#you can not like ai art or ai stealing jobs but you can still use it you can still use c.ai and you can generate images for your dnd stuff

[heyimwieeeee]

I don't like ai artwork or ai fanfics or ai taking jobs what i do like is being able to scream gay at a chair in character ai i think ai is fine as long as you don't use it to steal jobs or to pretend you made what it made.

reminder that being against ai also means being against character.ai and not using character.ai and not interacting with character.ai

i've never talked to chatgpt i've never talked to character.ai i have no interest in talking to a chatbot even if it's fun or based on my comfort character. if we want companies to stop using ai we need to tell them we aren't going to interact with it - so don't.

don't talk to robots. full stop.

[eskawrites]

I feel like I’m seeing another uptick of people talking about using AI for fics/writing in general and I know some of it’s in a mostly unserious way but I still just wanna say

1) Generative AIs are literally built on the concept of mosaic plagiarism. You are, by definition, stealing from the work of countless writers on the internet

2) AI writing is not writing, it offers zero value beyond in-the-moment entertainment. If you want that satisfaction of doing something creative you have to actually, you know, do something creative. If you want the instant gratification of a story go read/watch/play something that was made by actual artists

3) even if you have no qualms about the plagiarism and deterioration of human skill and creativity, AI is a major threat to the environment and every time you use it you’re contributing to a massive waste of energy and resources

4) using AI just for ideas or just for inspiration or just to rewrite a sentence or just to find a different word is still using AI and it is still harming the environment and it is still stealing from others. There are other tools to use. The internet is full of free resources created by actual writers that can help you find that cool word you’re looking for or show you different ways to approach style and voice. And if you’re looking for inspiration there are literally endless amounts of prompts and ideas that are only a google search away

4a) this is also true for people who are only using AI as a joke. It’s still harmful and you are helping the problem continue by using it, training it, and normalizing it

5) art is valuable because it is created by humans. Making something worthwhile isn’t about creating a masterpiece, it’s about putting part of yourself—whether that part is passionate or heartbroken or angry or inspired or silly or reverent or filled with brainworms—into the world. And even if you are the worst writer/artist/musician who has ever walked the earth (and trust me, you aren’t), anything you create on your own still has an impact. You are changing the world! You are putting something out there that leaves an impression on you and anyone who comes across it! But when you use AI for that, you haven’t made anything. You’ve just rearranged someone else’s work and dropped it on the ground. And by the time you make your third work, or your tenth, or your hundredth, you will not have grown or learned or changed or experienced any of the actual meaning and beauty of creativity. And if you don’t want any of those things, that’s fine! But that means being a writer or an artist or whatever is not for you, and you shouldn’t go around cosplaying as one with a computer algorithm that is destroying the planet, stealing from hard-working artists, eliminating jobs, and contributing to mass misinformation and the deterioration of reading comprehension

[venomous-qwille]

Can you please just tell us what is wrong with ai and why, I can't find anything from actual industry artists ect online through Google just tech bro type articles. All the tech articles are saying it's a good thing, and every pro I follow refuses to explain how or why it's bad. How am I supposed to know something if nobody will teach me and I can't find it myself

I'll start by saying that the reason pro artists are refusing to answer questions about this is because they are tired. Like, I dont know if anyone actually understands just how exhausting it is to have to justify over and over again why the tech companies that are stealing your work and actively seeking to destroy your craft are 'bad, actually'.

I originally wrote a very longform reply to this ask, but in classic tumblr style the whole thing got eaten, so. I do not have the spoons to rewrite all that shit. Here are some of the sources I linked, I particularly recommend stable diffusion litigation for a thorough breakdown of exactly how generative tools work and why that is theft.

or this video if you are feeling lazy and only want the art-side opening statements:

Everytime you feed someone's work- their art, their writing, their likeness- into Midjourney or Dall-E or Chat GPT you are feeding this monster.

Go forth and educate yourself.

[tomlinfonda]

"Why are artists so butthurt about AI art? Horse carriage drivers didn't complain when they invented the car, they were just grateful that the technology evolved and made it easier to get around."

Art is not a carriage, it's not a vehicle. Its purpose is not to be efficient, to do a practical job with as little effort as possible. Art is not something that can be automated, because its artistry lies in the humanity of its creator. Art is wonderful, from a baby's first drawing, inexperienced and unskilled, to the paintings adorning the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

If you consider yourself an AI artist, I ask you: are you proud of yourself when the computer has completed another image that you will claim as yours? Do you look at it and feel the joy of having created something?

Does the generative process teach you how to see the world better? With every image created, do you evolve? Do you understand the planes of the face better now than 1000 images ago? Do you know what rim light is, and where to put it? Do you understand light sources? Tones? Could you take a piece of paper and shade a portrait by yourself?

"AI software is just like Photoshop or Blender, the next step in artistic technology".

It's not though, is it? A digital artist uses a pen to put colors on screen, chooses where to put each brush stroke, when to smudge or use the liquify tool. A 3D sculptor manipulates basic shapes into characters just like a traditional artist molds clay. An AI "artist" doesn't make any of the thousands of choices that lead to the creation of a real piece of art.

"But art is hard, and I'm not good enough."

