this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2024
747 points (92.6% liked)

196

16766 readers
3503 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago (4 children)

Lemmy when discussing health care: Karl Marx

Lemmy when discussing creative works: Ayn Rand

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago (7 children)

It would sure be cool if all art could belong to all people.

Sadly, as long as we live in a profit driven system, there needs to be a way for artists to claim ownership over their work.

I don't see how people think this is any sort of slam dunk or how it could go against leftist principles.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] TheKingBombOmbKiller@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago

I don't know if Marx would disagree with individual artists owning the intellectual right to their artworks.

And if you asked Lemmy about how long copyright should last, I doubt that Ayn Rand would approve.

[–] Lennny@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago

Everything's just a retelling of Gilgamesh anyway, why bother protecting "originality"

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 92 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (12 children)

AI plagiarism wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for intellectual copyright and capitalism. Ironically, the status quo of AI art being public domain is absolutely based, as the fruits of our stolen labor belong to us. The communists and anarchists should totally make nonprofit AI art that nobody is allowed to own. Reclaiming AI would be awesome!

Unfortunately, tech bros want to enslave all artists along with the rest of the workers, so they'll rewrite copyright law to turn AI into their exclusive property. It'll be an exception with no justification besides "greed=good"

[–] Jomega@lemmy.world 39 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Even in a hypothetical utopia, the thought of a sea of slop drowning the creative world makes my skin crawl. Imagine putting your heart and soul into something only to watch some machine liquify it into an ugly paste in a nanosecond, then it goes on to do the same thing a million times in a row. It's hard enough to get noticed in this world, and now every passion project has to compete with the diseased inbred freak clones of other passion projects? It makes me feel so goddamn angry that some asshole felt the need to invent such a thing, and for what? What problem does it solve? Why do you need to use up a cities worth of water to make a six fingered Sailor Moon?

[–] nectar@lemmy.world 35 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I generally agree (especially with the current critique of using up water/power just for one image)

But I can't get behind "this tool will make people who don't use it feel bad". The same arguments were levied against Photoshop and now it's a tool in the arsenal. The same arguments were levied against the camera. And I could see the same argument against the printing press (save those poor monks doing calligraphy)

The goal of "everything shall be AI" is fucked and clearly wrong. That doesn't mean there isn't any use for it. People who wanna crank out slop will give up when there's no money in it and it doesn't grant them attention.

And I say this as someone who despises how every website has an AI chatbot popping up when I visit their site and every search engine is offloading actually visiting and reading pages to AI summaries

[–] TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zone 20 points 5 days ago (2 children)

This is where I'm coming from. Generative AI is pretty cool and useful, but it has severe limitations that most people don't comprehend. Machine learning can automate countless time consuming tasks. This is especially true in the entertainment industry, where it's just another tool for production to use.

Businesses fail to understand is that it cannot perform deductive tasks without necessarily making errors. It can only give probable outputs, not outputs that must be correct based on the input. It goes against the very assumptions we make about computer logic, as it doesn't work on deductive reasoning.

Generative AI works by emulating biological intelligence, taking principles of neuroscience to solve problems quickly and efficiently. However, this gives AI similar weaknesses to our own minds, imagining things and baking in bias. It can never give the accurate summaries Google hopes it can, as it will only ever tell us what it thinks we want to hear. They keep misusing it in ways that either waste everyone's time, or do serious harm.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mindlesscrollyparrot@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 5 days ago (3 children)

AIs take away attribution as well as copyright. The original authors don't get any credit for their creativity and hard work. That is an entirely separate thing from ownership and property.

It is not at all OK for an AI to take a work that is in the public domain, erase the author's identity, and then reproduce it for people, claiming it as its own.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 17 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (5 children)

The sad thing is there is currently a vibrant open source scene around generative ai. There is a strong media campaign against it, as to manipulate the general population so they clamor for a strengthening of copyrights laws.

This won't lead to these tools disappearing, it will just force them behind pricey and censored subscription models while open source options wither and die.

They do indeed want to enslave us, and will do it with the help of people like OP.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Honestly I think people should embrace their medium, whatever it is.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 4 days ago

because I don't make art to sell, I'd love to train an Ai on my pics or songs and then see what it can make when given cool prompts :)

But I'm far from the competitive capitalism scene so I more view such an activity with a sense of wonder instead of anything to do with a loss of paid work.

