Controversial AI art is real art
- Thread starter Monkey D Theories
- Start date
Mate, you don't understand.. There is no "growing". AI LLM are language models. They feeds on what they see and create only what they saw. Meaning that they also feed on what they creates.
See this as a genetic pool. What LLM are doing right now, is contineousely reducing the genetic pool. Simply because they can't create anything and people who use it can't either. At the end of the day, everything will be corrupted and unusable. No matter how hard you try. The only way you could coutner that if its LLM would keep feeding on human creations, but this won't happen for much longer.
People and compagnies are getting mad. And soon, the bubble will burst. And this. Is inevitable.
See this as a genetic pool. What LLM are doing right now, is contineousely reducing the genetic pool. Simply because they can't create anything and people who use it can't either. At the end of the day, everything will be corrupted and unusable. No matter how hard you try. The only way you could coutner that if its LLM would keep feeding on human creations, but this won't happen for much longer.
People and compagnies are getting mad. And soon, the bubble will burst. And this. Is inevitable.
Even US military is using AI. We are officialy in AI era already. And maybe we never leave it.
AI is just a tool. It has its uses and can be skillfully used to automate certain parts of an artist’s workflow.
Most AI art is slop. But most art in general is slop. Deviant furry porn is artistic gold just because it’s hand drawn.
Say you used AI to generate 10 different images based on a certain context. Then you used those 10 images to make your own image from scratch. Then say you fed your hand made image back into AI to touch up the line-art and fix a few perspective issues.
Is the end result not art just because AI was used?
Most AI art is slop. But most art in general is slop. Deviant furry porn is artistic gold just because it’s hand drawn.
Say you used AI to generate 10 different images based on a certain context. Then you used those 10 images to make your own image from scratch. Then say you fed your hand made image back into AI to touch up the line-art and fix a few perspective issues.
Is the end result not art just because AI was used?
No, is more than a tool. It's a system of extraction. And indirectly exploitation, and domination.
It's more than a tool, it's a problem. Yeah, sometimes AI can be used for good, I sometimes have no choice but to use it and there is a room, in a different configuration for it to be used ethically. But that's not the case now and we all need to understand that.
The artistic problem of AI is that it's not even good to give complex ideas (like the ones you gave). It will give you a blueprint for something bad, or usually with flaws. Any concept artist you will know will tell you that it can't be used, even as a tool of reference for ideas.
Same for music, same for many things. Ai is mud. It can't be more at the moment and it's too problematic for too many reasons.
Sharing.
It's more than a tool, it's a problem. Yeah, sometimes AI can be used for good, I sometimes have no choice but to use it and there is a room, in a different configuration for it to be used ethically. But that's not the case now and we all need to understand that.
The artistic problem of AI is that it's not even good to give complex ideas (like the ones you gave). It will give you a blueprint for something bad, or usually with flaws. Any concept artist you will know will tell you that it can't be used, even as a tool of reference for ideas.
Same for music, same for many things. Ai is mud. It can't be more at the moment and it's too problematic for too many reasons.
Sharing.
AI is no different from the internet, which you are using right now.
I use it basically every day at work to help me understand code I need to review. It is useful in drafting simple ideas and concepts, which can be valuable in obtaining reference material for art(much like one would if they were using google images). It can also be used to fill gaps in one’s skill set, which has its downsides, but is still valuable so long as you are conscious of this fact.
I use it basically every day at work to help me understand code I need to review. It is useful in drafting simple ideas and concepts, which can be valuable in obtaining reference material for art(much like one would if they were using google images). It can also be used to fill gaps in one’s skill set, which has its downsides, but is still valuable so long as you are conscious of this fact.
Of course it is. For so many reasons.
Well good luck with your interfaces..
That's something we can already do without it. And no. It's absolutely not good for references. Really, ask any professionnal concept artist, you will see. It's completely useless for anatomy, it doesn't understands the point of function, it's useless in term of design, it's unoriginal, there is absolutely no upside.
As for learning with it. Forget it. You will learn things completely backward and there is a risk for you to have problems down the line. I recommend learning code directly with tutorials and through practice, there everything you need to youtube.
The only thing that it can help you with (and that's the only thing I use it for) is when you need to list basic things that you know would require for you hours to search. Basic words and very basic ideas (like a simplelist of mecanical terms for ex). For this, it is usefull, but even if I use it myself, I know that I will have to stop. The ethical, human and environmental cost is too great for such triviality.
Well good luck with your interfaces..
That's something we can already do without it. And no. It's absolutely not good for references. Really, ask any professionnal concept artist, you will see. It's completely useless for anatomy, it doesn't understands the point of function, it's useless in term of design, it's unoriginal, there is absolutely no upside.