Neither am I! Man, I'm not the worst artist in the world, but I'm not great, still not at the level I would like to be. Sometimes I draw something and I look at it and realize that it sucks ass! Sometimes I post a drawing online and realize that I drew a character out of proportion, that the light source is not consistent, that I've shaded outside the lines! And you know what's great? That I get to have an understanding of what I did wrong! I get to evolve! I redraw something from 5 years ago and realize that my composition is much better, my shading more believable. And I know that in 5 more years, I might redraw it again and pride myself in how much I've evolved.

I've been drawing since I was a baby, and I still have a long way to go. And that is also fine, because art is a lifelong pursuit, growing, changing, just as I am.

It's okay to not be good. Hell, it's okay if you don't even try to get better. By drawing, you WILL. It's inevitable that, by practicing, you'll learn.

You know what will not make you a better artist? Software that will generate your "art" for you. The result might look more complex than what your skill level allows you to create right now. But it doesn't look better. You could draw a crooked circle on xerox paper and it will look better than all the AI art in the world. Because you made it. Have some faith in yourself. Your vision has more artistic value than what that computer generated.

"If you're afraid that AI will steal your job, learn to draw better!"

I'm trying. Are you?

[sexhaver]

are you a fan/supporter of AI-generated art, and if so, why? i've frankly never understood why people like it and i'm trying to wrap my head around it. thanks :)

asking if im a "fan" of AI art is like asking if im a "fan" of Photoshop. it's a tool that has the potential to be used for shitty things (i.e. photoshopping pictures of someone to make them look bad, or training an AI model specifically on one artist and then undercutting that artist on commissions), but it's also a really fucking powerful tool that has the potential to push art in directions it could never feasibly go before. like, how do you read "people without an artistic bone in their body will be able to spin up dozens of pictures of whatever arbitrary thing they want" and jump straight to the ethics of sourcing the datasets and "robbing artists" and supporting draconian IP law without even admitting that, at a base level, that's a really cool and useful piece of technology to have.

part of the reason i keep posting about it is because i work in warehouse automation. ive spent the last decade learning how to automate shitty tasks that nobody in their right mind would want to do for free, and people STILL get upset that robotics are inherently "stealing their jobs". this is literally only a problem because of capitalism; in any sane world, a machine that can do shitty jobs would be a godsend. but when you need to work for a living, these robots become competition instead of tools to make your life better. and yet people will still direct their outrage at the robots themselves and not their bosses or capitalism as a whole

the same thing is happening with AI art. without capitalism forcing artists to draw for survival, the ability for non-artists to create art at a whim would be a tool with a wide range of applications. under capitalism, however, these tools become competition. and yet again, people are directing their rage at the people making this good-in-a-vacuum technology instead of capitalism, or even more specifically, the miniscule percentage of AI artists who use the tech to financially harm artists by undercutting them on commissions.

of course, there's the added twist that, unlike stacking heavy cardboard boxes, art is something that a lot of people actually do enjoy intrinsically and would do for free. this has spawned an entirely separate branch of arguments against AI art based on ethics and philosophy instead of laws and finance. this branch argues that AI art is not just bad because it can directly financially harm artists who don't use it, but that it's actively eroding the concept of "art" itself. this is the branch that spawns soundbites like "AI art just copies from humans", "that's not art because it's soulless", and "what's even the point in making art when a robot can do it faster and better?"

i'm going to be blunt: this branch, just like any other train of thought that hinges on an unspecified definition of "true art" that ebbs and flows at the speaker's whim, is complete horseshit at best and outright reactionary at worst. unfortunately, it has also infected most of the anti-AI-art crowd to the point where it's almost impossible to find any arguments against AI art that don't eventually fall back on it

tl;dr: AI art is a powerful tool with the potential to benefit humanity at large, and desperately trying to stuff that genie back into the bottle [by donating to Disney's IP lawyers] because it scares you is not going to work

[spitblaze]

Kinda fucked up ur reblogging ai art as an artist yourself

Ah, I knew this would happen someday.

I've stated multiple times: I have no beef with generative art, in and of itself. I feel there are genuinely good reasons you can employ it, ranging from harmless fun to accessibility to actual artistic use. The issues I have mostly involve 1) acquisition of the dataset, 2) involvement of money, and 3) authorial intent. I have jumpy lizardbrain issues with 'machine what will steal my job' too, but the generative art that I reblog on purpose is stuff that I feel meets my criteria for 'ethical', as lame as I sound for saying that.

So let's look at this post I reblogged from @infiniteartmachine. This is a project from @reachartwork, a disabled artist who made their own dang generative program and dataset in order to facilitate their creative endeavors. To my knowledge, they have done the work to do this as ethically as possible. Criteria one passed.

Criteria two is the involvement of money. The pinned post on the Reach side is a patreon plug. Understandable to get jumpy at first sight, before remembering that not only did this person develop their own dang program and dataset, they also make art the old-fashioned way, and are mostly asking for money to help with living expenses for themselves and their partner. No ludicrous commission fees, no use to avoid employing the talent of human artists. Two, check.

Finally, authorial intent. Looking back both on what we know and the contents of the image, I feel like I can safely call this one fine. No intent to deceive, no intent to avoid the utilization or payment of a human artist, no intent to impersonate. Just the intent to generate interesting imagery.

I've said it before, I feel like generative art's biggest advantage is its capability for surrealism and uncanny imagery. To me, there's something inherently interesting about the construction of these images! The fact that it's not a thinking person creating something with intent is both its biggest downside and its greatest strength. It doesn't 'know' anything, it can't exactly replicate an image so it puts down pixels based on its training set. The imperfections, utilized well, turn from weird smudgey marks into something that elevates the inherent strangeness of the imagery and the system.

