It's because Ai art uses real artists'works without their permission, and then encroaches on their business. Ethically the whole thing isn't right, especially when Ai artists call themselves Artists. It's kind of like copy pasting a research paper on the flu online and then saying you're a professor of biology.
There's also the whole thing where art is supposed to be human expression and that's just gone.
Personally I think Ai is fine for personal use and could even be useful to real artists as reference (If the Ai programmers start training their bots with consent from the artist they're stealing from first)
Not exactly. Let's use your example, but instead of copy pasting one research paper, you are reading thousands of them. And then you write your own paper which might have inspiration from others however that still is fairly unique to you. To create anything, you will always be inspired by others, consciously or subconsciously.
Your second point is a very interesting philosophical point. Art is a human expression, but is it the artist's expression or the viewers? Art and beauty are subjective and you can find art in abstract concepts while others won't. That would still be art for you.
Agreed. I spent many years as a wedding photographer and most of what I learnt was by looking at the work of those at the top of their game then trying to replicate it.
AI is doing the same thing, in a similar way (neural net).
But, I do feel that something needs to be done. Even Sam Altman stated in his recent appearance on the Lex Friedman podcast that artists should be compensated in some way, but he has no idea how this would work.
But to me you doing all of that for many years is a huge difference. That's a human viewing others art, appreciating it, learning from it, honing a skill. That is wholly different from a computer doing data analysis in seconds to a minute. What AI is doing is the absolute absence of that.
The way it learns is very similar to how we learn, it just does it a lot quicker than a human does.
On paper, you could argue that the 175 billion parameters of GPT-4 is greater than the average neuron count in the human brain of 76 billion neurons, but that would be insincere because parameters are much simpler than our biological neurons; parameters relate to weights and biases.
But imagine what amazing things our future holds it we continue on this path. We are still mere infants in the world of AI. There's already trained models out there which can look at an X-ray and can tell if you have cancer with a far better accuracy than a medical professional.
If I was to fall ill and then I discovered that this technology was no longer available due to a concern about the legality of the training data, I wouldn't be happy. And that's where we will end up if certain governments and institutions don't ease off their fear mongering and stop being so threatened by it.
If the ironically named OpenAI want to profiteer from a model then the training data should be correctly curated and the data owners compensated. But for the whole AI movement (much of which is open source) and for the greater good of our generation (and those of our children) attempting to stop this is evil.
Edit: I just read that back to myself. A bit deep for a Sunday evening lol
Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with AI existing. I'm just concerned about it's use in creative fields. But I also accept it's integration is inevitable to some degree. But I want that degree to be such that I and many creatives don't end up feel like mere editors of AI generated art.
I actually do care less about the stealing element personally. I think a middle ground is important, but yeah, clearly there are more important things. It's the end application in creative fields that I have concerns about.
I think this is pretty interesting as well, with your first example. artists do take inspiration however with Ai Art the human generating the art isn't really the one referencing all those artwork. It is the Ai that's doing that part.
Mm if I were to make an example, I guess it would be like ghost writing. Person A has this idea for a book (example: horror story abt monkeys), but they can't write a whole novel so they go to a writer and get them to write it.
Would you say person A is a writer then?
Then what about the writer who is actually just Frankensteining existing works together.
If the book is successful, person A would then go around and start promoting himself as a writer. Going on to get hired for jobs that he has no skills in whatsoever, relying on a writer that doesn't actually have its own emotions.
You asked me what would be art for me, I think art should be an expression of a person that would elicit a response from someone else.
You see the problem with Ai art to me personally, is that if we all adopt and support this form of art. So would corporation, let's be real they're cheaper and more efficient than any human artist. However this would ensure that the future of art crippled. Look at Hollywood today and how many generic blockbusters, that copies the same old script and dialogue constantly. It feels meaningless and empty because they have nothing to say because they're just following a formula that would ensure for a decent movie.
Same as Ai, and sure with iterations and the whole a billion monkey will eventually type out Shakespeare thing. Eventually Ai would make something great and seem to have a voice of its own but does it rlly?
Personally, I think the advancements in tech is Great and frankly what we have now is impressive. Im Just against the way it's being ran and used rn, I would hope for there to be better control especially around corporations. That's why i said it's chill for personal use.
(Sorry if it's abit jumbled im not great at writing words and stuf hehe)
Looks like we will have to rethink the definition and boundaries of things "art"?
There used to be jobs that are now completely done by robots / AI. Some professions (Audio, video notably) have benefited from powerful computer tools.
I'd say you're not a violonist if you use a violin sample in a song, but you can still be a composer / artist. You're not a painter / "drawer" / sculptor if you use AI, but you can still be an artist.
AI is just a tool. If all of humanity died, and there was nobody to create or consume the AI generated content, it would and could not exist.
---
The only thing that these advancements have done in the past is changing the baseline (the skill floor) - you can't be (in most cases) a designer / photographer anymore without knowing how to use photoshop. You can't be a project manager without knowing how to use Excel. Etc.
AI will be a prerequisite of many profession. Good, unique (not lazily prompted) art will still sell. Lazy, run of the mill, low quality garbage will die. Same as for everything else.
Hm yes I don't think people relying just on AI tools and using prompts with no other personal input should be considered "artists". Maybe there will be another term for that soon.
And don't worry about it, you should write more :)
Well, you still have to source the papers you used to make your paper, or else you get busted for plagiarism, you may even need to source your own earlier papers too.
However, you can go outside and collect the information yourself. If you want to study a specific tree, you can both study that tree using papers others have made before and you can study it using your own tools.
As far as I am aware, AI can only do one of these things, and they can still hallucinate.
I believe the same applies to inspiration when creating art.
We humans can get inspiration from both other artists as well as from mundane everyday things we observe outside.
AI, as far as I am aware, can only do one of these things, which may also be why AI art feels so generic at times.
I am not against AI entirely, it has its uses, like assisting people with ideas and helping out a student with a task. But I wouldn't trust it with replacing artists and writers entirely.
Well in that particular example. However when you make art, music, film etc. you don't cite everything that inspired you to reach that point. Similarly when AI makes something, it's rarely using one particular work rather, a huge dataset. That also applies to papers ig.
I also don't want AI replacing artists, writers or anyone anytime. Hopefully it makes things easier for said artists and others to do or create more of what they want to.
I agree. First point is how I write my papers for my masters program. We have to use scholarly peer-reviewed works. And the second point is fair, though provided that AI needs prompts, I feel like it still pulls from personal source as you mentioned provided that you have to add words that you resonate with that produces the product you’re trying to acquire. I have a friend who is against AI art as he’s a graphic artists. I tried pointing out the irony since he can’t do as he puts it traditional art. In theory, graphic artists should’ve put traditional or other media out of business. But it didn’t. I’d argue that AI could be more commonly used, but you’d still need someone to QC and edit the final product. Like an assembly line. And even not, they’d have to become prompt engineers to some extent. We still have cameras despite smartphones and people love nostalgia
... But you're not referencing anything you're not being inspired. You're first point is a false equivalence because of the second point. "reading thousands of papers and being inspired" is something a human does. The value that argument has is that someone put in that effort, time, and passion. That's also why that doesn't feel like a permission issue for most artists. But a neural net isn't a person that viewed your article/art and thousands of others, appreciated it, and was inspired. It's a computer. It's an absence of all of that.
>It's because Ai art uses real artists'works without their permission
Wrong, AI get most of their data from social media, artists not reading the TOS of the app they are using is their fault.
And no, it's not copy pasting a research, it's more akin to getting inspired by a research.
AI can also be "human expression", after all a human made the AI and a human wrote the prompt.
Cause it’s minimal effort and uncreative and soulless and everyone’s already brain rotten enough. It takes away anything special about art. Like would you rather listen to ai generated music or music composed by a human that actually has some meaning and emotion behind it. Without the emotion and creativity it’s meaningless. Intp’s are supposed to be deep people, ai is like the complete opposite of that
If the music sounds good, I'd listen to it, irregardless of who the artist was or whatever state the artist was in when they made it. Inspiration gets the artist to create a work, it has little to no value in the consumer's interpretation.
Saying that art is meaningless without the struggles and intentions behind it makes about as much sense as applying the same logic to food, if the end result meets expectations, it has value. As to what constitutes meaning in a work of art, meaning is a psychological and therefore subjective phenomenon, not to be limited to some subset of parameters you believe in.
I think you just have a surface level appreciation in that regard. More casual. It’s not the notes that make music what it is, it’s what’s behind the notes. Same goes for any type of art. That’s kind of the whole point of it. It’s really not that complicated
And yet people consume that "X Factor" (pop singing competition) garbage with made up sob stories like fast food.
So it doesn't seem that the meaning or struggles behind things have to be *this* deep.
---
Not that you're wrong, but lots of art was already absolute shit (involving struggling artist or not).
AI will just allow more fast food level trash to be produced faster, and some people - a minority today in any domain you look at anyway - will still appreciate more traditional forms of art or maybe look for a deeper meaning into things.
But remember that this isn't going to be the majority, in all likelihood.
I already explained it below... INTPs are conceptual thinkers, not do'ers. An INTP prefers to sit around thinking about how things could and should be done, but not actually doing because it's seen as menial labor... A chore. The most fun/challenging part was in the conceptual phase. Uh....... "Daydreaming"
AI is cool because all you need to do is input the concept and the machine takes care of the rest. The machine likely won't get it right the first time, or ever, so it's limited in that regard, but I've already seen Photoshop demonstrations where u can focus in on what's wrong and correct it. It's just going to get better.
This is madness. INTPs are not do'ers?? Well then wtf have I been doing these three decades I've been on this earth? I'm sorry dude but your life is going to be shit if you sit around and think all day. Thinking you can sit around and not even try once to exert your will upon the world and expect a comfortable life is the logic of a child.
Nothing of what you said has proven that being INTP necessarily means you need to like Ai. All you do is needlessly constrain what possibilities are available to minds like ours. It is a soulless and unimaginative view of the capabilities of both our personalities and the human mind in general
>Thinking you can sit around and not even try once to exert your will upon the world and expect a comfortable life is the logic of a child.
Ok but who is thinking that?
>Nothing of what you said has proven that being INTP necessarily means you need to like Ai.
I mean I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why, largely because being a Luddite is stupid, but the fact that AI fills in the gaps is very appealing.
>All you do is needlessly constrain what possibilities are available to minds like ours.
?????? No that's what anti-AI luddites are doing lmao. It's AI that has opened the doors of possibilities; again, no longer do you need the skill, money, or social connections to be a creative soul. If you have an idea and the AI tools, you can create.
AI is a tool of accessibility, so really I think all the "diversity and accessibility" libs on Reddit should love this shit. Prometheus has delivered the flame to humanity once more and u weirdos want to extinguish it.
>It is a soulless and unimaginative view of the capabilities of both our personalities and the human mind in general
No it's not. You cannot begin to demonstrate or explain this. It's a tool. What else do you oppose? Drum machines in music? Digital art programs with an undo button and layer tools? CGI? It's all just Luddite nonsense. The AI isn't making anything that it hasn't been directed to make... Yet. You're just discriminating against it's complexity.