As for learning with it. Forget it. You will learn things completely backward and there is a risk for you to have problems down the line. I recommend learning code directly with tutorials and through practice, there everything you need to youtube.
The only thing that it can help you with (and that's the only thing I use it for) is when you need to list basic things that you know would require for you hours to search. Basic words and very basic ideas (like a simplelist of mecanical terms for ex). For this, it is usefull, but even if I use it myself, I know that I will have to stop. The ethical, human and environmental cost is too great for such triviality.
If it is so bad then why do so many artists cry about it “stealing their work”?
Evidently its output has some value. It isn’t perfect and often is slop. Which is why you ought to use it for drafting, brainstorming, reviews, and refinement. But you can’t rely on it to do everything.
Regardless I think uncritically just hating a form of technology just isn’t rational. It’s not a solution to everything but it has its uses.
Evidently its output has some value. It isn’t perfect and often is slop. Which is why you ought to use it for drafting, brainstorming, reviews, and refinement. But you can’t rely on it to do everything.
Regardless I think uncritically just hating a form of technology just isn’t rational. It’s not a solution to everything but it has its uses.
Because people at the top think AI is cool and use stolen work to do faster AND worst work to gain time and money. Bro, you think people at the top know a thing about art? Nah, they are just in for the money and the sauce.
Let me give you an image so you understand very well what happens with AI. Let's say that you are training and making art to get hired in an amazing compagny or to work on an amazing piece of art or media. Let's say that you have given everything into your craft...
Now AI, is similar to a guy, taking your work and the work of another artist just like you, putting your work together without extra work to make them sync together and MAKING PROFIT OUT OF IT OR getting HIRED because of this process that they repeat again and AGAIN.
This is why artist are mad at people stealing their jobs. Not because of the process (altough it is unethical) but because the process is used to BYPASS them with their OWN WORK.
Do you get it?
No. Any writer, any artist, any composer will tell you the same thing:
It's
Always
Slop.
And even if it wasn't, it's still unethical, making it slop by essence.
There is no "uncritical" hate of AI. There is a uncritical acceptance of this technology. It's your acceptance that is not rationnal. Not mine.
You see AI making constant slop without questionning it
You see artist being stolen without being annoyed
You see reality being bend without being worried
You see AI destroying the gathering of accurate information on a global scale without being scared
You see AI being used to make propaganda more effectively without being furious
You see AI being implemented everywhere to a risk of the explosion of the world's economy without being freaked out
You see Billionnaire ruining the environment because of AI without wanting to do anything about it
You see AI workers being exploited to the point of being tortured without being angry
You see AI being used as a reason to completely strip millions if not BILLIONS of workers out of their work without being enraged
You are not rationnal for thinking that AI is inevitable. You are falling into the fallacious thinking of the inevitable progress of technology and history.
Technology is not inevitable. We can prevent it to grow if we need it.
Believing that it is impossible to stop it and believing that it is something we would need at this precise moment of complete geopolitical and social apocalypse is not only not rational, but also utterly DELUSIONAL and absolutely SUICIDAL.
Let me give you an image so you understand very well what happens with AI. Let's say that you are training and making art to get hired in an amazing compagny or to work on an amazing piece of art or media. Let's say that you have given everything into your craft...
Now AI, is similar to a guy, taking your work and the work of another artist just like you, putting your work together without extra work to make them sync together and MAKING PROFIT OUT OF IT OR getting HIRED because of this process that they repeat again and AGAIN.
This is why artist are mad at people stealing their jobs. Not because of the process (altough it is unethical) but because the process is used to BYPASS them with their OWN WORK.
Do you get it?
No. Any writer, any artist, any composer will tell you the same thing:
It's
Always
Slop.
And even if it wasn't, it's still unethical, making it slop by essence.
There is no "uncritical" hate of AI. There is a uncritical acceptance of this technology. It's your acceptance that is not rationnal. Not mine.
You see AI making constant slop without questionning it
You see artist being stolen without being annoyed
You see reality being bend without being worried
You see AI destroying the gathering of accurate information on a global scale without being scared
You see AI being used to make propaganda more effectively without being furious
You see AI being implemented everywhere to a risk of the explosion of the world's economy without being freaked out
You see Billionnaire ruining the environment because of AI without wanting to do anything about it
You see AI workers being exploited to the point of being tortured without being angry
You see AI being used as a reason to completely strip millions if not BILLIONS of workers out of their work without being enraged
You are not rationnal for thinking that AI is inevitable. You are falling into the fallacious thinking of the inevitable progress of technology and history.
Technology is not inevitable. We can prevent it to grow if we need it.
Believing that it is impossible to stop it and believing that it is something we would need at this precise moment of complete geopolitical and social apocalypse is not only not rational, but also utterly DELUSIONAL and absolutely SUICIDAL.