I understand people who have reservations with the entire idea of generative art, I get your jumpiness and want to dismiss all of it entirely. But I still stand by my assertion that a hammer is morally neutral, it just depends on what you're using it for. I've found no good arguments to sway me that even generative imagery that meets my personal requirements is 'bad' in and of itself. That's where I stand on it.

[voidsweirdthoughts]

TO ALL ARTISTS!!

If you don’t support AI generated stuff, plz read this!!

There’s this thing called Nightshade that makes you poison AI every time it tries to steal the drawing you put in the program, so their “art” gets damaged and makes the results rlly bad >:3

Many people still think that AI is good, and are confused of why many people hate it, so let me explain:

1: AI steals people’s jobs

Artists, writers, musicians, trip planners,.. these people who enjoy what they do so much they decide they want to do it for the rest of their life, get their dreams completely discarded by others, justifying it by saying “it is a cheap and accesible way to “create” art/ music/ ”, while the ones who get hurt both financially and emotionally are the creators of such pieces

2: Art is human

Art is basically one of the few things that only humans can do. It can reflect our emotions, and its beauty comes from the heart of someone who enjoys what they do. By supporting AI, you’re supporting robots with no feelings or emotions who are programmed to steal that form of showing how you feel, and all that effort you put into making it, only for “growing in technology” or whatever, which leads us to the next point:

3: Art takes effort

Producing music (writing, playing an instrument, singing,..), drawing (in digital, 3d, traditional,..), writing (studying ortography, structure, etc + writing characters, places, plot,..), and all other forms of art also share something: The effort. The time it takes to study, practice, find a style, perfection it, all that way, takes a whole life. A whole life of making what you like. For it to be taken away by a machine in a few seconds of “loading audio/image/text..”

There are many more reasons that I can’t cover right now, if anyone who can write more sees this, please reblog it saying so. The more, the better :)

If you’re going to use it, I’d reccomend you to post it in twitter (since yk what happens there -_-), but if you do it on tumblr, don’t reblog so they don’t suspect or however tumblr works with these things. For this to work, go to settings in tumblr and activate the permission for AI to use your work (I don��t reccomend you to do it in tumblr though, it takes ALL of your artwork and writing, not only the infected one, so be aware)

But if you’re not going to and look forward to it, plz spread the word!!

Thx for your time and have a nice day ^^

[piplupcola]

Some shameless POS literally used AI to steal my friend's animated film

I usually don't post stuff like this but this shit's insane and downright insulting. I graduated from Ringling College of Art and Design in 2022, a pretty well known animation school in the US, and every animation student on their final year of college has to make an animated film for our final thesis. If you have any idea of the animation making process, you would know that making an entire film by yourself in one year is batshit insane and extremely exhausting, to the point where I'm still feeling the effects of the process on my physical and mental wellbeing 2 years after I graduated. Once more, my friends and I did it during the covid period, which was another level of hell. I was literally watching my grandfather's funeral while working in the labs at 2am because I couldn't fly home to attend it because we had to make this film. This film was our lifeblood, the culmination of 4 years of hell at school which was suppose to be our gateway into the industry. Tldr, it's fucking difficult to do, especially on your own.

So imagine 2 years later and I wake up to a bunch of messages on our alumni chat where a dear friend of mine posted a link to a tiktok video of someone literally stealing her entire film and superimpose it shot by shot and claim it as their own ad for their AI game. As animators, we aren't unaware of people stealing our films and reposting them elsewhere. Heck my own film "The End" was stolen from our school vimeo and posted on tiktok BEFORE IT WAS EVEN OFFICIALLY RELEASED, and that tiktok got hundreds of thousands of views while a year after my own real release my film is still struggling in the thousands.

But this

This is a fucking new low.

Can you imagine? A fresh graduate going through literal blood sweat and tears to make a film on their own that is so important to their future in the industry, to get them a job, with a film that represents a part of themselves to the world, just used as fodder for some stupid tech assholes? It's infuriating. It's insulting. It's literally a big fuck you to the hundreds of students who spent their lives toiling to make these films from the heart who are just desperate to get into the industry.

The animation industry right now is in complete shambles. People are graduating from animation schools with thousands of dollars in dept only to be met with a wasteland of minimum wage and lack of funding and competing for jobs with people who have already been in the industry for years affected by the massive layoffs not only in the movie but also the gaming industries. These films we make for our thesis aren't just films made for fun, they represent our lifeblood, our only opportunity to get a job as a graduate in this sea of hell. If you didn't make a good film, chances are you're never even stepping foot in the industry ever. It's our golden ticket that we would put thousands of hours through, sleepless nights and pushing through no matter the circumstances of sickness and pain it caused us.

And now some dumb fucking AI using dickbags see that and decide it's worth nothing.

Here's a link to my friend's real film. Please go watch it and support her work. I'm not even gonna link the other piece of shit tiktok because I don't want that video to even get a single extra view but here's a recording my friend made so you can see this malarkey side by side.

It's heartbreaking to see my friend's film barely getting any views while the stolen garbage is already in the thousands. I hope the person who stole my friend's work and made that shit dies in a fiery car crash and go straight to hell.

I cannot emphasise how we must not let this shit continue to happen. We're living in a fucking dystopia and unless we do something about it and support those affected by it it's only going to get worse. They're already expanded from stealing people's still art to stealing people's entire films, if we don't stop this nothing we create would ever be safe.