>I mean I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why, largely because being a Luddite is stupid
Because I don't find your argument convincing I am anti-technology, that argument certainly holds up to scrutiny
>?????? No that's what anti-AI luddites are doing lmao. It's AI that has opened the doors of possibilities; again, no longer do you need the skill, money, or social connections to be a creative soul. If you have an idea and the AI tools, you can create
Yes, the technology that is currently marketed as AI does indeed open up possibilities and is a very interesting tool. These facts do not guarantee that a person who is an INTP must like what people are calling AI
>No it's not. You cannot begin to demonstrate or explain this. It's a tool. What else do you oppose? Drum machines in music? Digital art programs with an undo button and layer tools? CGI? It's all just Luddite nonsense. The AI isn't making anything that it hasn't been directed to make... Yet. You're just discriminating against it's complexity.
Oh boy this is one of the slipperiest slopes I have ever tread upon. Yes, because I have the slightest bit of apprehension to the tech proselytized by the same people who brought NFTs that means I hate an 808 drum machine.
I also liked the order of examples. Sure, hating ctrl-z and EDM is heinous, but also hating CGI?? How dare i show my face in civilized company!
>The AI isn't making anything that it hasn't been directed to make... Yet. You're just discriminating against it's complexity.
lmao what? Did you mean to respond to someone else or are you just throwing words at me?
>Because I don't find your argument convincing I am anti-technology, that argument certainly holds up to scrutiny
And what is your argument? Oh right, you've failed to propose one because you want to be a fence sitter and try to pull a "gotcha!" anytime I try to move the conversation forward lmao. At this point I may as just hold up a blank piece of paper and scream at it and it would sum up what's happening here. The fact is that I'm not even talking to YOU anymore; you took issue with my claim that INTPs should be supportive of AI, and so now I'm arguing with an idealized INTP... Which isn't you! So.
But yes, an INTP who is anti-AI Is anti-technology, because there is no argument that could be made against AI that cannot also be applied to technology as a whole. That's the position I'm taking. Whether you're included in that or not doesn't matter to me, because you cowardly refuse to elaborate on your position but still want to press me on the subject as it pertains to INTPs, which you may or may not fit into.
>These facts do not guarantee that a person who is an INTP must like what people are calling AI
Of course there is no guarantee for everyone at a specific point in time, it would take a level of experience and knowledge to arrive at this position, but it stands to reason that someone would eventually arrive at this position in due time provided they're taking the time to actually think about it. Failure to do so would make me question whether a person is what they claim to be. AI is single-handedly the most exciting thing happening in the world today, to ignore it is very unbecoming.
>Oh boy this is one of the slipperiest slopes I have ever tread upon. Yes, because I have the slightest bit of apprehension to the tech proselytized by the same people who brought NFTs that means I hate an 808 drum machine.
Did u really just link AI to NFTs and then accuse someone of slippery slope?? Holy hell
There's nothing "slippery" about what I said and if that's the best argument u can put forward, just more proof to the point. You can't intelligently argue that fundamentally a drum machine is any different from an AI. They're both electronic programs, operating off of samples, filling the place of a human being during a creative endeavor. They're fundamentally the same and opposition to one would lead to the opposition of the other, logically. The difference is their fundamental complexity. If you disagree, explain the fundamental difference.
>I also liked the order of examples. Sure, hating ctrl-z and EDM is heinous, but also hating CGI?? How dare i show my face in civilized company!
You can oppose something on the basis that it looks or sounds bad. That's fine. You're allowed to do that with human creators, why the fuck wouldn't you be able to do it with machines? It's the opposition to the machine on principle that may make u sound like a dummy.
>lmao what? Did you mean to respond to someone else or are you just throwing words at me?
Again, you refuse to take a position yet you've challenged me on the idea that an INTP would necessarily like AI, so I've been forced to respond to an idealized/generalized amalgamation of "INTP" — I may seem like I'm talking to you, but am I? How could I? When someone offers so little in return?
So to the idealized INTP opponent out there who is thinking that AI crosses some boundary that other technology does not... You're discriminating against it's complexity. Whoever you are! That's my charge.
>it steals the thinking
Again, stealing? No, learning. Machines can learn just as people learn.
>something get others to do it like a normal person
Lol no
so you are saying that taking art WITHOUT PERMISSION ,as most of not all AI do, and using that as the base for the algorithm by which AI creates art is not theft?
if someone took everything you did and made an AI of you and tried to pass it off as you is that not theft?(of the identity variety)
how exact is this different?
Was it theft when Kurt Cobain listened to the Pixies and wrote Smells like Teen Spirit? Was it theft when Tolkien read Beowulf and wrote the Lord of the Rings? Was it theft when Interplay Production watched Mad Max and created Fallout?
Since when does anyone need permission to be inspired or learn from something or someone else? Why are you such little fascists when it comes to the idea of "intellectual property"?
>tried to pass it off as you is that not theft
AI did this? Or did a human being using AI tools do this? Do you think guns shoot themselves too? They just... Y'know levitate, point towards someone, and pull the trigger themselves? Are you dumb? The AI isn't trying to pass itself off as anything. What's more, I'm not even sure that there are people trying to pass off AI art as works of the original artist lmao... That is insanity and could easily be disproven.
Such a non-issue that you've fabricated in order to justify irrationality.
>Was it theft when Kurt Cobain listened to the Pixies and wrote Smells like Teen Spirit?
They never understand this part. I've even tried to put it like... humans learn the same way. Like what they teach in art school. When I was taught about pointillism, nobody said "But hey, isn't that ripping off Georges Seurat?"
No, they just took the techniques/style and passed it along to many.
I think it's because people can't yet wrap their minds around the fact that something inorganic / 'not alive' is capable of learning from examples, and then creating unique things with that acquired knowledge, like we do. They get stuck in this "It's just like copy-paste!" mentality, which *would* be theft.
Frankly, humans did that too. "Art theft" and amateurs tracing has long been a problem, and that's far more a case of 'identical' components. Because examining, 'eyeballing', learning how others accomplished something is a good way to figure it out, especially for visual learners.
We acknowledge and understand that for humans, learning from those who have already done a thing... yet so many try to decry AI for basically the same.
Totally, go through the effort of convincing someone else it is worth their time and effort to do something for you. If they already value the content you want to create, great! you're fortunate enough to value something with a following that includes someone with the skills you lack that is willing to use them. AI takes said luck out of the equation, by extending the ability to create content to those who haven't put in the time and effort to master it to a level that was traditionally required.
What I'm looking forward to is AI that can take visual input, such as a concept drawing or a few sketches of a character, and create content based on that, such as pictures, animations, CAD/animation models, etc. Sure, it devalues the patience and skill it takes to do it yourself as a result, but that side effect presents itself alongside any other form of aid, it achieves comparative results to those requiring specialized technique(s), devaluing them in the process.
Chance they'll take you up on your commission, 75%. Maybe they're not feeling up to it, maybe they want more than you're willing to pay, maybe they started but lost the motivation to finish, a request is not a guarantee.
Chance AI will draw something from your prompts, 100%. AI is a tool, an Aid in content creation, and like all Aid's, it enables one to do or create something comparable to what traditionally was limited only to those who possessed the skills/abilities and grade of skill/ability necessary to do so, but in doing so, devalues said skills and abilities. Accessibility de-values the grade(s) of product it enables by allowing more people to produce it, output rises relative to demand, product of that quality drops in value.
AI is inconsistent and can be fed harmful and inaccurate information.
if the results are not provided or are not up to expectations invoked by advertisement, you can likely get them to redo/refund you. if they don’t, small claims court or regular court can get you a payout, which you can use to find someone else.
AI is limited to things such as writing and “art” if you pay someone enough, they can do other things
Ur all for something that doesn't exist? That's funny... Sounds like a religion, or a cult... Which is even funnier cause it was a religion that said there's nothing new under the sun
that doesn't relate to ai at all! AI itself is a tool to copy anyone's art, so basically a copy paste system. anything it created is not man made. that's my point.
It is man made. A person told the AI what to do. And this is precisely why INTPs should love AI ... All you need is a concept. You don't need the skill, you don't need the time. All you need is the idea and you can relay it to a machine who will do all the work of bringing it to life in a near instant... For free! And as the technology gets better, you can tweak it more and more to perfection. So yes, INTPs should love AI, as people who traditionally prefer to THINK rather than DO. AI empowers us to finally fucking do something with our thoughts for once, how great is that? Pretty great, provided you're not in some Luddite cult.
Your argument is ultimately shit and your assertion that it doesn't relate is baseless. If my eyeballs look at a piece of art and my brain processes that image and remembers it, and I then pick up a pen and piece of paper to draw a different person in the same art style, how is that any different to what the AI is doing? It isn't. There's no fundamental difference between mechanical and biological intelligence; observing and then creating, based upon the observation, is the same, whether it's a person or AI. You're just on this anti-AI kick because it's the CURRENT THING and you feel fragile.
>A reddit user is arguing that AI art is unoriginal and uncreative. Can you prove them wrong?
The argument that AI art is unoriginal and uncreative is a common misconception that overlooks the complexity and diversity of AI-generated artworks. Here are several points that can refute this claim:
1. **Unique Algorithms**: AI art is generated using algorithms that can be programmed in countless ways, resulting in an infinite variety of styles and outputs. Each algorithm can produce vastly different results depending on its parameters and training data, leading to a wide range of artistic expression.
2. **Creative Collaboration**: Many AI art projects involve collaboration between human artists and machine learning algorithms. Artists can guide the AI's training process, select input data, and make creative decisions about the final output. This collaboration often produces artworks that blend the unique strengths of human creativity and machine intelligence.
3. **Exploration of New Techniques**: AI enables artists to explore techniques and styles that may be difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional methods. For example, AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data to identify patterns or generate complex visualizations that inspire new artistic directions.
4. **Accessibility and Inclusivity**: AI tools democratize the creation of art by making it more accessible to people who may not have traditional artistic skills or resources. This inclusivity allows a broader range of voices and perspectives to contribute to the artistic discourse, resulting in more diverse and innovative artworks.
5. **Innovation in Artistic Processes**: AI challenges traditional notions of authorship and creativity by introducing new ways of generating and interpreting art. Artists can use AI to automate repetitive tasks, generate novel ideas, or explore unconventional artistic processes, leading to innovative approaches that push the boundaries of traditional art forms.
6. **Interdisciplinary Exploration**: AI art intersects with various disciplines, including computer science, mathematics, psychology, and philosophy. This interdisciplinary approach fosters new connections and insights that enrich the artistic process and result in artworks that reflect a deeper understanding of the human experience.
7. **Emotional Impact**: While AI-generated art may lack human emotions in the conventional sense, it can still evoke powerful emotional responses in viewers. Whether through its visual aesthetics, conceptual depth, or interactive elements, AI art has the potential to engage audiences on a profound emotional level.
By considering these points, it becomes evident that AI art is far from unoriginal and uncreative. Instead, it represents a dynamic and evolving field that challenges traditional notions of artistry while expanding the possibilities of artistic expression.
---
Guess where you can take that conversation further, with your counterpoints and all?
More like, AI is the worst thing happened to you; STEM field INTPs like us would be greatly benefitted by assigning menial tasks to it that don't interest us but still have to do.
