I think this is an unpopular opinion at the moment. It will take a while for AI art to be accepted, just like photography or digital art in general.
this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2024
-8 points (40.0% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6428 readers
293 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can you post links to those masterpieces?
No.
Art is subjective.
I'm just saying I've seen AI art I've personally considered beautiful and I don't really care too much how it came into existence, just that it exists.
You have seen beautiful AI art yet refuse to share it. You sound like the tech-bros who generate magical applications with ChatGPT but refuse to show the source code. Same bullshit.
You have seen beautiful AI art yet refuse to share it.
Do you think I care enough about you to have saved up the links to beautiful AI art knowing that someday an annoying internet troll would require that I show them the links to prove to them that beautiful AI art exists?
Are you high? Or were you just born this way?
Like, what kind of asshole responds to a post saying "I've seen beautiful AI art" by stating the poster MUST show them the art or their point it moot? Honestly, fuck off trollface. The point of the post is not to show you the art. It's to discuss whether people think its existence is justified based on how it's created.
Are you seriously too stupid to get that?
You pretend that something exists. I ask for proof. No proof. How is that trolling?
In my opinion the discussion is (or should be) less about the quality, because it is continuously getting better. While that trend will almost certainly not continue indefinitely, i believe the bigger issue is ethics.
Pretty much all popular image generating models are based on countless artworks by real artists, which were used without the artists consent.
Additionally, training and using such models requires enormous amounts of electricity, which is in direct opposition to our attempts to reduce carbon emissions.
Finally, the goal of artistry is usually not the artwork itself but rather the process of creating it. To an artist painting on a canvas is infinitely more enjoyable than typing something in a textbox.
Pretty much all popular image generating models are based on countless artworks by real artists, which were used without the artists consent.
My art is also based on countless works of real artists, and I didn't need their consent to put pen to paper (or tablet, rather). Media like Courage the Cowardly Dog, Goodnight Punpun and Majora's Mask taught me how to incorporate surrealism into my work, and I don't need permission from those creators to use what I learned in my game.
If I tried putting Courage, Punpun or Link in my game, that'd be a different story. And when generative AI companies do that, that's also a different story... But I have to give credit where it's due, as much as I don't like OpenAI they have done a better job at complying with copyright law better than YouTube. I've even had ChatGPT refuse my prompts when I'm not trying to get it to generate copyrighted material.
I do agree with your other points though, and I think we'd both agree that machine learning is a net negative for the world. I'm not on the side of big corporations, I just don't think this argument is really good for anything except getting people emotionally charged.
I agree with you. There's some amazing AI generated art.
The issue is that it's not the AI's art. All AI generated imagery is ripped off of one or more real artists. You could ask the philosophical question, "well, isn't all human art, too?" The difference is that, at the moment, humans have something that AI doesn't: a vision, an intention, a desire to communicate. Current AI is literally just a stochaistic generator with a little randomness; there's no internal dialog, desire, intention, or even understanding.
Some day, GAI will have those things, and then I think we will be faced with the question of originality and creativity. But right now, AI-produced art is no different than a particularly aesthetic rock you found in the woods that was created by environmental elements. Half Dome is undeniably beautiful, but is it "art?"
How would "a vision" make it less of a ripoff? If I'm just making art to fulfill my employers demands and nothing more, that doesn't suddenly make it a "ripoff" of all the artists that I learned from.