My friend's film:

The shameless fuckheads who stole her film:

[slick-devon]

Musing out loud

This post may not be what you think. I just noticed a single negative comment in my feed for the first time in months. I can probably count on my hands the few times my 2,000+ posts have been criticized. Outside of our gay AI-generative bubble, there is a lot of noise around this still relatively new form of expression...the debate whether it's art or not or is the AI learning process actually learning or stealing from legit artists. The hetero creators seem to get more flack over their impossibly volumed busty creations. In my other life, I push pixels professionally with little use for generative AI (though machine learning tools in Adobe have been a lifesaver). My work hasn't been threatened yet. I chose to learn and embrace this technology so that when the time does come in my day job, I can adapt, rather than be left behind.

But here in our world of gay generative creations, we're having a lot of fun discovering what we can do. This is a new revolution that in many ways to can be compared to the tools Adobe and MetaCreations gave us years and decades ago with morph, warp, and liquify tools visualize our desires to share with others.

And there is room for this new form of expression without shoving out the works leading up to this point. HS Muscleboy's sketches are legendary and can still excite me! Silverjow will never be out-AI'ed (is that a thing) from their artwork that practically bulges off the screen without the need for 3d specs. And many, many others that I hope continue to create.

Back into the generative AI segment...I do hope that general consumers do understand that there are different levels of effort in this from casual or carefully worded prompts into MidJourney or Bing, to the works of those that train their own models and Loras, pushing and directing their creations via dozens of tweaks via ComfyUI, Automatic1111, and other emerging tools.

Myself? I fall somewhere in between. I'm not so good at training models which takes some patience and dozens if not hundreds of source images and coaxing. I do what I can and try to come in from the analog side of things and sketch the final touches of what the AI gives me.

Hey if you followed my musing this far...what do you think? I suppose I'm looking for some feedback. I wonder if this stuff is worth my time beyond just collecting likes. (I love the likes though and I like all of you back!)

[carpisuns]

the most hurtful thing about the rise of AI art, to me, is that the importance of lived human experience is up for debate.

you could say a lot about the ethical implications of it all and how it negatively impacts actual artists—how their work is being stolen and fed to bots without their permission, how they are losing ownership of their own artistic expression, how they're are losing their jobs because AI can "replace" them. but people will always find a way to talk their way around it. "if they didn't want people to use their art, they shouldn't be posting it online." "you can't own an artistic style." "the generated art piece is not actually their art. it's not stealing." and the real clincher: "i don't know what to tell you. that's just progress."

i feel like so many people see this issue through the lens of charlie bucket's dad getting fired from the toothpaste factory because a machine could place a cap on the tube more efficiently. but making art is not the same as screwing a cap onto a tube of toothpaste. it's emotional. it's meaningful. it's expressive. the end result is informed by the experiences and choices of the creator. and the viewer's experience is different knowing that a human is behind those choices—that there was real choice involved at all.

you could argue that AI art retains the inherent humanity of art, because it uses samples of real art made by real people—a whole collective pool of representative humanity. but it's not really the same. it's just an echo. an illusion. a mimic of life without the spark that actually makes it alive.

when i look at art, i want to think about the human behind it. i want to feel connected to them. i want to ponder their choices and notice their details and appreciate their skills. i want to look at it and feel something, because the artist felt something when they made it.

sometimes i see a cool piece of art and get excited. but when i realize it's AI, the emotion is gone. "what's the difference?" someone might ask. "if you liked it before, why don't you like it knowing it's AI? the image didn't change. it's still the same." and sure, visually it's the same. but emotionally it's not. i can't make a connection with it anymore. because there was no real intention behind it. i can't search for meaning in it, because there is none. when i look at AI art, even visually impressive art, i feel nothing. there's no wonder. there's no connection. the only possible feeling for me is, "wow, technology has come so far! neat."

it doesn't even have the appeal of "art" created by nature, like the Grand Canyon or the ocean or the night sky. those create a sense of wonder because there was no human involvement at all. the beauty came from the universe itself, and it feels like a gift from nothing and everything at once, and it's that beauty that so often inspires humans to make something in its likeness.

but AI art feels like a weird in-between of the art made with no hands and the art made with human hands. like pseudo-clay molded with empty gloves. it's sort of uncanny valley–ish. something almost human but not quite, so it always feels a little off. with human-made art, mistakes are understandable, expected, even endearing—a reminder that a person made this, and people are not perfect. but that weird offness of AI art just feels wrong. like a glitch in a simulation, reminding you that what you see was never real.

but really, even if AI was always completely indistinguishable from human-made art, the viewing experience would still be fundamentally changed. we make art to connect with each other, to see and be seen, to speak and to listen. but when i look at AI art, i don't know how to listen for a song. all i hear is the whir of cogs in a machine.

some people might point out that we're all just machines too. that AI's 1s and 0s are really no different from the synapses firing in our brains, and we draw inspiration from everything around us the same way AI draws from the samples in its generation bank. it's different to me, though. maybe i just feel this way because i myself am a creator, and i want to feel like i have something special to offer. but i have to believe there is meaning in the choices and expression of humans that there isn't in the choices of a program.

i'm sure this is just doomsday talk and it wouldn't actually happen, but the idea of AI eventually being handed the primary "creative" role over human beings is frankly devastating, even terrifying. i don't want to live in a world where all the art around me was generated automatically from a prompt and spat out onto a conveyer belt. it would be an inexpressible loss to me.