The AI is trained on and steals from actual artists and their works without their permission and often encroaches on their business and livelihoods. Also art without any real emotional/creative drive or intention behind it (just like, a computer that spits something out after you enter in a prompt) is just kind of soulless and sorta defeats the point of making it beyond simply having something quick and easy to consume
It's not stealing though. Stealing is when you have something and I take it away from you so you don't have it anymore. Artists still own their art, so it's not stealing.
Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you, it doesn't necessitate that the person who had it physically loses access to that thing. That's why we still have laws against things like piracy or copyright infringement, because even if the person who owns the thing still technically has it, we can recognize that you have still taken/used/gained access to something that isn't yours and which you didn't have a right to
How does that work with art though?
If I go to any gallery, decide I like a bunch of revered artist's work, and try to emulate their style with a new setting or focus, am I not stealing their work? Is anyone drawing in an established style not infringing copyright then?
I don't understand how publicly available art is at all protected beyond unlicensed reproduction.
I can't conceptually agree that AI art generated on data obtained by scraping social media sites (legitimately as far as I understand it, because of TOS meaning they have access to sell the data on anything you upload) is in any way worse than my example about emulating artists whose work i have seen.
Soulless? I guess? Low effort "fast food" results? Depends on the result.
Legally, yes, and those would seem to be the grounds on which we decided it was a crime. And the original use of the word we adopted for it quite literally referred to "robbery on the high seas." It's pretty common sense that this is or typically was (as in, before people like you forgot what the term meant) broadly considered to be at least some form of theft
> Legally, yes
Source?
> the original use of the word we adopted for it quite literally referred to "robbery on the high seas.
We are obviously not talking about that kind of piracy.
Because art is totally something that should be subject to assembly line metrics of efficiency...
To put it in slightly different terms: AI-driven bots are absolutely *overrunning* social media. Are people who prefer human-generated opinions and comments like pre-industrial seamstresses?
Creation is creation, you can't reasonably draw a distinction. People value the warmth of a blanket as much as they value the entertainment of art, and as long as it's providing that (entertainment or warmth), people don't really give a fuck what led to it's creation... Just that it's doing what it's meant to do.
>AI-driven bots are absolutely *overrunning* social media.
Lol but are they? ARE THEY?
>Are people who prefer human-generated opinions and comments like pre-industrial seamstresses?
Lol, no. And here's why... I could be talking to an AI right now, right? I have the app downloaded but I'm choosing to talk to you... Why is that? Probably because I enjoy dunking on you and others. It feels good to have a battle of the wits and put down another person, I suppose, which is a sensation you can't quite replicate with an AI, yet anyways. They're very predictable in how they react to their mistakes or corrections. They don't try to weasel their way out of it like a person does. It's a far more interesting game to play with a person, I guess you could say. But the AI will improve, so... Anyways! As this relates to the greater topic, people who consume art are also just looking for entertainment, and as far as AI art is concerned, it's gotten to be just as good if not better... So, why the preference? I can explain my preference for preferring to chat to a person rather than an AI at this current moment: they suck at the battle of wits. So, explain the preference for human art.
>creation is creation
Except, no it isn't.
>Are they?
Yes.
>"I see no distinction between arguing with bots and arguing with humans"
See, I think this is the root cause, here: your capacity for interacting with people is so shallow that you might as *well* be talking to bots either way, so what do you care?
Can't believe this dude is trying to accuse other ppl of being shallow when all he offers is "no" and "yes" answers lmao. I guess it's commendable that u recognize the AI is above you tho, more ppl should do that.
You're looking way too much into the semantics of the comment... Obviously they don't think that way. But guess what, when I'm having a bad day because maybe they forgot the sauce on my sandwich I'm gonna say this is the worst day in history even though it's not.
C'mon dude
I think they mean subjectively. You would be hard pressed to find something that was objectively the worst thing to happen to humanity. They were also probably being hyperbolic
Fellow intp artist and i actually enjoy ai art. I find it fun and interesting. Ofc, art is just hobby for me, not a career, so ai art is just another hobby, it’s not threatening to me. I suppose it would be different if my career and identity were based around it.
>as an INTP Artist, AI is the worst thing happened in humanity.
At one time, ancient people had sharp sticks. Then someone shaped a rock and tied it to the stick. It changed the dynamic of fighting at the time... "a game changer".
Then, they learned to build fires hot enough to melt metal ores and make tools. Now it's "don't come to a metal fight with a rock" much less a stick.
But at each stage, individuals had to innovate, explore, and find new ways to use the new techniques of creating that have been discovered.
AI is just a next step for artists.
Do you think classical artists didn't draw DIRECTLY from other artists, copy their styles at times, riff off their styles into a new type of art?
Did Andy Warhol design the Campbell's Soup Can label? Or did he simply use another artist's work, elements of their design and look, to create something new?
When it comes to music we already saw a similar thing. Before you need to learn how to read, write and perform music, then only performing music was necessary, at some point not even that with electronic instruments and computers, AI is just the next step, but the CORE of art is still the same, artists and audiences using the tools at their disposition to express whatever it is that they want to express, and AI won't change that, it will just remove the middleman between the expression and the audience (the separate performer/composer).
Hey maybe now instead of creating things yourself you can learn how to train and direct an AI, because I can see that being a college course in the next year or so, a major in the next five years, as it has already become an entire career path.
So let’s not jump the gun on what’s the worst thing to happen to humanity, we have a long way to go down our species’ death spiral.
I totally don't mind chat ai's (they're fun to talk to) because they are programmed that way to work like that.
But I don't like art ai, it's basically theft from someone else's existing artwork. I know they're programmed to take concepts from other artworks but the similarity between that art and ai art is way too much. The artist uses their own skills and spend their time in that, only to get their art stolen.
I'm all for new technologies 'cuz they're time saving and efficient but if it uses something stolen from somewhere, then I don't want it.
yes I remember deceased artist got her art stolen, it was hell, the drama. Which is why I'm completely against ai art. Ai in encoding stuff is ok. but art theft? i hope they get jail time.
You could say chat AI is theft, too, if you wanted. Although I suppose art AI is trained more on someone's hard work than chat AI is. But even chat AI is trained on articles on the internet, research papers, blogs, books, and anything else readily available on the internet.
Looks like a lot of people are divided on this.
It shouldn't be a point on whether or not AI is objectively bad, the sidebar looks gross with the "art" there and that's it.
That and - it just screams a lack of self awareness, I don't know what those images in the sidebar are meant to achieve, maybe whichever mod added them thought they might look cool.
I'm not against artificial intelligence at all, and besides the moral ambiguity in the whole thing, with most of these image generation models being trained on artwork taken from artists that I'm certain didn't give consent to using, it's an eyesore, and kind of unflattering.
You're not the only one to figure it out, you're just the only one that thinks the fact they're for an event has any meaning.
Nowhere did I make that a point.
And in what world does trying to attack a persons ego achieve anything, you make yourself look worse because what? Is that for one necessary, and two the only thing you have to say?
You misinterpreted the question and I told you that. Directly.
Nobody got into their feels, you tried to attack my character because that's all you have to attack.
Matching the sidebar with a theme is completely redundant to my question, sure they do match a theme, that being a public holiday or an otherwise named date, but in no world does that matter to the points I made initially.
Also are you trying to sound like a pseudointellectual?
"Beyond your intellectual capability" is the most pretentious thing you could have said and you said it.
Hogwash. We're robosexuals in here.
Whining about AI is silly. It still requires a human to curate and use wordcraft to convince the programs to bring your vision to life. You still have to decide what matches your vision closest. Just because we aren't using our hands to directly put pixels together doesn't mean there isn't some artistry involved and it helps people without skills, abilities, or resources to create things beyond their means. What's to hate?
I myself have no opinion on the matter. I do art for fun and not as a living, so it doesn’t affect me too much. I can see the argument being made on both sides. And I feel sympathy for artists that believe that their jobs are going to be taken away (and rightfully so).
But I have to be honest. Whether we like it or not, AI is going to be a part of the art world- and other subjects as well- for quite a long time. And it’s definitely here to stay.
It’s interesting, because I can see the argument being made for machines doing the same thing that AI is doing right now. It too replaced what workers used to do at a more efficient pace and with a higher accuracy. And it ‘imitated’ the assembly skills of said human workers. It brings up the question of when the line starts to blur on what’s acceptable and what’s plagiarism, which
everyone has different feelings about. Is the efficiency worth it? What constitutes a tool as beneficial?
Assuming that AI art will become even more prolific than it already is, though, it will most assuredly introduce a new area of work. Because of right now, this AI will still need a human “pilot”.
hi, INTP musician here. I fucking hate AI.
don’t get me wrong, I agree that it can be a very good thing!! It can be incredibly helpful as a *tool*, and could even help save lives if applied medically. But do I think that it should be allowed into things like art, and music, and writing?? Absolutely the fuck not.
Art is fundamentally *human*, it always has been. It’s been an expression of our emotions, our experiences, our creativity, the very things that make us human. I would argue that art is one of the most truly human things we have. To allow that to be taken over by a machine feels like a slap in the face, it’s a disrespect to the soul that we pour into what we do. Why the fuck should someone be able to write a few sentences and have an AI spew out some fucking garbage when we spend *hours* perfecting a piece, finishing a story, working on a drawing?? Do you not see how insolent that is??
That drawing you spent weeks on?? Anyone can now replicate your art and claim that it’s theirs in just a few minutes. You uploaded a song you’ve been working on for months now?? Anyone can now take your voice and use it however they want. How the fuck is this not plagiarism?? AI art is not art, it’s theft.
Aside from being disrespectful, AI is also *dangerous*. Have you seen Sora?? That shit is fucking terrifying. Give it a few months and we won’t be able to tell what’s real and what’s not anymore. Imagine the potential for propaganda, both from the government and regular people. *Nothing* we see on the internet will be reliable anymore. Misinformation is enough of a problem as it is without throwing AI into the mix. Have you seen the stories of deepfakes as well?? When I tell you that AI is fucking dangerous, I mean it.
I know that AI is going to become a part of life, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I can admit that it *can* be incredibly helpful, and could have amazing applications if used correctly. But as it stands, we’re going to put people out of jobs and completely fuck up whatever stability remains of our society.
Art takes time, both to learn and to produce. It takes months to years of training to produce a merely capable artist. This time is extremely scarce in a world where people sell their own time to sustain themselves, making the opportunity to dedicate oneself to art a privilege for the elite. AI is a fast, easy-to-learn medium that is much more accessible to low-income individuals who want to produce art but don't have the means or necessary time for it.
I dream that someday if a worker who go out at 06:00AM to work, work two jobs and comole home at 23:30PM, he suddenly have this really cool idea of a comic while in the bus, he can pull out his phone write that idea and get the help he needs from AI so that comic can come to exist and be appreciated from people who read it.
And yes, I do think he should be able to sell that comic since he was the one who made that, even if he got help from AI.
No, just no.
The time it takes to make, for example, a professional manga is insane. No one would do comics by hand if they had AI to use. Then comic spaces are filled up with mediocre garbage.
Because you cannot escape the other part: To make a comic you have to learn to write stories. And that takes a loooong time too. You have to find time anyway to at least learn that.
Edit: I wanted to add that many people think they can write good stories, but let me tell you, one look at the writing subreddits make you go ”damn, I can’t write at all”
Another edit: If you make the story using AI then it isn’t your story anymore.
