounds like you'd have different thoughts compared to what digital artists posting about it right now, and it got me kind of curious. No pressure to answer publically if you think you'll get flak for it - I'm just curious to hear your perspective because of those pieces you resurfaced.

I typed out a bit long thing about my own thoughts, but then realised that dumping that in your inbox would be a little unhinged. TL;DR - I'm neither here nor there. Selling the results is wrong, at present at least, but the tools themselves... ehhh? are they really??

That's the jist of it. If you'd like me to, I can elaborate with some of the play in 5 acts that I edited out. For context, I do art but I don't want to pursue a career in art in the current digital age, and I've worked on """AI""" (text to speech vocalisation) in the past but I'm not a staunch defender or anything, I just know some stuff about what "AI" is.

the outcry against ai art is because people are worried it'll take the place of actual artists and more recently because there have been a lot of artists whos art has been used in these ai programs databases without their permission or against their will (I think there's even a few instances where they used art from dead artists.) And I definitely agree with the outcry against that. I don't think ai generated art can meaningfully replace actual human art because art isn't just about creating images, ai cant replicate the self expression and communication and, well, humanity of human art, but I do think in the future it may take some jobs away from artists if an employer/company can get the same thing they want for free or cheap from an AI as they could with a human artist. there is also a real concern that ai images (not art this time but photographs) will become convincing enough in the future that it can lead to misinformation being created and spread incredibly easily.

I use Artbreeder mostly and sometimes Wombo and I use it to generate photos rather than art, I like using the shittier programs bc the stuff they generate is very uncanny which works great for horror art lol. I also don't just post the thing I generate on artbreeder, all my ai posts are heavily edited and I'm basically doing photomanipulation and collage somewhat, they genuinely take a lot of work and time. Ive been inspired by uncanny ai images for my own horror art for a good while (back when that "this image is meant to simulate a stroke" post/hoax was going around, which is how I learned about artbreeder, then called ganbreeder) before I started seeing ai "art" become a thing or neuralblender get popular. Im rly into the idea of horror that comes from something that looks familiar but not quite right and you cant quite figure out what you're looking at. I think you can see the ai influence in some of these,

I think ai is a great tool for artists that should be explored, and I personally haven't seen people object to that use of it, there's artists that use it to visualize their ideas before making the art themselves or use it to help come up with ideas for their art. but i don't think just generating an image and posting that is really art, there has to be some element of transformation from you.

[sjbattleangel]

Enough of calling AI art "AI art", let's call it "stolen art" or "content theft".

[yaoi-devil-himself]

ART COLLAB WITH @cami-artist !!! RODY AND MANON!

[onemillionfurries]

after fucking around with AI art generators for a bit last night, i really don't get why AI bros are so gung-ho about it. i was trying to get it to generate something close to my fursona for a while and it would just constantly be unable to generate specific details like the heart-shaped goggles, or constantly make the fur orange despite me weighing that negatively.

it's also funny how i can just copy-paste sections from other prompts and instantly have the art come out 10x better. such skill on display there! *eyeroll*

another extremely funny thing is how hard you have to tell the generator to NOT make bad art or generate fucked up hands, and it'll still make fucked up hands! imagine having to beg an artist on your hands and knees not to fuck up the art you're getting them to draw, and they still decide to give the characters extra fingers and melty faces.

overall this whole experience just kinda left me bored and frustrated. i guess if you dont have a specific vision, wanna grift people with "adoptables", or just wanna generate wank material it's fine. but if you actually care about the output? i don't see how it can be appealing.

really, it just made me wanna go to the artists used in the prompts and commission them for actual art of my fursona.

[toytulini]

god I know this is like The Wrong Stance on AI. I know its not about whether the art is Real and Human or If It Has A Soul and how a lot of the arguments against it are the same bullshit arguments people made against digital art like I Know. I Knowwww. but god, I'm really sorry, not to post like one of those annoying poetry bloggers I cant stand (yall are valid, live your truth, theres nothing wrong with what you post I'm just a petty bitch who hates poetry. unless I dont hate it.)

But theres just something about the way AI art will almost certainly never be able to mimic the exact way my pencil leaves an indentation in the paper, the way some of the lines I can never fully erase cause I pressed too hard, theyll have to at least train them to draw with a physical pencil first, and sure, they could train it to draw with a pencil and even erase the exact same piece I drew, line for line, on a piece of paper with a robot arm powered by AI, but they can't replicate. idk. the lineage of lefty bitches in my family, and the way I grew up going through school with my entire left arm silver with graphite, from doodling on my schoolwork. not yet anyway. but I guess I do live for the day we make the ai sentient enough that we can traumatize it by giving it homework after kneecapping its executive functions so it copes by drawing a big tiddy lobster monster. sure

[auroragehenna]

The only AI I tolerate is the talking hat of Hogwarts.

[wynns-wonderful-pixel-paradise]

Photomosh, the site I used to make those crt style gifs, has decided to put giant ugly watermarks on their gifs... Pro is to expensive and they're super pro AI so I guess I won't be using it anymore

In the meantime I'm working on making a way to do something similar in CSP? I'm reasonably happy so far. Sorry this is sort've a randomly kinda brutal screenshot it's just one i picked semi randomly off my computer for testing lol