this isn't to say that AI doesn't have a place at all, or that we should abandon our exploration of technological advancement. i just hope that as this issue gets bigger, we remember the real point of art. when we are sad or lonely or angry, all of us turn to art. whether it's visual art or music or film or writing, art tells a story. we take comfort from the stories we tell each other, and it means something that those stories come from other people. art is and will always be a bridge between us and the rest of humankind.

so while our technology continues to develop, i hope we guard that bridge. I hope we protect the creative space of artists who want to tell stories. i hope we keep the demand for emotional expression high. i hope we honor the humanity of human-made art. if AI art is a truly reflection of us, i hope we keep looking toward the figure that cast the reflection, keep seeking the voice that started the echo.

[gracefulserpent1207]

So in response to SAG-AFTRA pulling this BULLSHIT on voice actors, I'd like to say something that is an EXTREMELY important message to spread. Something that should be pretty fucking obvious that some people still seem not to understand.

DO NOT USE AI!!!!!

Like I said above, it should be obvious. But the amount of AI voice covers I keep seeing, the amount of AI written scripts, makes me think that some people just aren't taking the hint.

And I think the main reason why it is so important to NOT USE AI is because it is "fans" using AI, stealing voice actor's voices for their own fucking entertainment, that has caused THIS to happen.

SAG-AFTRA are disgusting for agreeing to this, especially since they were meant to PROTECT voice actors from this exact kind of thing. They should be held completely responsible and completely to blame.

But ANYONE who has EVER used AI to make/steal voices, art, writing, etc. should also be completely to blame. Because when you use AI, you advertise it. You support it. You say "Hey, I think we should be using AI for shit like this more often!" which is NOT something we should be saying. Especially since you are using AI ENTIRELY for your own entertainment, whereas there are actual real life people out there LOSING THEIR JOBS, THEIR LIVING, THEIR OWN FUCKING IDENTITIES WHEN SOMEONE STEALS THEIR VOICE because of it.

I am an aspiring writer. I am a teenager who is (and has been since I was SIX YEARS OLD) working hard towards that goal. And I am fucking TERRIFIED that I will get replaced by AI before I've even begun my career as a writer. That is fucked up. Nobody should have to be scared of that. Especially not someone as young as I am. SAG-AFTRA and anyone who uses AI to write scripts, stories, etc. is fucking up my future. And it is pissing me off.

IF YOU HAVE EVER, MADE, SHARED, LIKED, OR JUST OUTRIGHT SUPPORTED THE USE OF AI, ESPECIALLY FOR VOICE COVERS, YOU ARE JUST AS RESPONSIBLE AS SAG-AFTRA FOR THE NEW AGREEMENT! THE NEW AGREEMENT THAT SAYS THAT IT IS EASIER TO REPLACE HUMAN BEINGS WITH MACHINES, ALL BECAUSE OF PROFIT AND CONVENIENCE! YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE! PLEASE STOP SUPPORTING AI BECAUSE THIS IS THE DAMAGE THAT IT DOES!

I'd also like to ask ANYONE who is active/has a lot of followers on Twitter or TikTok to SPREAD THIS MESSAGE!!! Because I am not very active on either and it is EXTREMELY important that people know about this. Especially since this kind of thing seems to be most common on TikTok. In any way you can, PLEASE speak out against anyone you see using AI. And if you have ever used it yourself, or if you still use it, please STOP!

AI is causing a lot of damage already and it does NOT need to cause any more.

[goodluckclove]

A Meandering Ramble on AI Art Because I Have a Cold and I'm here to Hopefully Not Start an Argument.

Okay, so I had someone comment on some post I made about writing advice that causes shame, and they decided to add the clarification that my words didn't apply to people who use AI in their writing. I responded, mainly saying that I saw their point, but that I'd say shaming someone who uses AI in any fashion is far more likely to just get that person to double down. They seemed annoyed by me saying this for a variety of reasons. I blocked them because if someone says "it's not my job to educate" it's rarely an earned perspective and it only reminds me how it's not my job to have a conversation with them.

It is my job to make too-long essays about things to help me process thoughts in a way other people might find interesting. So for your consideration I have a sort of wandering, cough-syrup addled Think Piece about AI art that is not pro-GenAI, but also doesn't just say fuck AI and fuck anyone who uses it because that is also wrong. I have a ton of links that I'm hoping are right, as well as a ton of outsider/folk artists, as well as a few AI artists I think are great.

Also there's a drawing of Link I did. He's nude. There's no dick but it's still very bad. He's either about to eat trash off the ground or he's screaming at a bit of hot dog.

Enjoy???

I mean I get it. I'm also easily aggravated by the type of person who is staunchly, aggressively defensive over Generative AI tools. They might be the kind to talk about the "democratization of art" and how genAI means anyone can be an artist. This line of thinking makes me very angry - not because I don't think anyone can be an artist, but because the fact that so many have been sold on needing some Big Tech start up to make that happen is infuriating. Anyone can already be an artist.

Anyone can be an artist. Anyone. Anyone can be an artist! This has been a case for a long, long time.