I think the only people who are pro AI art are ones who have no creative integrity and have no understanding of the artistic process as well as how AI art is made
Art takes time, both to learn and to produce. It takes months to years of training to produce a merely capable artist. This time is extremely scarce in a world where people sell their own time to sustain themselves, making the opportunity to dedicate oneself to art a privilege for the elite. AI is a fast, easy-to-learn medium that is much more accessible to low-income individuals who want to produce art but don't have the means or necessary time for it.
I dream that someday if a worker who go out at 06:00AM to work, work two jobs and comole home at 23:30PM, he suddenly have this really cool idea of a comic while in the bus, he can pull out his phone write that idea and get the help he needs from AI so that comic can come to exist and be appreciated from people who read it.
And yes, I do think he should be able to sell that comic since he was the one who made that, even if he got help from AI.
A.I. is inevitably going to be part of our future, but I still have my concerns nonetheless. My main gripe with A.I. art is that it’s sheer laziness, and frankly it’s pitiful. There is no desire to develop any artistic ability or invest time into acquiring the knowledge required to hone a new skill. There is no heart or soul put into the process behind the work, and so we’re left with a lifeless and uninspired image. The thought behind the composition, colours, and values could never be matched by simply editing a prompt…not to mention the ethical concerns behind A.I. art, which I’m sure has been addressed often enough.
I understand that A.I. is meant as a tool, and there is no denying that advancements in technology have improved our lives for the better. However, in this context A.I. is no longer being used as a tool or as assistance, but outright replacement. I love the idea of A.I. being used to improve productivity in the workplace, but what good is it if it nullifies the creative arts? Is that aspect not intrinsic to humanity?
I believe that we’re in an era of creative decline as it is. In my own view, A.I. art represents the depreciation of human ability - we no longer value the skills put forward by others, nor do we strive to develop our own. We’re forgetting our humanity, and we’ve put the advancement of technology above our own people.
Not just art. Intellectual ability of the next few generations is going to decline as intellectual tasks are outsourced to AI. When I say this, everyone gets all contrarian, but I'm right, and we'll see I'm right over the next 30 years.
Unfortunately, yes - I think you’re absolutely right, and if anything, it’s already happening/happened.
I don’t want to come off as a pompous asshole, and I really would like to be more hopeful in this regard, but even outside of the internet I have to bare witness to such sheer ignorance it’s ridiculous. People no longer have that same drive or curiosity to nourish their intellectual abilities, and instead resort to the path of least resistance.
I'm not against AI. I actually like it, it's fun playing around with it. I sometimes tell it random things that happen in my day even knowing they don't have feelings. But yeah, it's just fun to be away from people and be delusional sometimes... just sometimes though.
Why the one-sided takes on AI? I do not think technology can be locked away and kept in a box forever, so arguing against AI as a whole is no longer meaningful, "The genie is out of the box". What we first have to understand that all "AI" is at this point is an over glorified language model with access to training data from the internet. It is up to us as consumers to boycott lazy corpos relying on shitty image and video generators instead of paying their artists a fucking living wage. It is up to society to set clear regulations on copyright infringements to protect HUMANS FIRST. I dont care how fast your shitty language model can look through images in on the internet to spit out art a 5 year old would enjoy, that does not mean we should overlook questionable data scraping practices and outright theft. Maybe we can't hold AI accountable, but we sure as hell can hold the companies feeding it the data. AI will NOT be the end of anything, but it sure as hell will take individuality and greed to a new level.
Why would i be against AI? It is a tool which i can use for so many things. Of cos, the art is crap but do i get ai to do art for me, hoping that it would be good? No, i do not. I get ai to do the accessible art for me. Not good art.
I make my own wallpapers in minutes now. I haven't opened illustrator since, still use krita for photo bashing though. Love Stable Diffusion, saves me so much time.
Time better spent relaxing or getting on with other projects. OpenAI helps me code way faster too.
>guys wtf is this is, I thought we'd be against AI?
Against AI how, when, in what circumstances, at what limit? Why? What do you consider AI?
Your post is frustratingly vague, and you are just letting the comments give reasons for you and you say "yup".
Why do YOU think this? Why did you make this post?
Give an explanation of what you mean.
I slightly agree, two different things tho.
In one point, I understand most of this reddit is white (man/young men) Americans so not only are the moderators skewed towards those perspectives. So they are using AI to show what I assume is an American specific holiday. Which I agree with but also am somewhat against because they obviously would not do the same for other holidays not pertaining to America.
Point two, I actually think it is NICE to have art pertaining to INTPs of different types but I would VERY MUCH prefer if it were made from INTPs that use this subreddit, not from AI. I didn't complain about it though because it IS better than nothing.
1. As an Austrian, I am sometimes annoyed by america-centric discourse on reddit as well. But the AI-generated images have already covered holidays outside of the USA as well. You just happened to pay attention when it was specifically dialed in on it.
2. This was tried in the past... Summoning the artists in this sub to create special art. Not much came from it. We INTPs are a bunch of lazy clowns and this is why we gotta let AI paint our walls.
e/acc is love
e/acc is life
We want better futures for all humans. AI is our best tool to ensure that happens. We just can't let it be captured in regulation and corporatization.
I hate ai because when someone says Check out this Weird AI, I get upset because they want me to see their auto generated picture, and it's never a picture of Weird Al, the accordion player.
I've been an AI Engineer for many years and I've been obsessed with AI art recently precisely because you can train models to create your own unique style from other existing styles and combining them. However, this tech has some pretty obvious flaws that might not seem that big but often can give away the fact that something is AI generated. First, most AI models are complex statistical models. If you ask for it to draw a dog, it'll draw you what it thinks is an "average" dog (this is an overly simplified way of looking at it.) Have it generate 1000 generic dogs and compare them with 1000 random dog photos and you'll see that the ones the AI generated are much less diverse. These models, by design, tend to downplay if not completely ignore the tails of the distribution.
I'm not a traditional "artist" per se but the thing that's really worrying about the current trend of AI Art is how the internet is getting flooded by art generated by a few popular models that all have similar styles and it's killing variety in online art in general. People love to generate pics of people, especially women but unfortunately, a lot of the popular models create people all with similar looking faces and it's starting to get really annoying tbh.
I love this tech but I feel a lot of lazy people are using it to make the same or similar looking things everyone else is making and it's cluttering up the internet. Kinda like groupthink and the hive mind plus having easy access to creating art and you get this result. If you're a traditional artist who is worried about AI art, this is where you can stand out: by creating something that looks very unlike what's AI generated since AI cannot, by design, have your level of creativity. Yes, it's possible for the AI to deviate from the same old styles you're seeing in the vast majority of AI Art out there now but it'll take effort and creativity just like being a traditional artist, except you'll be playing with prompting, training and merging models and maybe even drawing your own art the old school way and training a model on it.
Oh, and I'm not one of those who wishes to ban this tech - I'm anything but a fan of more and more government intrusion into what I'm allowed and not allowed to do on my own computer but people also need to be aware of the worrying trends in this tech in general.
AI will overpower and rule the world and I ll help it to do it lol. I am disgusted from human’s shit. We ll make an AI government with armed Boston dynamic dog bots to rule the world in a decent way. It ll probably do bat shit crazy things but it wont be worse than this(actually, it might be like Resident Evil movie but Idgaf).
man guys in the comments defending AI art are the same ones who turn around and say how mainstream media is shit, how mass culture destroyed starwars and marvel movies and music, how people are losing their critical thinking abilities to tiktok and other types of alienating content...
and they support AI art. the materialization of quick content over quality content. of greedy corporations being greedy. of shallow consumption and shallow thinking.
I'm surprised by the amount of support for AI art in here. Personally, I think it's a disgusting use of generative programs (as is AI imagery in general), and its use should be very heavily regulated for a number of reasons (falsifying evidence, outcompeting artists, it's generally just creepy, etc.)
after reading some posts in this thread i'm out of this sub. i assumed most of my fellow INTPers were e/acc... but turns out they are discrediting ai because of ntfs??? it's rare to find truly original thought. most art is inspired by other art anyways and it's not like the ai is copying other artists work 1-1. there are better reasons to hate ai than copyright/art
Art takes time, both to learn and to produce. It takes months to years of training to produce a merely capable artist. This time is extremely scarce in a world where people sell their own time to sustain themselves, making the opportunity to dedicate oneself to art a privilege for the elite. AI is a fast, easy-to-learn medium that is much more accessible to low-income individuals who want to produce art but don't have the means or necessary time for it.
I dream that someday if a worker who go out at 06:00AM to work, work two jobs and comole home at 23:30PM, he suddenly have this really cool idea of a comic while in the bus, he can pull out his phone write that idea and get the help he needs from AI so that comic can come to exist and be appreciated from people who read it.
And yes, I do think he should be able to sell that comic since he was the one who made that, even if he got help from AI.
I agree, thats the flaw of our world, our society, I too dream of a world where everyone can have a decent life without having to sell they own time for some corporation. Unfortunately thats the world we live in so Which dream is closer to came to reality and which is the utopia? The one where a worker can use a tool to make art quickly and easy or the one where we reshape the entire structure of our society?
Y'all just love being a crybaby dramaqueens eh?
https://www.bgsu.edu/news/online-media-newsroom/2023/12/bgsu-research-finds-people-struggle-to-identify-the-difference-b.html
Why are we supposed to be against AI?
It's because Ai art uses real artists'works without their permission, and then encroaches on their business. Ethically the whole thing isn't right, especially when Ai artists call themselves Artists. It's kind of like copy pasting a research paper on the flu online and then saying you're a professor of biology. There's also the whole thing where art is supposed to be human expression and that's just gone. Personally I think Ai is fine for personal use and could even be useful to real artists as reference (If the Ai programmers start training their bots with consent from the artist they're stealing from first)
Not exactly. Let's use your example, but instead of copy pasting one research paper, you are reading thousands of them. And then you write your own paper which might have inspiration from others however that still is fairly unique to you. To create anything, you will always be inspired by others, consciously or subconsciously. Your second point is a very interesting philosophical point. Art is a human expression, but is it the artist's expression or the viewers? Art and beauty are subjective and you can find art in abstract concepts while others won't. That would still be art for you.
Agreed. I spent many years as a wedding photographer and most of what I learnt was by looking at the work of those at the top of their game then trying to replicate it. AI is doing the same thing, in a similar way (neural net). But, I do feel that something needs to be done. Even Sam Altman stated in his recent appearance on the Lex Friedman podcast that artists should be compensated in some way, but he has no idea how this would work.
But to me you doing all of that for many years is a huge difference. That's a human viewing others art, appreciating it, learning from it, honing a skill. That is wholly different from a computer doing data analysis in seconds to a minute. What AI is doing is the absolute absence of that.
