this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024
329 points (93.0% liked)

Technology

59458 readers
4268 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Wizards of the Coast denies, then confirms, that Magic: The Gathering promo art features AI elements | When will companies learn?::undefined

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

I don't understand the problem people have with AI art, anyone care to convince me how it's somehow immoral to use a computer for making art work?

[โ€“] [email protected] 55 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Speaking as a professional artist myself, I'd wager that many of the responses you've run into are emotional ones. Supporting oneself as an artist was already difficult, and AI generation is an astoundingly powerful tool. For a long time there was a sense of financial security in quieter/grunt background and asset design work such as the WotC backgrounds in this situation. WotC in particular was touted as "one of the companies that actually pays artists to make neat things" in fantasy art circles, and so their fans and artist clients (often one in the same) feel betrayed.

I'm personally a sad-bitch about it because my peers and I have been posting art for one-another and fans online since 2002, our work was scraped, and now people can click a button to ape the look of all of our work without having run across it organically, knowing our names, or being able to, like, say hello to us. I really don't mean that out of self-importance or ego- the community I grew up in online was all about discovering working artists by word of mouth this way, and getting to know them. So it's a weird (albeit unintentional) dismantling of a community and "a way that was", so to speak.

More practically one of my specific worries regarding AI generated images: Illustration in the literal sense of the word means 'to illuminate', to make clear'. Think along the lines of technical illustration- biological in my case, but this extends to mechanical parts, manuals, diagrams, medical books. These are situations where clarity is seriously important, and I feel like the deluge of generated images (and the general public's lack of information about how the image gen works and how to decipher them) will cause harm.

Hopefully that wasn't too much of a ramble. ๐Ÿซค TLDR: It isn't necessarily immoral, but people are emotional, it's a big change, and it's happening really damn fast.

[โ€“] FontMasterFlex 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

it IS immoral unless you consider theft a moral act.

[โ€“] daniskarma 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You wouldn't download an artist.

[โ€“] FontMasterFlex 1 points 10 months ago

i would if i could.

[โ€“] RagingRobot -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What if you are stealing bread to feed a starving family?

[โ€“] FontMasterFlex 1 points 10 months ago

that doesn't make it right. would it be right to rob a bank if you were homeless? or better yet, is squatting ok if you're homeless?

[โ€“] Eyelessoozeguy 23 points 10 months ago (2 children)

One of the big issues is that AI art doesnt have it's own style. It's a rough amalgamation of art stapled together and smoothed to remove the seams. The art used to staple together is were this style comes from, but without knowledge of or credit to that artist. The AI doesnt do a creative process only mimicry, it cant create a new movement in art like modernism or surrealism but it can ape those existing movements. This is the problem with it. Stolen artwork stapled together without any new creative ideas thrown in.

[โ€“] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago

It can create new art styles. If for example puntillismo (no idea how it's written in English, sorry, a painting made of small little dots) didn't exist, you could tell the AI to do do a painting of an old lady at the beach, the picture painted using small little dots, and with sufficient prompt engineering, you would pretty much create puntillismo.

Most real people do not have their own, completely unique style. They inspire from previous work by other people, in cases like magic or commissioned work get a prompt of what they need to create, etc

Pretty similar if you ask me. Sorry I cant expand more, gotta get to work.

[โ€“] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago

I don't think this is true though. If you come up with clever inputs you can certainly invent new styles, with AI being your instrument. At the point of plagiarizing, that's what all artists have done for the entire history of art and I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

[โ€“] Exatron 21 points 10 months ago

It's not using a computer that's the problem. The issue is that generative AI scrapes the entire internet to feed its model without compensating, or even asking, creators for using their work.

[โ€“] nycki 18 points 10 months ago

Go look up the existing arguments against AI, and write your rebuttal to those, and then debate people about it. More productive for everyone involved.

[โ€“] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)

People are mad to realize something they thought was spiritual and purely human can be reduced to a mathematical algorithm and be generated by machines.

Some claim they're mad that it's because the training looked at art without permission to develop the algorithm (which everyone knows all artist do, making those people look like complete hypocrites), but that just sped it up. It would have happened eventually anyway, because the fact is, art is not spiritual or uniquely human, it's patterns and shapes, which computers are great at.

[โ€“] Eyelessoozeguy 12 points 10 months ago (1 children)

This seems disingenuous, because you equate algorithm training to human brain. I hope you dont seriously thing the process of looking at and thinking about art is that same for a human artist or an algorithm.

The point were it doesnt equate is the idea of style. Each artist is constantly refining their style of art. But the algorithm doesnt have it's own style and can only ape a style that already exists.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

The foundational premise of this argument is purely that there's something "special" about human thought and that the way humans do pattern recognition is somehow "better" than a machine's.

[โ€“] nycki 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hey, don't claim to represent my opinion if you don't understand my reasoning. I don't think art is mystical or spiritual at all, not in the way you're describing it. Art is absolutely about patterns, and I agree that those patterns are inevitably going to be learned by computers.

My objection is not to "AI Art" in general, but to the specific type of art which is brute-force trained to mimic existing art styles. When organic artists take inspiration, they reverse engineer the style and build it up from fundamentals like perspective and lighting. Stable Diffusion and other brute-force ML algorithms don't yet know how to build those fundamentals. What they're doing is more like art forgery than it is like art.

And even then, I don't really take issue with forgery if it's done in good faith. People sell replicas of famous paintings, and as long as they're honest about it being a replica, that's cool too. Ethically my objection is that AI artists typically "hide their prompts" and try to sell their forgeries as originals.