I get the sort of novelty of image and text generators. I'll go ahead and say what other writers might be unwilling to admit - if there was a provably ethical LLM I would absolutely love to collaborate on it for a project. The ethics of a lot of genAI is debatable - truly coasting on legal gray areas and hidden opt-out buttons - but it's enough that I'm not into it. Even without the practices of OpenAI, a company where every headline I see around it makes them sound comically sketchy. A lot of the reasons why I wouldn't collaborate with an LLM as they are now are the same things that would keep me from collaborating with another human writer (Maybe stealing, almost certainly wrong about potentially important things, loved by Elon Musk, ect.).

But I don't see myself ever using a genAI to do the entirety of any of the writing process for me - because I enjoy writing. I've been doing it for a long time now. I am objectively skilled enough that a select populous of people are willing to pay me for it on purpose, and since I find it fun and fulfilling I have yet to found a form of even minor automation that appeals to me.

But I also draw and paint, and I am far less skilled at that than I am at writing. I could certainly tweak at various Midjourney prompts to create something visually cool, but if I did that I'd be robbing myself the joy that came from trying to draw Link from Legend of Zelda from memory (he's either eating trash or lamenting his fallen lunch, I can't decide).

My wife saw this and their first note was that he "looks like the Grinch". Their second note was that his ass should be bigger. They also drew the fart cloud. Collaboration. This was the hardest I've laughed all day.

If you're a person who uses AI to help in art, or to do the entirety of image/writing/music creation - at this point you have to know the arguments against it. GenAI uses energy for each output - more for images than text, probably even more for videos. But so do tons of other things.

I did my best to research and calculate, and it seems like every 100 outputs of genAI images uses roughly .29 kWh, which is the rough equivalent of three hours of streaming video, running a Dyson vacuum cleaner for an hour, or using an average microwave for 10 minutes straight. It also uses water to cool the servers, right? A lot of water during a time of looming water scarcity across the globe. It's pretty likely that the water is being reused through a closed-loop system, meaning the 16 ounces that are spent for every 5-50 queries on ChatGPT aren't likely to go to waste. But with the exponential spike of data centers being built - some in parts of the country that require far more water to stay cool - that's still a pretty big water footprint. It does good, useful things for society and it's also used for crimes. This is true for most technology. But it seems, from what I've seen, that the parts of AI that are the most accessible to the public at large (GenAI mainly, run by a select major companies) are the ones most likely to be used for questionable purposes right around now.

But in all honesty I don't imagine a majority of people using genAI are using it for crime, or even deepfaked nudes. It's happening, but I imagine that's a loud minority. I don't even think most people using it to tout about being artists. I imagine most people just find it novel, or an accessible way to get into a craft that otherwise feels unavailable for them for whatever reason.

For a lot of people with no experience in forming any sort of creative practice, the concept of a machine that can fairly effectively mimic the styles of existing artists without their consent might come across as inconsequential. It might even get harder to find that understanding as you get deeper and deeper in the practice of genAI art - which, as far as I understand it, removes the creator entirely from developing an individual style.

When I say style in this point, I don't mean a completely original perspective free of any outside influence. I mean a combination of background, influence, and medium used that allows someone to recognize you in your work without you needing to say you made it. I know my writing is not entirely original. I can happily list what I've been influenced by. At the same time, I've heard a lot that people can tell my writing just on paper without my name attached at all. I believe there are ways to train a genAI to create an effect similar to this, but I'm also certain that it would require a technological influence that most people using the main programs out there don't have.

Because there's good AI Art. I'm not afraid to say it. There's AI art that I find super interesting and would pay money to see. Anna Ridler created a piece called "Mosaic Virus" that uses machine learning to generate a morphing video of tulips blooming that changes based on the market value of bitcoin. She created her own dataset. This rules and I love it. 1 the Road is an AI-written novel composed across a massive real-world road-trip by Ross Goodwin, a creative technologist. I won't call him a novelist - but neither would he. He did strap a surveillance camera on the car he drove, rigged it with a microphone and GPS, and put a shit ton of effort into something I will say sounds abstract and pretty rad.

The AI artists I think that don't really struggle to sell and exhibit and overall collect accolades for their work, from what I've seen, tend to be people who put a ton of effort into the structure of the AI itself. The artists who create from existing programs are limited by what that program is trained off of, unless they alter or edit their work after the fact.

And I know people who do the latter. My own view on how valid of a choice that is depends on the intent of the work, the meaning behind having the foundation be generated, and how you choose to credit it once it's done. In a lot of cases I just sort of tend to wonder why people think they need the machine to start at all.

I get it's hard to start making an individual piece. It's even harder to start making art at all, especially if you were taught to think somehow that you aren't a "naturally creative person". If that's you then I'm sorry, because that means you somehow internalized a pretty terrible lie.

We're a creative species. Just because it doesn't fit within the deeply narrow spectrum of Marketable, Blockbuster, Bestseller Creativity, doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile.

You can only draw stick figures? Great maybe you should give one of them a hat and then he'll be a Hat Guy. You can't even draw a straight line? Sick, sounds like these are going to be some Wiggly Stick Figures and at least one of them will have a hat. That rules.

You don't know what to write? What if a guy bought a new hat? What if the hat was cursed? What if the guy was Naruto? I don't know man I've taken a lot of cough syrup today and most of my suggestions are hat-based, I'm finding.

People might give you shit. They might give "constructive criticism" - a phrase I learned quickly that people online use very loosely. And that can be scary and discouraging. I'm not going to try and say you should do it anyway because it's the Ethically Right thing to do because I have seen the way some people treat newer artists and it made me so fucking grateful I didn't share really anything I did online until I was pretty settled in my own personal vibe.