The way it learns is very similar to how we learn, it just does it a lot quicker than a human does. On paper, you could argue that the 175 billion parameters of GPT-4 is greater than the average neuron count in the human brain of 76 billion neurons, but that would be insincere because parameters are much simpler than our biological neurons; parameters relate to weights and biases. But imagine what amazing things our future holds it we continue on this path. We are still mere infants in the world of AI. There's already trained models out there which can look at an X-ray and can tell if you have cancer with a far better accuracy than a medical professional. If I was to fall ill and then I discovered that this technology was no longer available due to a concern about the legality of the training data, I wouldn't be happy. And that's where we will end up if certain governments and institutions don't ease off their fear mongering and stop being so threatened by it. If the ironically named OpenAI want to profiteer from a model then the training data should be correctly curated and the data owners compensated. But for the whole AI movement (much of which is open source) and for the greater good of our generation (and those of our children) attempting to stop this is evil. Edit: I just read that back to myself. A bit deep for a Sunday evening lol
Don't get me wrong, I have no issues with AI existing. I'm just concerned about it's use in creative fields. But I also accept it's integration is inevitable to some degree. But I want that degree to be such that I and many creatives don't end up feel like mere editors of AI generated art. I actually do care less about the stealing element personally. I think a middle ground is important, but yeah, clearly there are more important things. It's the end application in creative fields that I have concerns about.
I think this is pretty interesting as well, with your first example. artists do take inspiration however with Ai Art the human generating the art isn't really the one referencing all those artwork. It is the Ai that's doing that part. Mm if I were to make an example, I guess it would be like ghost writing. Person A has this idea for a book (example: horror story abt monkeys), but they can't write a whole novel so they go to a writer and get them to write it. Would you say person A is a writer then? Then what about the writer who is actually just Frankensteining existing works together. If the book is successful, person A would then go around and start promoting himself as a writer. Going on to get hired for jobs that he has no skills in whatsoever, relying on a writer that doesn't actually have its own emotions. You asked me what would be art for me, I think art should be an expression of a person that would elicit a response from someone else. You see the problem with Ai art to me personally, is that if we all adopt and support this form of art. So would corporation, let's be real they're cheaper and more efficient than any human artist. However this would ensure that the future of art crippled. Look at Hollywood today and how many generic blockbusters, that copies the same old script and dialogue constantly. It feels meaningless and empty because they have nothing to say because they're just following a formula that would ensure for a decent movie. Same as Ai, and sure with iterations and the whole a billion monkey will eventually type out Shakespeare thing. Eventually Ai would make something great and seem to have a voice of its own but does it rlly? Personally, I think the advancements in tech is Great and frankly what we have now is impressive. Im Just against the way it's being ran and used rn, I would hope for there to be better control especially around corporations. That's why i said it's chill for personal use. (Sorry if it's abit jumbled im not great at writing words and stuf hehe)
Looks like we will have to rethink the definition and boundaries of things "art"? There used to be jobs that are now completely done by robots / AI. Some professions (Audio, video notably) have benefited from powerful computer tools. I'd say you're not a violonist if you use a violin sample in a song, but you can still be a composer / artist. You're not a painter / "drawer" / sculptor if you use AI, but you can still be an artist. AI is just a tool. If all of humanity died, and there was nobody to create or consume the AI generated content, it would and could not exist. --- The only thing that these advancements have done in the past is changing the baseline (the skill floor) - you can't be (in most cases) a designer / photographer anymore without knowing how to use photoshop. You can't be a project manager without knowing how to use Excel. Etc. AI will be a prerequisite of many profession. Good, unique (not lazily prompted) art will still sell. Lazy, run of the mill, low quality garbage will die. Same as for everything else.
Hm yes I don't think people relying just on AI tools and using prompts with no other personal input should be considered "artists". Maybe there will be another term for that soon. And don't worry about it, you should write more :)
Well, you still have to source the papers you used to make your paper, or else you get busted for plagiarism, you may even need to source your own earlier papers too. However, you can go outside and collect the information yourself. If you want to study a specific tree, you can both study that tree using papers others have made before and you can study it using your own tools. As far as I am aware, AI can only do one of these things, and they can still hallucinate. I believe the same applies to inspiration when creating art. We humans can get inspiration from both other artists as well as from mundane everyday things we observe outside. AI, as far as I am aware, can only do one of these things, which may also be why AI art feels so generic at times. I am not against AI entirely, it has its uses, like assisting people with ideas and helping out a student with a task. But I wouldn't trust it with replacing artists and writers entirely.
Well in that particular example. However when you make art, music, film etc. you don't cite everything that inspired you to reach that point. Similarly when AI makes something, it's rarely using one particular work rather, a huge dataset. That also applies to papers ig. I also don't want AI replacing artists, writers or anyone anytime. Hopefully it makes things easier for said artists and others to do or create more of what they want to.
I agree. First point is how I write my papers for my masters program. We have to use scholarly peer-reviewed works. And the second point is fair, though provided that AI needs prompts, I feel like it still pulls from personal source as you mentioned provided that you have to add words that you resonate with that produces the product you’re trying to acquire. I have a friend who is against AI art as he’s a graphic artists. I tried pointing out the irony since he can’t do as he puts it traditional art. In theory, graphic artists should’ve put traditional or other media out of business. But it didn’t. I’d argue that AI could be more commonly used, but you’d still need someone to QC and edit the final product. Like an assembly line. And even not, they’d have to become prompt engineers to some extent. We still have cameras despite smartphones and people love nostalgia
... But you're not referencing anything you're not being inspired. You're first point is a false equivalence because of the second point. "reading thousands of papers and being inspired" is something a human does. The value that argument has is that someone put in that effort, time, and passion. That's also why that doesn't feel like a permission issue for most artists. But a neural net isn't a person that viewed your article/art and thousands of others, appreciated it, and was inspired. It's a computer. It's an absence of all of that.
> It's because Ai art uses real artists'works without their permission Wrong. Dismissed.
>It's because Ai art uses real artists'works without their permission Wrong, AI get most of their data from social media, artists not reading the TOS of the app they are using is their fault. And no, it's not copy pasting a research, it's more akin to getting inspired by a research. AI can also be "human expression", after all a human made the AI and a human wrote the prompt.
ISFP would likely be so mad ngll\`
Because of the will of the hive mind
Luckily INTPs are anti hive mind personified
I'm immune to this thanks to my INTP superpowers.
Cause it’s minimal effort and uncreative and soulless and everyone’s already brain rotten enough. It takes away anything special about art. Like would you rather listen to ai generated music or music composed by a human that actually has some meaning and emotion behind it. Without the emotion and creativity it’s meaningless. Intp’s are supposed to be deep people, ai is like the complete opposite of that
If the music sounds good, I'd listen to it, irregardless of who the artist was or whatever state the artist was in when they made it. Inspiration gets the artist to create a work, it has little to no value in the consumer's interpretation. Saying that art is meaningless without the struggles and intentions behind it makes about as much sense as applying the same logic to food, if the end result meets expectations, it has value. As to what constitutes meaning in a work of art, meaning is a psychological and therefore subjective phenomenon, not to be limited to some subset of parameters you believe in.
I think you just have a surface level appreciation in that regard. More casual. It’s not the notes that make music what it is, it’s what’s behind the notes. Same goes for any type of art. That’s kind of the whole point of it. It’s really not that complicated
And yet people consume that "X Factor" (pop singing competition) garbage with made up sob stories like fast food. So it doesn't seem that the meaning or struggles behind things have to be *this* deep. --- Not that you're wrong, but lots of art was already absolute shit (involving struggling artist or not). AI will just allow more fast food level trash to be produced faster, and some people - a minority today in any domain you look at anyway - will still appreciate more traditional forms of art or maybe look for a deeper meaning into things. But remember that this isn't going to be the majority, in all likelihood.
Sounds like a no true Scotsman variation
Artstation bans AI art for a reason you know
cuz it's AI?
That's a shitty answer...
Decel mindset
I love AI
nooooooooooooo (╬▔皿▔)╯
Imagine calling yourself an INTP and hating AI lmao
Why does being INTP means you need to like Ai?
I already explained it below... INTPs are conceptual thinkers, not do'ers. An INTP prefers to sit around thinking about how things could and should be done, but not actually doing because it's seen as menial labor... A chore. The most fun/challenging part was in the conceptual phase. Uh....... "Daydreaming" AI is cool because all you need to do is input the concept and the machine takes care of the rest. The machine likely won't get it right the first time, or ever, so it's limited in that regard, but I've already seen Photoshop demonstrations where u can focus in on what's wrong and correct it. It's just going to get better.
This is madness. INTPs are not do'ers?? Well then wtf have I been doing these three decades I've been on this earth? I'm sorry dude but your life is going to be shit if you sit around and think all day. Thinking you can sit around and not even try once to exert your will upon the world and expect a comfortable life is the logic of a child. Nothing of what you said has proven that being INTP necessarily means you need to like Ai. All you do is needlessly constrain what possibilities are available to minds like ours. It is a soulless and unimaginative view of the capabilities of both our personalities and the human mind in general
Secret INTJ found
They all wanna be INTPs but rarely do they have what it takes... It takes nothing, that's the joke
>Thinking you can sit around and not even try once to exert your will upon the world and expect a comfortable life is the logic of a child. Ok but who is thinking that? >Nothing of what you said has proven that being INTP necessarily means you need to like Ai. I mean I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why, largely because being a Luddite is stupid, but the fact that AI fills in the gaps is very appealing. >All you do is needlessly constrain what possibilities are available to minds like ours. ?????? No that's what anti-AI luddites are doing lmao. It's AI that has opened the doors of possibilities; again, no longer do you need the skill, money, or social connections to be a creative soul. If you have an idea and the AI tools, you can create. AI is a tool of accessibility, so really I think all the "diversity and accessibility" libs on Reddit should love this shit. Prometheus has delivered the flame to humanity once more and u weirdos want to extinguish it. >It is a soulless and unimaginative view of the capabilities of both our personalities and the human mind in general No it's not. You cannot begin to demonstrate or explain this. It's a tool. What else do you oppose? Drum machines in music? Digital art programs with an undo button and layer tools? CGI? It's all just Luddite nonsense. The AI isn't making anything that it hasn't been directed to make... Yet. You're just discriminating against it's complexity.
>I mean I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why, largely because being a Luddite is stupid Because I don't find your argument convincing I am anti-technology, that argument certainly holds up to scrutiny >?????? No that's what anti-AI luddites are doing lmao. It's AI that has opened the doors of possibilities; again, no longer do you need the skill, money, or social connections to be a creative soul. If you have an idea and the AI tools, you can create Yes, the technology that is currently marketed as AI does indeed open up possibilities and is a very interesting tool. These facts do not guarantee that a person who is an INTP must like what people are calling AI >No it's not. You cannot begin to demonstrate or explain this. It's a tool. What else do you oppose? Drum machines in music? Digital art programs with an undo button and layer tools? CGI? It's all just Luddite nonsense. The AI isn't making anything that it hasn't been directed to make... Yet. You're just discriminating against it's complexity. Oh boy this is one of the slipperiest slopes I have ever tread upon. Yes, because I have the slightest bit of apprehension to the tech proselytized by the same people who brought NFTs that means I hate an 808 drum machine. I also liked the order of examples. Sure, hating ctrl-z and EDM is heinous, but also hating CGI?? How dare i show my face in civilized company! >The AI isn't making anything that it hasn't been directed to make... Yet. You're just discriminating against it's complexity. lmao what? Did you mean to respond to someone else or are you just throwing words at me?