[–] laserm@lemmy.world 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Fuck AI art, honestly. I find the idea of using AI for instance in microbiology for finding combinations of proteins awesome, and so is it being used to help people learn and improve. For instance, when I don't understand concept in like math and engineering, I ask AI to give me advice. But using it for 'art' is honestly disgusting. It steals personality from art.

[–] herinaceus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

Scientific applications, espcially needle-in-haystack, or insanly huge data sets in general, are the best use for AI that I've seen.

I have also seen artists use generated backdrops for art with a character they drew, and I have though about giving a generator a confusing prompt for an audio clip, so I can edit it, then turn it into a soundfont, or make it into some other kind of muscial tool.

But yeah, "clouds in sky, sunny, high definition digital art backdrop" is easier to type than learn how to make, but it is a starting point for some. Fine by me, as long as it's a tool/element, rather than the piece itself. And LLMs are not to be trusted past a similar point either. They are ok usually for asking where to start, when even that isn't known, or easy to word. They usually give horrible results beyond a what to search for tho.

Tap for spoilerside note: ChatGPT many moons ago was asked "How difficult would it be to overthrow the US government?" The response started with "It would be very difficult to overthrow the US government," followed by a lot of hooplah about how much access to weaponry and intelligence the military has. I stopped using it shortly after, as it was kind of rude about the question asked, and had no clue what fruiger aero is, outside of an old font/typeface... I'm extremely disappointed in the corpo LLMs tbh.

[–] allo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (13 children)

When I was making an android game I wanted to make art so i made an ai art gen on Perchance. OP would hate it most of all since a large part of it is the combining of different artist styles. I personally love being able to combine my 5 fav artists and see what prompts become with them combined.

I recently realized the artist Hannah Yata results in cool trippy pics. I then went to her site and yeah her pics are really like that. She's one of maybe 8 artists I've recently found a special connection to that I would not have known about otherwise.

so yeah ai art may be bad for struggling professional artists but for people that are not big money game studios yet, ai art basically allows having nonstockimage art in projects legally. I can 100% say ai art empowers me to have visuals where I could not have before unless i used stock(gross) images or had starting wealth to pay artists. So if you focus on artists losing, also focus on the poor but smart kid in some poverty place who is now that much more empowered to make something on their phone and legitly escape poverty.

There was a wealth barrier to visual art; now there isn't.

Entrenched struggling professional artists cry. People needing art that weren't wealthy enough to pay for it win.

When drugs become fabricateable at home by anyone, drug companies will also cry. People that weren't wealthy enough to pay for them win.

Same thing.

Poor artists.

But when you're the one no longer paywalled it's a different story.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Mr_Mofu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 31 points 5 days ago (10 children)

As someone who is largely around the art community admiring and sharing thier work, the fact that I could confuse AI Generated Images and thusly falsely share or save them has been such a huge anxiety of mine every since 2022

[–] megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 4 days ago

One easy way to check is the look for JPEG artifacts that doesn’t make any sense. A lot of the systems were trained with images stored as JPEGs, so the output will have absurd amounts of JPEG artifacting that will show up in ways that make no sense for something that actually went through JPEG compression, such as having multiple grids of artifacts that don’t line up or of wildly different scales.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] mhague@lemmy.world 15 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I only consume garbage slop when it's manmade. A song with 57 kajillion views is real art. A movie with Dwayne Johnson is real art. Only rich people should be able to subject everyone to their limited imagination. Now that regular people can create slop my delicate capitalist machines that shit out content for me to consume are being disrupted. I'm too lazy and dumb to form personal connections with other humans so these fake ass systems are the only way I can get content. And you just can't tell if it's human anymore, it's so sad.

[–] Emerald@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This is an interesting take honestly. A lot of art is made without much care or creativity. That isn't a bad thing. So why should AI "art" be considered inherently bad?

[–] Corno@lemm.ee 11 points 4 days ago (13 children)

The way some people defend AI generated images reminds me of the way some people defend the act of tracing other people's art without the artist's permission and uploading it while claiming they made it.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›