But if you use genAI because you think it does something you can't otherwise do - you can do things too. And it might be worth trying sometimes, even if you never share it. You might think it's bad - but if you don't treat that like a failure of your character it doesn't feel as important.

Might I offer as example - my son, Fart Ass Trash Link?

My child. My legacy. My wife insisted that sometimes Link would go fully nude. I understand now that they were fucking with me.

[theshadowsingersraven]

elriels and bryciels are paying for fanarts with AI 💀💀 this is so fucked up

I mean... do we actually know for sure that's what's happening? The software that's used to determine whether things are AI generated or not is often incorrect because it's...also AI.

As someone who uses Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, and Lightroom with a lot of familiarity, I can tell you for sure that there are features that use AI. (i.e., using generative AI to remove unwanted background items like cars, coffee cups, etc. from photoshoots.) I understand that generative AI can and does steal from real artists. But let's not be so ignorant to pretend that it doesn't also help artists create their work.

I know of artists who use AI-based tools or features in these programs to help them create color palettes or figure out shading in backgrounds when they're stuck creatively. I don't think they're any less of an artist for using an existing tool to make their art. They're still creating art, just using AI in the way it was initially intended to be used--helping people create what they love more easily.

I'm a college student, and I took an AI class, so I'm not really the best person to try and use for a collective, overwhelming AI witchhunt. It's advanced software that uses machine learning and perception to differentiate itself from standard algorithms as well as function closer to the same way the human mind does (though it does use algorithms, too).

Do you know what else uses algorithms or could be considered AI? Spellcheck. Is every fanfiction that uses spellcheck now "using AI" in the way you're trying weaponize? I imagine not.

I may not like these ships or have had bad interactions (as many people on different sides have) with certain shippers, but I'd rather you not just come into my inbox trying to stir up shit as an excuse to shame artists and shippers commissioning them. I am not the one, respectfully.

The best way to protect people from job displacement or having their work stolen from them by other people using AI is to actually understand what is and is not unethical uses of AI and how it works. Otherwise, we're totally in the dark and wrongly accusing innocent artists.

Let people do what they want and commission who they want for whatever ships they want. I do not care.

[thanakite]

I was just reading a fanfiction and the person ended up saying in their notes that English isn't their first language, but they're using an AI to translate the fic for reading, and just.... PLEASE don't do this

For one it's not like the AI does an amazing job or anything (the person was even like the AI doesn't like to properly translate parts of the fic that are "spicier") and for another it's still supporting AI AND it's using up the large amounts of water AI uses

Google Translate is still VERY much a thing and maybe it has AI aspects getting plugged into it at this point, I don't know, but what I do know is that it has been around for a long time and that even when it isn't perfect it still gets the job done, AND it doesn't ignore things that it thinks are inappropriate or whatever

If you don't want to use Google Translate for whatever reason and don't want to deal with the struggle of translating every word with a dictionary set to your language, then it's fine to just write your fanfic in your native language you know?

I do get where people are coming from with this as I'm sure a decent number of fanfic readers read in English, but realistically that shouldn't be the concern, if someone wants to read your fic that you wrote in your primary language and they don't read that language themselves they can run it through Google Translate a lot of time (especially with how many languages are on there now)

But please, don't feed the AI machine

We don't need to encourage the use of these things and especially not in spaces like this, and really you are likely to lose readers over it, I know I decided not to continue with the story because of this, because it feels like I'm then supporting these AI that are stealing the works of others and sucking the soul out of the most basic of human crafts (art and writing)

And really if you are trying to get more readers by translating you can always have a version in your primary language and a version that was run through Google Translate no matter how good or bad that turns out as in time you can come to gain a "following" so to speak who will either help with your translations or will just be willing to figure out the translations for themselves just to read your work

And to be clear, myself and plenty of others are completely fine reading "shitty" fanfics as long as they pull you in, so thinking "oh I'll use an AI to get a better quality transition so more people read it" for one isn't accurate in the first place as I very much doubt that AI which has proven to be be extremely shitty in many ways is actually doing a better job than something like Google Translate and for another is flawed in the thinking that people only read fanfiction that is perfect

No fanfiction is perfectly written and really even published books often contain at least one or two minor mistakes, it's fine. And if someone stops reading your work because of minor mistakes, then the likelihood of them sticking around just because you used an AI instead isn't actually very high at all (even just this one that inspired this post had errors in it, but I, and I'm sure many others, would have and will keep reading it, but A LOT of people in the fanfiction community want nothing to do with AI so you are likely losing more than you are gaining with this)

[shit-talk-turner]