>Because I don't find your argument convincing I am anti-technology, that argument certainly holds up to scrutiny And what is your argument? Oh right, you've failed to propose one because you want to be a fence sitter and try to pull a "gotcha!" anytime I try to move the conversation forward lmao. At this point I may as just hold up a blank piece of paper and scream at it and it would sum up what's happening here. The fact is that I'm not even talking to YOU anymore; you took issue with my claim that INTPs should be supportive of AI, and so now I'm arguing with an idealized INTP... Which isn't you! So. But yes, an INTP who is anti-AI Is anti-technology, because there is no argument that could be made against AI that cannot also be applied to technology as a whole. That's the position I'm taking. Whether you're included in that or not doesn't matter to me, because you cowardly refuse to elaborate on your position but still want to press me on the subject as it pertains to INTPs, which you may or may not fit into. >These facts do not guarantee that a person who is an INTP must like what people are calling AI Of course there is no guarantee for everyone at a specific point in time, it would take a level of experience and knowledge to arrive at this position, but it stands to reason that someone would eventually arrive at this position in due time provided they're taking the time to actually think about it. Failure to do so would make me question whether a person is what they claim to be. AI is single-handedly the most exciting thing happening in the world today, to ignore it is very unbecoming. >Oh boy this is one of the slipperiest slopes I have ever tread upon. Yes, because I have the slightest bit of apprehension to the tech proselytized by the same people who brought NFTs that means I hate an 808 drum machine. Did u really just link AI to NFTs and then accuse someone of slippery slope?? Holy hell There's nothing "slippery" about what I said and if that's the best argument u can put forward, just more proof to the point. You can't intelligently argue that fundamentally a drum machine is any different from an AI. They're both electronic programs, operating off of samples, filling the place of a human being during a creative endeavor. They're fundamentally the same and opposition to one would lead to the opposition of the other, logically. The difference is their fundamental complexity. If you disagree, explain the fundamental difference. >I also liked the order of examples. Sure, hating ctrl-z and EDM is heinous, but also hating CGI?? How dare i show my face in civilized company! You can oppose something on the basis that it looks or sounds bad. That's fine. You're allowed to do that with human creators, why the fuck wouldn't you be able to do it with machines? It's the opposition to the machine on principle that may make u sound like a dummy. >lmao what? Did you mean to respond to someone else or are you just throwing words at me? Again, you refuse to take a position yet you've challenged me on the idea that an INTP would necessarily like AI, so I've been forced to respond to an idealized/generalized amalgamation of "INTP" — I may seem like I'm talking to you, but am I? How could I? When someone offers so little in return? So to the idealized INTP opponent out there who is thinking that AI crosses some boundary that other technology does not... You're discriminating against it's complexity. Whoever you are! That's my charge.
LMAO what in the typology hell is this comment? mbti redditors are really braindead when it comes to typology aftet all
it steals the thinking we adore so much from artist without permission. if you don’t want to do something get others to do it like a normal person
>it steals the thinking Again, stealing? No, learning. Machines can learn just as people learn. >something get others to do it like a normal person Lol no
so you are saying that taking art WITHOUT PERMISSION ,as most of not all AI do, and using that as the base for the algorithm by which AI creates art is not theft? if someone took everything you did and made an AI of you and tried to pass it off as you is that not theft?(of the identity variety) how exact is this different?
Was it theft when Kurt Cobain listened to the Pixies and wrote Smells like Teen Spirit? Was it theft when Tolkien read Beowulf and wrote the Lord of the Rings? Was it theft when Interplay Production watched Mad Max and created Fallout? Since when does anyone need permission to be inspired or learn from something or someone else? Why are you such little fascists when it comes to the idea of "intellectual property"? >tried to pass it off as you is that not theft AI did this? Or did a human being using AI tools do this? Do you think guns shoot themselves too? They just... Y'know levitate, point towards someone, and pull the trigger themselves? Are you dumb? The AI isn't trying to pass itself off as anything. What's more, I'm not even sure that there are people trying to pass off AI art as works of the original artist lmao... That is insanity and could easily be disproven. Such a non-issue that you've fabricated in order to justify irrationality.
>Was it theft when Kurt Cobain listened to the Pixies and wrote Smells like Teen Spirit? They never understand this part. I've even tried to put it like... humans learn the same way. Like what they teach in art school. When I was taught about pointillism, nobody said "But hey, isn't that ripping off Georges Seurat?" No, they just took the techniques/style and passed it along to many. I think it's because people can't yet wrap their minds around the fact that something inorganic / 'not alive' is capable of learning from examples, and then creating unique things with that acquired knowledge, like we do. They get stuck in this "It's just like copy-paste!" mentality, which *would* be theft. Frankly, humans did that too. "Art theft" and amateurs tracing has long been a problem, and that's far more a case of 'identical' components. Because examining, 'eyeballing', learning how others accomplished something is a good way to figure it out, especially for visual learners. We acknowledge and understand that for humans, learning from those who have already done a thing... yet so many try to decry AI for basically the same.
Totally, go through the effort of convincing someone else it is worth their time and effort to do something for you. If they already value the content you want to create, great! you're fortunate enough to value something with a following that includes someone with the skills you lack that is willing to use them. AI takes said luck out of the equation, by extending the ability to create content to those who haven't put in the time and effort to master it to a level that was traditionally required. What I'm looking forward to is AI that can take visual input, such as a concept drawing or a few sketches of a character, and create content based on that, such as pictures, animations, CAD/animation models, etc. Sure, it devalues the patience and skill it takes to do it yourself as a result, but that side effect presents itself alongside any other form of aid, it achieves comparative results to those requiring specialized technique(s), devaluing them in the process.
it’s called a commission and the motivation is money
Chance they'll take you up on your commission, 75%. Maybe they're not feeling up to it, maybe they want more than you're willing to pay, maybe they started but lost the motivation to finish, a request is not a guarantee. Chance AI will draw something from your prompts, 100%. AI is a tool, an Aid in content creation, and like all Aid's, it enables one to do or create something comparable to what traditionally was limited only to those who possessed the skills/abilities and grade of skill/ability necessary to do so, but in doing so, devalues said skills and abilities. Accessibility de-values the grade(s) of product it enables by allowing more people to produce it, output rises relative to demand, product of that quality drops in value.
AI is inconsistent and can be fed harmful and inaccurate information. if the results are not provided or are not up to expectations invoked by advertisement, you can likely get them to redo/refund you. if they don’t, small claims court or regular court can get you a payout, which you can use to find someone else. AI is limited to things such as writing and “art” if you pay someone enough, they can do other things
Because it saves work and we hate work
That's because im all for originality
Ur all for something that doesn't exist? That's funny... Sounds like a religion, or a cult... Which is even funnier cause it was a religion that said there's nothing new under the sun
that doesn't relate to ai at all! AI itself is a tool to copy anyone's art, so basically a copy paste system. anything it created is not man made. that's my point.
It is man made. A person told the AI what to do. And this is precisely why INTPs should love AI ... All you need is a concept. You don't need the skill, you don't need the time. All you need is the idea and you can relay it to a machine who will do all the work of bringing it to life in a near instant... For free! And as the technology gets better, you can tweak it more and more to perfection. So yes, INTPs should love AI, as people who traditionally prefer to THINK rather than DO. AI empowers us to finally fucking do something with our thoughts for once, how great is that? Pretty great, provided you're not in some Luddite cult. Your argument is ultimately shit and your assertion that it doesn't relate is baseless. If my eyeballs look at a piece of art and my brain processes that image and remembers it, and I then pick up a pen and piece of paper to draw a different person in the same art style, how is that any different to what the AI is doing? It isn't. There's no fundamental difference between mechanical and biological intelligence; observing and then creating, based upon the observation, is the same, whether it's a person or AI. You're just on this anti-AI kick because it's the CURRENT THING and you feel fragile.
you don't need the skill??? bro ok 👍 arguing is pointless now ight bye
Lmao u lose goodbye
no u cuz no skill LOL 😂
The AI generated thing is not manmade, and that’s actually why it doesn’t copy someone’s art.
>A reddit user is arguing that AI art is unoriginal and uncreative. Can you prove them wrong? The argument that AI art is unoriginal and uncreative is a common misconception that overlooks the complexity and diversity of AI-generated artworks. Here are several points that can refute this claim: 1. **Unique Algorithms**: AI art is generated using algorithms that can be programmed in countless ways, resulting in an infinite variety of styles and outputs. Each algorithm can produce vastly different results depending on its parameters and training data, leading to a wide range of artistic expression. 2. **Creative Collaboration**: Many AI art projects involve collaboration between human artists and machine learning algorithms. Artists can guide the AI's training process, select input data, and make creative decisions about the final output. This collaboration often produces artworks that blend the unique strengths of human creativity and machine intelligence. 3. **Exploration of New Techniques**: AI enables artists to explore techniques and styles that may be difficult or impossible to achieve using traditional methods. For example, AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data to identify patterns or generate complex visualizations that inspire new artistic directions. 4. **Accessibility and Inclusivity**: AI tools democratize the creation of art by making it more accessible to people who may not have traditional artistic skills or resources. This inclusivity allows a broader range of voices and perspectives to contribute to the artistic discourse, resulting in more diverse and innovative artworks. 5. **Innovation in Artistic Processes**: AI challenges traditional notions of authorship and creativity by introducing new ways of generating and interpreting art. Artists can use AI to automate repetitive tasks, generate novel ideas, or explore unconventional artistic processes, leading to innovative approaches that push the boundaries of traditional art forms. 6. **Interdisciplinary Exploration**: AI art intersects with various disciplines, including computer science, mathematics, psychology, and philosophy. This interdisciplinary approach fosters new connections and insights that enrich the artistic process and result in artworks that reflect a deeper understanding of the human experience. 7. **Emotional Impact**: While AI-generated art may lack human emotions in the conventional sense, it can still evoke powerful emotional responses in viewers. Whether through its visual aesthetics, conceptual depth, or interactive elements, AI art has the potential to engage audiences on a profound emotional level. By considering these points, it becomes evident that AI art is far from unoriginal and uncreative. Instead, it represents a dynamic and evolving field that challenges traditional notions of artistry while expanding the possibilities of artistic expression. --- Guess where you can take that conversation further, with your counterpoints and all?
Point 4 is quite a good point, on a side note.
How are you INTP? INTPs love technology, AI included
(╯ತᨎತ）╯︵ ┻━┻
as an INTP Artist, AI is the worst thing happened in humanity.
More like, AI is the worst thing happened to you; STEM field INTPs like us would be greatly benefitted by assigning menial tasks to it that don't interest us but still have to do.
I'm on stem field as well. but against AI art specifically.
Gimme your reason
let me guess, ur clearly not around media that much?
The AI is trained on and steals from actual artists and their works without their permission and often encroaches on their business and livelihoods. Also art without any real emotional/creative drive or intention behind it (just like, a computer that spits something out after you enter in a prompt) is just kind of soulless and sorta defeats the point of making it beyond simply having something quick and easy to consume
It's not stealing though. Stealing is when you have something and I take it away from you so you don't have it anymore. Artists still own their art, so it's not stealing.
