New blog-post: "When online commenters 'detect' my art as AI"
→ https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1164/when-online-commenters-detect-my-art-as-ai
@davidrevoy Speaks a lot about "anti-AI" hysteria.
These people don't need art. They need an enemy to vent their frustration on.
If only we could simply appreciate art based on whether we like it, no matter who created it.
@skobkin @davidrevoy oh no the AI hatred is TOTALLY justified.
GenAI is lazy and ruining our livelihoods - I stopped creating my watercolours because I thought what is the point? I am feeding a machine without payment, I am not getitng royalties for the folks who created stuff on Midjourney and Stable Diffusion trained off my landscapes.
And it does matter how it's created. If it's created by stealing all our work - and yes my work like David's is in the training models, then it's bad and parasitic.
And terrible for the planet...all that water in a drought for the data centres...ugh.
@radioclash
> GenAI is lazy
Do you know how artists using models are working or are you basing that opinion just on your own experience of trying to generate images?
Because I know people who use models when working on their art and I can't call them or their art lazy. They can spend hours or dozens of hours depending on the image.
> ruining our livelyhood
Sure. Making art and software development accessible for everyone instead of keeping only for expensive chosen elite is ruining livelyhood.
I as a software developer was very inspired though, because now I can tell people that they can do some stuff themselves instead of paying me a lot of money. Or because I was able to find time to work on projects for local community thanks to GenAI. I guess happy people from local community are also shouldn't be happy because they're stealing my code... Oh, my code was free anyway, I just didn't have enough time. Well, maybe they're stealing from someone else. Anyway, bad people. Me being even worse.
> I stopped creating my watercolours because what's the point
Sure. When photography was invented, some artists stopped drawing because what's the point. Others just invented new styles and started a new era in history of art 🤷
> I'm feeding a machine without payment
Just as lot of other artists fed your biological neural network with their art without payment. They should've sued you, I guess.
> I'm not getting royalties
Like people who created art you were inspired by, but didn't even notice.
> it does matter how it's created
To you? Maybe. That's the point of art. Each one one sees what they want to see in the art. Someone will look at the picture and wouldn't care about the context around it. Someone else would not like the painting itself, but appreciate the history and what author lived through while drawing it.
> created by stealing all our work
Then be consistent to the end and be against anyone who didn't pay you looking at your art. Because they may get some ideas for free. Cover all your paintings with a fabric and show only when transaction is complete. I'm sure it'll be a good PR move.
> terrible for the planet
That's debatable.
It depends on the angle you look at it. What if I need a picture for some not very important presentation?
I can draw it myself. It's be awful, but still. I can order it from an artist. And I can ask a model to generate it.
Then what if I ask myself who'd make more CO2 while producing such an image (wasting water too, but let's focus on a single parameter).
I doubt wasting so much resources as biological artist would waste to produce an image which is short-lived is an efficient consumption.
But I also doubt that you'll be able to look at this from a different angle since you've already made your mind.
The water is also an old and debatable story. Check out something more interesting. Like sound pollution disturbing people living nearby (see Benn Jordan's YouTube for example).
But both water and sound are mostly a problem of building datacenters in cheaper locations. That's not an "AI" problem. That's bad regulation and corruption 🤷
@skobkin @radioclash This is what happens when people see art as a product to be consumed and not something human with a piece of the artist's soul put into every brush stroke.
I can buy a soulless $2 press-formed plate from a Chinese factory at Walmart and chuck it in the trash when it serves its purpose, but I'd much rather buy a hand-thrown piece where I can see the artist's fingerprints in the stoneware and talk to him about the nature of his glazes, and then pass it on as an heirloom.
This is what happens when people see art as a product to be consumed and not something human with a piece of the artist's soul put into every brush stroke.
</blockquote>This is a false dichotomy.
You don't know how much effort and time people who use models in their art put into it.
If you see "AI"-assisted art as "they just write a prompt and get an image to post", then you don't know how the process works.
If we're talking only about simple pictures people like me can use, then yes. I'm no artist. And I don't really care how would you classify it. Although even I can spend several hours to work on a preview for my podcast episode. So if you're thinking that every generated image is effortless and thoughtless, then you're also wrong. But in this case it your loss.
@skobkin @radioclash You know, I see that being said all the time: that art is an ivory tower guarded by Elites from the public who are incapable of spending hours of blood and sweat on making art... but that making AI output takes hours of blood and sweat which should be respected. It doesn't mesh.
It just sounds to me like an ad hoc justification. It's easier to stand tall on the backs of others and dump the fast-fashion of art onto the landscape when it's spun as an act of defiance.
@ToonLink
Well, you wouldn't know until you try doing something more complicated than asking ChatGPT to draw you a picture. But then you'll probably feel an urge to rationalize something like "those hours of work are not worthy" or "using AI makes it lose it's value", or something else.
It'd be very close to any other "you're doing it wrong" debate in the field where there's no objective "right" or "wrong", but people still cling to their old ways and ostracize anyone who does something else.
At this stage it makes no sense to argue with such a person because it's already not just a thought, but a defensive mechanism.
Well, almost no sense. I usually still do that to some extent because I don't want people around to think that it's the only one possible opinion.
@radioclash
@skobkin @radioclash Well, no. I'd rather spend the effort making something that's actually mine. It gives me no joy to have a machine output the artwork for me. And then I have an image that isn't any different from the rest of the machine-made stuff.
I'm actually not worried about my livelihood, because people see value in my work. What I worry about are people losing contracts because they have to prove that they actually made it. Clients won't work with AI because it's uncopyrightable.
@skobkin @radioclash Artisan potters can still find work among the factory shit because people recognize the value of human-made work. It's already reflecting in the digital art world, too. But when clients have to worry about whether or not the work they're hiring can actually be protected, then it's no longer a harmless game.
But it's all well and good if people want to dabble in fast food and feel like chefs. But they don't get to complain when the factory pap doesn't get the same respect.