I’m not a fangirl of Louise who praises every step and kisses the ground she walks on. But I’m passionate about art. Various fields. Criticize her all you want, nothing can stop you. But taking away her credibility as an artist, calling her lazy or fake is completely ridiculous for someone who understands art. Her being a partner of a successful musician is not helping here. People call her talentless but I’m sure she won’t let soulless creatures dictate her worth. Pointless. The problem is that not all talents are visible at first glance. And there’s no definition for an artist. Fuck you Cambridge Dictionary! Being an artist is inconsistent. Doesn’t require releasing music every few months. Because it doesn’t have a DEADLINE. In fact, you can be an artist and never release anything. Business is not art. Industry is killing the real meaning of it. Some people enjoy composing and the creative process more than publishing. It can be more about the journey rather than final product. And the satisfaction and fulfillment comes from creating, not selling it. They do it for themselves. And they’re still artists. Artistry is in your heart. So what that she hasn’t released anything in a long time? Again. I’m not her little minion coming here to defend her. I gain nothing from that, she doesn’t know I exist. But for the love of God, think outside of the box. For a second. It’s not guitar skills, genres, vocal techniques that make you a „real artist”. Who cares if she’s a beginner or expert? As long as there’s a story, emotion or anything she wants to express IT’S VALID and artistic enough. And she doesn’t need to share it now, in 5 years or ever to prove it. Her voice is not perfect? So fucking what. Do you know how many bad singers still made it? And they play shows and found their audience. Let’s study music genres and then fucking shit on them. Fuck rules. Experiment. Have fun. Live. Creativity is FREEDOM. For me the magic in Arctic Monkeys is the mystery. But journalists and fans want short answers, names and dates. Is it about Arielle, is it Alexa?daaaamn. Louise gets a deadline to prove herself as an artist. Alex gets constant demands for explanation. Everything is being ruined by nosinesss. No wonder why he stutters all the time having to avoid questions. Man protects his art. So yeahhhh. It is what it is. But destroying art and freedom of expression with such generalization should be fucking illegal. There are so many problems in the creative community and to see something like this coming from fans is just heartbreaking? I suppose for an artist it’s like asking a friend for a comfort hug and getting slapped in the face instead. But I guess I expect too much from fans. And I’m naive to think you care about art. It’s not Louise, it’s a bigger problem and she’s just one example. So if you’re an artist and you’re reading this: I see you. You’re not lazy for taking time. If you struggle with procrastination or lack of inspiration - I see you. You don’t make money or big numbers on Spotify? I see you. If you lost your spark you’ll get it back. World is cruel but your passion is stronger. If you feel rejected or useless - I believe in you. If you ever thought about conceptualizing an emotion that’s enough for me and your sincerity is all I need to believe in you as an artist. You are important. Your vulnerability is needed. I need it. You help me when you don’t know it. Because world is lacking humanity. So take your time. Amen. And to all ignorants: I dance on your bitter heart. I hope you’ll grow. Find the courage to shine. Fall in love. Appreciate life. I’m not angry. I’m heartbroken but also hopeful. I believe in your improvement. We live in an era of AI takeover. It’s scary. It’s stealing jobs. The pursuit of perfection is killing us. But I believe humanity will win. Emotions are stronger. Always hopeful and forgiving. Even when you try to kill creativity and put it in a box. There is always someone who understands, someone who will take time to read your script even if it’s long. So please. Think. Thank you

Yes, no one can take away the fact that Louise is an artist if she's making art. There's just no evidence she IS making art. We have zero issue with her making art/music/whatever for herself and never releasing it if that's what floats her boat either. We just wonder how she's supporting herself (I mean, we know, but you know what I mean). We also aren't demanding a deadline from her?

Also, people here who think her music or her voice is bad are entitled to that opinion. Just like anyone who thinks her music or voice is good are entitled to THAT opinion. Someone having a negative opinion of your art doesn't make you less of an artist. It comes with the territory of BEING AN ARTIST.

Thank you for your manifesto but we're not sure why you felt the need to share it here as no one is saying someone who makes bad art or unreleased art ISN'T an artist. Both mods make art in some form that will likely never see the light of day (we hope otherwise, obviously) and that someone somewhere would probably hate. We're fine with it. We're not defensive about being called artists or not though.

[marshmallowprotection]

All this AI talk makes me so sad bc there is literally no winning here

Either an artist gets accused of their work not being authentic while they just made some mistakes

Or

An artist gets replaced by an algorithm, destroying all artistic integrity

In both scenarios, someone gets hurt

Like the whole hands argument is so frustrating bc now so many artists are getting bashed on just because they are struggling at drawing hands. Sure, yeah, they post their progress recording and it all gets resolved, but it still leaves a bitter taste in your mouth to have people get angry and accusatory with you

It sucks that nowadays, instead of just looking at pretty artwork, people's first instinct is to scrutinize the image to try and guess whether it's drawn by a real person or not

And you can't really blame them either

Absolutely, Mia. I hate the current environment we're in because AI is not only stealing art from artists and writers, it's also creating a tense environment where you have no choice but to prove you created what you posted. You have to show time-lapses, you have to show the sketches, you have to show everything you feasibly can because AI is pretty much single-handedly destroying all the trust we have in each other.

You have to prove yourself. You can't just enjoy yourself by posting your artwork because some soulless people out there want to steal artwork for a quick buck. That quick buck is also taking a lot of power and energy, far more than the crypto servers have been if what I have been reading about them is right, and that's doing nothing but hurting the planet. AI is hurting the environment, it's hurting the planet, and it's hurting our creative spaces online. AI should be taking care of hard work like jobs that are dangerous to our lives, not stealing our damn creativity.

Technology should be opening doors for us to focus on being creative ourselves instead of taking our damn ability to create away from us by stealing from us in the first place. I'm so sad and tired of it. This is horrible all around.

I understand why people have to post time-lapses now. I get it, but I literally start crying when I see an artist get bullied about how "well, your hands look awful so this much be AI" and then they literally have to show everything they have to defend themselves. How fair is that to any of us? This isn't the kind of space I want us to be in. There's no way to win here. It's all painful.