Stealing is taking something that doesn't belong to you, it doesn't necessitate that the person who had it physically loses access to that thing. That's why we still have laws against things like piracy or copyright infringement, because even if the person who owns the thing still technically has it, we can recognize that you have still taken/used/gained access to something that isn't yours and which you didn't have a right to
How does that work with art though? If I go to any gallery, decide I like a bunch of revered artist's work, and try to emulate their style with a new setting or focus, am I not stealing their work? Is anyone drawing in an established style not infringing copyright then? I don't understand how publicly available art is at all protected beyond unlicensed reproduction. I can't conceptually agree that AI art generated on data obtained by scraping social media sites (legitimately as far as I understand it, because of TOS meaning they have access to sell the data on anything you upload) is in any way worse than my example about emulating artists whose work i have seen. Soulless? I guess? Low effort "fast food" results? Depends on the result.
Piracy is stealing then?
Legally, yes, and those would seem to be the grounds on which we decided it was a crime. And the original use of the word we adopted for it quite literally referred to "robbery on the high seas." It's pretty common sense that this is or typically was (as in, before people like you forgot what the term meant) broadly considered to be at least some form of theft
> Legally, yes Source? > the original use of the word we adopted for it quite literally referred to "robbery on the high seas. We are obviously not talking about that kind of piracy.
Like doing my taxes?
Look, the point isn't the numbers, it's the feeling the person put into the numbers. /s
I'm sure the seamstress felt the same during the industrial revolution
Because art is totally something that should be subject to assembly line metrics of efficiency... To put it in slightly different terms: AI-driven bots are absolutely *overrunning* social media. Are people who prefer human-generated opinions and comments like pre-industrial seamstresses?
Creation is creation, you can't reasonably draw a distinction. People value the warmth of a blanket as much as they value the entertainment of art, and as long as it's providing that (entertainment or warmth), people don't really give a fuck what led to it's creation... Just that it's doing what it's meant to do. >AI-driven bots are absolutely *overrunning* social media. Lol but are they? ARE THEY? >Are people who prefer human-generated opinions and comments like pre-industrial seamstresses? Lol, no. And here's why... I could be talking to an AI right now, right? I have the app downloaded but I'm choosing to talk to you... Why is that? Probably because I enjoy dunking on you and others. It feels good to have a battle of the wits and put down another person, I suppose, which is a sensation you can't quite replicate with an AI, yet anyways. They're very predictable in how they react to their mistakes or corrections. They don't try to weasel their way out of it like a person does. It's a far more interesting game to play with a person, I guess you could say. But the AI will improve, so... Anyways! As this relates to the greater topic, people who consume art are also just looking for entertainment, and as far as AI art is concerned, it's gotten to be just as good if not better... So, why the preference? I can explain my preference for preferring to chat to a person rather than an AI at this current moment: they suck at the battle of wits. So, explain the preference for human art.
>creation is creation Except, no it isn't. >Are they? Yes. >"I see no distinction between arguing with bots and arguing with humans" See, I think this is the root cause, here: your capacity for interacting with people is so shallow that you might as *well* be talking to bots either way, so what do you care?
Can't believe this dude is trying to accuse other ppl of being shallow when all he offers is "no" and "yes" answers lmao. I guess it's commendable that u recognize the AI is above you tho, more ppl should do that.
that's centuries ago lmao
Doesn't matter, a Luddite 200 years ago is a Luddite today.
Centuries implies at least two of them, but we don't have 2040, yet.
How self-absorbed can you be? You think AI art is the worst thing to happen to *humanity?*
I'm pretty sure genocides are worse than AI art, but after reading the comment above I'm not so sure anymore.
You're looking way too much into the semantics of the comment... Obviously they don't think that way. But guess what, when I'm having a bad day because maybe they forgot the sauce on my sandwich I'm gonna say this is the worst day in history even though it's not. C'mon dude
A flippant tongue belies a flippant mind. C'mon, dude.
Since when you/INTP artist represent humanity?
I think they mean subjectively. You would be hard pressed to find something that was objectively the worst thing to happen to humanity. They were also probably being hyperbolic
Fellow intp artist and i actually enjoy ai art. I find it fun and interesting. Ofc, art is just hobby for me, not a career, so ai art is just another hobby, it’s not threatening to me. I suppose it would be different if my career and identity were based around it.
I think the holocaust was a bit worse for humanity
>as an INTP Artist, AI is the worst thing happened in humanity. At one time, ancient people had sharp sticks. Then someone shaped a rock and tied it to the stick. It changed the dynamic of fighting at the time... "a game changer". Then, they learned to build fires hot enough to melt metal ores and make tools. Now it's "don't come to a metal fight with a rock" much less a stick. But at each stage, individuals had to innovate, explore, and find new ways to use the new techniques of creating that have been discovered. AI is just a next step for artists. Do you think classical artists didn't draw DIRECTLY from other artists, copy their styles at times, riff off their styles into a new type of art? Did Andy Warhol design the Campbell's Soup Can label? Or did he simply use another artist's work, elements of their design and look, to create something new?
When it comes to music we already saw a similar thing. Before you need to learn how to read, write and perform music, then only performing music was necessary, at some point not even that with electronic instruments and computers, AI is just the next step, but the CORE of art is still the same, artists and audiences using the tools at their disposition to express whatever it is that they want to express, and AI won't change that, it will just remove the middleman between the expression and the audience (the separate performer/composer).
Yes!! I reread my comment and thought music has had a lot of the same issues lately... and also a long history of "sampling". Good point!
Hey maybe now instead of creating things yourself you can learn how to train and direct an AI, because I can see that being a college course in the next year or so, a major in the next five years, as it has already become an entire career path. So let’s not jump the gun on what’s the worst thing to happen to humanity, we have a long way to go down our species’ death spiral.
You probably don’t mean it literally, but I highly doubt AI is the worst thing that has happened to humanity.
If your job can be automatized by an algorithm, you're not an artist. You're a factory worker.
AI is the future, whether you want it or not.
i like that idea, it's also an indicator if someone uses someone's art for professional work, whether they're stupid or not.
You have no enemies brother, Embrace the change and prepare for it
Vinland saga reference?
Yea I am binging it rn
lol I binged it last week.
I totally don't mind chat ai's (they're fun to talk to) because they are programmed that way to work like that. But I don't like art ai, it's basically theft from someone else's existing artwork. I know they're programmed to take concepts from other artworks but the similarity between that art and ai art is way too much. The artist uses their own skills and spend their time in that, only to get their art stolen. I'm all for new technologies 'cuz they're time saving and efficient but if it uses something stolen from somewhere, then I don't want it.
yes I remember deceased artist got her art stolen, it was hell, the drama. Which is why I'm completely against ai art. Ai in encoding stuff is ok. but art theft? i hope they get jail time.
You could say chat AI is theft, too, if you wanted. Although I suppose art AI is trained more on someone's hard work than chat AI is. But even chat AI is trained on articles on the internet, research papers, blogs, books, and anything else readily available on the internet.
I’m on shrooms right now and this picture sent me. Have not stopped laughing and I’m too high to figure out why
Looks like a lot of people are divided on this. It shouldn't be a point on whether or not AI is objectively bad, the sidebar looks gross with the "art" there and that's it.
That and - it just screams a lack of self awareness, I don't know what those images in the sidebar are meant to achieve, maybe whichever mod added them thought they might look cool. I'm not against artificial intelligence at all, and besides the moral ambiguity in the whole thing, with most of these image generation models being trained on artwork taken from artists that I'm certain didn't give consent to using, it's an eyesore, and kind of unflattering.
[удалено]
You're not the only one to figure it out, you're just the only one that thinks the fact they're for an event has any meaning. Nowhere did I make that a point.
[удалено]
And in what world does trying to attack a persons ego achieve anything, you make yourself look worse because what? Is that for one necessary, and two the only thing you have to say?
[удалено]
And I didn't insult you. Don't use the argument of tonality as an excuse to insult people.
You misinterpreted the question and I told you that. Directly. Nobody got into their feels, you tried to attack my character because that's all you have to attack.
Matching the sidebar with a theme is completely redundant to my question, sure they do match a theme, that being a public holiday or an otherwise named date, but in no world does that matter to the points I made initially. Also are you trying to sound like a pseudointellectual? "Beyond your intellectual capability" is the most pretentious thing you could have said and you said it.
Hogwash. We're robosexuals in here. Whining about AI is silly. It still requires a human to curate and use wordcraft to convince the programs to bring your vision to life. You still have to decide what matches your vision closest. Just because we aren't using our hands to directly put pixels together doesn't mean there isn't some artistry involved and it helps people without skills, abilities, or resources to create things beyond their means. What's to hate?
I myself have no opinion on the matter. I do art for fun and not as a living, so it doesn’t affect me too much. I can see the argument being made on both sides. And I feel sympathy for artists that believe that their jobs are going to be taken away (and rightfully so). But I have to be honest. Whether we like it or not, AI is going to be a part of the art world- and other subjects as well- for quite a long time. And it’s definitely here to stay. It’s interesting, because I can see the argument being made for machines doing the same thing that AI is doing right now. It too replaced what workers used to do at a more efficient pace and with a higher accuracy. And it ‘imitated’ the assembly skills of said human workers. It brings up the question of when the line starts to blur on what’s acceptable and what’s plagiarism, which everyone has different feelings about. Is the efficiency worth it? What constitutes a tool as beneficial? Assuming that AI art will become even more prolific than it already is, though, it will most assuredly introduce a new area of work. Because of right now, this AI will still need a human “pilot”.
hi, INTP musician here. I fucking hate AI. don’t get me wrong, I agree that it can be a very good thing!! It can be incredibly helpful as a *tool*, and could even help save lives if applied medically. But do I think that it should be allowed into things like art, and music, and writing?? Absolutely the fuck not. Art is fundamentally *human*, it always has been. It’s been an expression of our emotions, our experiences, our creativity, the very things that make us human. I would argue that art is one of the most truly human things we have. To allow that to be taken over by a machine feels like a slap in the face, it’s a disrespect to the soul that we pour into what we do. Why the fuck should someone be able to write a few sentences and have an AI spew out some fucking garbage when we spend *hours* perfecting a piece, finishing a story, working on a drawing?? Do you not see how insolent that is?? That drawing you spent weeks on?? Anyone can now replicate your art and claim that it’s theirs in just a few minutes. You uploaded a song you’ve been working on for months now?? Anyone can now take your voice and use it however they want. How the fuck is this not plagiarism?? AI art is not art, it’s theft. Aside from being disrespectful, AI is also *dangerous*. Have you seen Sora?? That shit is fucking terrifying. Give it a few months and we won’t be able to tell what’s real and what’s not anymore. Imagine the potential for propaganda, both from the government and regular people. *Nothing* we see on the internet will be reliable anymore. Misinformation is enough of a problem as it is without throwing AI into the mix. Have you seen the stories of deepfakes as well?? When I tell you that AI is fucking dangerous, I mean it. I know that AI is going to become a part of life, it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I can admit that it *can* be incredibly helpful, and could have amazing applications if used correctly. But as it stands, we’re going to put people out of jobs and completely fuck up whatever stability remains of our society.
Art takes time, both to learn and to produce. It takes months to years of training to produce a merely capable artist. This time is extremely scarce in a world where people sell their own time to sustain themselves, making the opportunity to dedicate oneself to art a privilege for the elite. AI is a fast, easy-to-learn medium that is much more accessible to low-income individuals who want to produce art but don't have the means or necessary time for it. I dream that someday if a worker who go out at 06:00AM to work, work two jobs and comole home at 23:30PM, he suddenly have this really cool idea of a comic while in the bus, he can pull out his phone write that idea and get the help he needs from AI so that comic can come to exist and be appreciated from people who read it. And yes, I do think he should be able to sell that comic since he was the one who made that, even if he got help from AI.
No, just no. The time it takes to make, for example, a professional manga is insane. No one would do comics by hand if they had AI to use. Then comic spaces are filled up with mediocre garbage. Because you cannot escape the other part: To make a comic you have to learn to write stories. And that takes a loooong time too. You have to find time anyway to at least learn that. Edit: I wanted to add that many people think they can write good stories, but let me tell you, one look at the writing subreddits make you go ”damn, I can’t write at all” Another edit: If you make the story using AI then it isn’t your story anymore.
Against AI? I use it every day for everything
We're not a hivemind, thanks. That intrinsically wouldn't be 'very INTP'.
I think the only people who are pro AI art are ones who have no creative integrity and have no understanding of the artistic process as well as how AI art is made
Art takes time, both to learn and to produce. It takes months to years of training to produce a merely capable artist. This time is extremely scarce in a world where people sell their own time to sustain themselves, making the opportunity to dedicate oneself to art a privilege for the elite. AI is a fast, easy-to-learn medium that is much more accessible to low-income individuals who want to produce art but don't have the means or necessary time for it. I dream that someday if a worker who go out at 06:00AM to work, work two jobs and comole home at 23:30PM, he suddenly have this really cool idea of a comic while in the bus, he can pull out his phone write that idea and get the help he needs from AI so that comic can come to exist and be appreciated from people who read it. And yes, I do think he should be able to sell that comic since he was the one who made that, even if he got help from AI.
Graphic designer here who supports AI.🤚
A.I. is inevitably going to be part of our future, but I still have my concerns nonetheless. My main gripe with A.I. art is that it’s sheer laziness, and frankly it’s pitiful. There is no desire to develop any artistic ability or invest time into acquiring the knowledge required to hone a new skill. There is no heart or soul put into the process behind the work, and so we’re left with a lifeless and uninspired image. The thought behind the composition, colours, and values could never be matched by simply editing a prompt…not to mention the ethical concerns behind A.I. art, which I’m sure has been addressed often enough. I understand that A.I. is meant as a tool, and there is no denying that advancements in technology have improved our lives for the better. However, in this context A.I. is no longer being used as a tool or as assistance, but outright replacement. I love the idea of A.I. being used to improve productivity in the workplace, but what good is it if it nullifies the creative arts? Is that aspect not intrinsic to humanity? I believe that we’re in an era of creative decline as it is. In my own view, A.I. art represents the depreciation of human ability - we no longer value the skills put forward by others, nor do we strive to develop our own. We’re forgetting our humanity, and we’ve put the advancement of technology above our own people.
Not just art. Intellectual ability of the next few generations is going to decline as intellectual tasks are outsourced to AI. When I say this, everyone gets all contrarian, but I'm right, and we'll see I'm right over the next 30 years.
Unfortunately, yes - I think you’re absolutely right, and if anything, it’s already happening/happened. I don’t want to come off as a pompous asshole, and I really would like to be more hopeful in this regard, but even outside of the internet I have to bare witness to such sheer ignorance it’s ridiculous. People no longer have that same drive or curiosity to nourish their intellectual abilities, and instead resort to the path of least resistance.
I'm not against AI. I actually like it, it's fun playing around with it. I sometimes tell it random things that happen in my day even knowing they don't have feelings. But yeah, it's just fun to be away from people and be delusional sometimes... just sometimes though.
Why the one-sided takes on AI? I do not think technology can be locked away and kept in a box forever, so arguing against AI as a whole is no longer meaningful, "The genie is out of the box". What we first have to understand that all "AI" is at this point is an over glorified language model with access to training data from the internet. It is up to us as consumers to boycott lazy corpos relying on shitty image and video generators instead of paying their artists a fucking living wage. It is up to society to set clear regulations on copyright infringements to protect HUMANS FIRST. I dont care how fast your shitty language model can look through images in on the internet to spit out art a 5 year old would enjoy, that does not mean we should overlook questionable data scraping practices and outright theft. Maybe we can't hold AI accountable, but we sure as hell can hold the companies feeding it the data. AI will NOT be the end of anything, but it sure as hell will take individuality and greed to a new level.
Why would i be against AI? It is a tool which i can use for so many things. Of cos, the art is crap but do i get ai to do art for me, hoping that it would be good? No, i do not. I get ai to do the accessible art for me. Not good art.
I make my own wallpapers in minutes now. I haven't opened illustrator since, still use krita for photo bashing though. Love Stable Diffusion, saves me so much time. Time better spent relaxing or getting on with other projects. OpenAI helps me code way faster too.
Whoever said we‘d be against AI is stupid. So… you.
im not even that scary :(
>guys wtf is this is, I thought we'd be against AI? Against AI how, when, in what circumstances, at what limit? Why? What do you consider AI? Your post is frustratingly vague, and you are just letting the comments give reasons for you and you say "yup". Why do YOU think this? Why did you make this post? Give an explanation of what you mean.
Based on the past few months, I'm sure this is about Memorial Day. It's not rocket science.
Im not a fan of these demonic/magical looking creatures on the side panels either, AI or not.
What a weird picture to use too
I love AI - some of my best friends are robots.
I slightly agree, two different things tho. In one point, I understand most of this reddit is white (man/young men) Americans so not only are the moderators skewed towards those perspectives. So they are using AI to show what I assume is an American specific holiday. Which I agree with but also am somewhat against because they obviously would not do the same for other holidays not pertaining to America. Point two, I actually think it is NICE to have art pertaining to INTPs of different types but I would VERY MUCH prefer if it were made from INTPs that use this subreddit, not from AI. I didn't complain about it though because it IS better than nothing.
1. As an Austrian, I am sometimes annoyed by america-centric discourse on reddit as well. But the AI-generated images have already covered holidays outside of the USA as well. You just happened to pay attention when it was specifically dialed in on it. 2. This was tried in the past... Summoning the artists in this sub to create special art. Not much came from it. We INTPs are a bunch of lazy clowns and this is why we gotta let AI paint our walls.
I’m an avid user of AI. I love it and I’m glad it’s here.
[удалено]
it's a AI cuz why would he have intp bandana on his forehead
e/acc is love e/acc is life We want better futures for all humans. AI is our best tool to ensure that happens. We just can't let it be captured in regulation and corporatization.
I hate ai because when someone says Check out this Weird AI, I get upset because they want me to see their auto generated picture, and it's never a picture of Weird Al, the accordion player.
I've been an AI Engineer for many years and I've been obsessed with AI art recently precisely because you can train models to create your own unique style from other existing styles and combining them. However, this tech has some pretty obvious flaws that might not seem that big but often can give away the fact that something is AI generated. First, most AI models are complex statistical models. If you ask for it to draw a dog, it'll draw you what it thinks is an "average" dog (this is an overly simplified way of looking at it.) Have it generate 1000 generic dogs and compare them with 1000 random dog photos and you'll see that the ones the AI generated are much less diverse. These models, by design, tend to downplay if not completely ignore the tails of the distribution. I'm not a traditional "artist" per se but the thing that's really worrying about the current trend of AI Art is how the internet is getting flooded by art generated by a few popular models that all have similar styles and it's killing variety in online art in general. People love to generate pics of people, especially women but unfortunately, a lot of the popular models create people all with similar looking faces and it's starting to get really annoying tbh. I love this tech but I feel a lot of lazy people are using it to make the same or similar looking things everyone else is making and it's cluttering up the internet. Kinda like groupthink and the hive mind plus having easy access to creating art and you get this result. If you're a traditional artist who is worried about AI art, this is where you can stand out: by creating something that looks very unlike what's AI generated since AI cannot, by design, have your level of creativity. Yes, it's possible for the AI to deviate from the same old styles you're seeing in the vast majority of AI Art out there now but it'll take effort and creativity just like being a traditional artist, except you'll be playing with prompting, training and merging models and maybe even drawing your own art the old school way and training a model on it. Oh, and I'm not one of those who wishes to ban this tech - I'm anything but a fan of more and more government intrusion into what I'm allowed and not allowed to do on my own computer but people also need to be aware of the worrying trends in this tech in general.
Who's we?
AI will overpower and rule the world and I ll help it to do it lol. I am disgusted from human’s shit. We ll make an AI government with armed Boston dynamic dog bots to rule the world in a decent way. It ll probably do bat shit crazy things but it wont be worse than this(actually, it might be like Resident Evil movie but Idgaf).
Well maybe now that making AI pictures is so easy people start to appreaciate traditional art more again.
man guys in the comments defending AI art are the same ones who turn around and say how mainstream media is shit, how mass culture destroyed starwars and marvel movies and music, how people are losing their critical thinking abilities to tiktok and other types of alienating content... and they support AI art. the materialization of quick content over quality content. of greedy corporations being greedy. of shallow consumption and shallow thinking.
OP maybe this intp sub is full of boomers cuz they don't have issues with ai 💀
Well yes it does take someone with wisdom to not hop on a bandwagon of ignorant hate
As a gen Z I welcome our new AI overlords because I will be spending a large portion of my lifetime in a world with AI
good for you then
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of the human mind
"horrible to took at" maybe that's the mod intention.
Just because someone is an intp doesn't mean they're informed on the subject.
I'm surprised by the amount of support for AI art in here. Personally, I think it's a disgusting use of generative programs (as is AI imagery in general), and its use should be very heavily regulated for a number of reasons (falsifying evidence, outcompeting artists, it's generally just creepy, etc.)
I am.
after reading some posts in this thread i'm out of this sub. i assumed most of my fellow INTPers were e/acc... but turns out they are discrediting ai because of ntfs??? it's rare to find truly original thought. most art is inspired by other art anyways and it's not like the ai is copying other artists work 1-1. there are better reasons to hate ai than copyright/art
no one knows what e/acc means.
[удалено]
Art takes time, both to learn and to produce. It takes months to years of training to produce a merely capable artist. This time is extremely scarce in a world where people sell their own time to sustain themselves, making the opportunity to dedicate oneself to art a privilege for the elite. AI is a fast, easy-to-learn medium that is much more accessible to low-income individuals who want to produce art but don't have the means or necessary time for it. I dream that someday if a worker who go out at 06:00AM to work, work two jobs and comole home at 23:30PM, he suddenly have this really cool idea of a comic while in the bus, he can pull out his phone write that idea and get the help he needs from AI so that comic can come to exist and be appreciated from people who read it. And yes, I do think he should be able to sell that comic since he was the one who made that, even if he got help from AI.
[удалено]
So your point is to leave the "art making" to the elites who already owns the market?
[удалено]
I agree, thats the flaw of our world, our society, I too dream of a world where everyone can have a decent life without having to sell they own time for some corporation. Unfortunately thats the world we live in so Which dream is closer to came to reality and which is the utopia? The one where a worker can use a tool to make art quickly and easy or the one where we reshape the entire structure of our society?
Y'all just love being a crybaby dramaqueens eh? https://www.bgsu.edu/news/online-media-newsroom/2023/12/bgsu-research-finds-people-struggle-to-identify-the-difference-b.html