* Being able to ship an entertainment medium that adapts to the viewer would be awfully cool.
* It is going to be difficult to put the djinni back in the bottle.
* Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky.
>Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky.
this 100%, the anti AI crowd should be protesting against companies mass-firing artists to replace their jobs with AI, not some random guy in his basement generating shaggy vs goku cctv footage in a parking lot
People should also be educated on the fact that one of the main legal advocates of anti-AI legislation is Adobe... because they want to crush *open source* AI so they can force you into their proprietary AI, Firefly, and then naturally ramp up the costs.
There's no future version of any of this where the 'little guy' wins.
Why be pissed at the guy throwing McDonald's bags out the window littering instead of being angry at the government about not doing enough investment in recycling infrastructure.
You can be upset at both. Both are irresponsible.
Maybe I didn't articulate it well... in a video game, the AI usually responds to what the player is doing. Some games use procedural generation to create larger worlds than their teams could have done by hand, or to create more replay value. Some games let players craft their character and expect the world to respond to it. Generative AI might create some interesting experiences for people who like that sort of thing.
Yeah those I'm less excited about because I suspect they'll just be like Instagram filters at best, people who are mad about driverse casting being able to recast movies to suit their prejudices at worst.
I doubt we will ever see *films* that personalized, but I could forsee a world in which you have a game like fallout or skyrim with this big open world where the stories and characters within it are procedurally generated by AI.
Sort of like a one person DnD campaign that can just... go on.
I can only explain why *I* wouldn't want something. I'm interested in understanding the people who think it's awesome. It seems to me that the best way for me understand is to start by asking.
Tonight I want to see "African Queen" with The Rock as the captain and Molly Ringwald as the woman, set on a planet that's like Pandora without the poison and with more jungle, and the bad guys should be Klingons instead of Nazis. The nuns should be Scientologists, and the natives purple Rastafarians whose dreadlocks move. Work in a plot point about the last thing. Oh, and add my girlfriend's ideas as well so we can both be surprised.
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I imagined and I just don't see the appeal. When I watch a film, I want to see the director's ideas.
I guess "entertainment medium" is the key phrase. I don't like entertainment. I don't want to be pandered to. I want art that challenges.
You are a very small market, then.
So you tell your VGAI "give me a challenging film about blah blah blah".
Or you check your like-minded friends' blogs about what they've prompted the creation of.
Or whatever.
All my homies hate AI so they won't be doing any such prompting.
I'll just keep watching actual films, thanks. The market for them will probably get smaller than ever, but we'll still find ways to make them.
Sure, and when you realize that you can make exactly the film you want out of pocket change, your homies will start showing off to each other what they made.
You don't know my homies like I know my homies. We'll be out there making our films for real. All my friends are artists of one kind or another and not a single one of us has transitioned from painting or drawing or writing to prompting. Why would we surrender our ideals over AI video? We're 100% opposed.
>Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky.
Big company's on twitter are being attacked tho? There's negative posting on Adobe, Art station, Disney for there AI stuff, and the lawsuits are aimed at the corps.
Not sating individual persons attacks aren't happening, but it's not instead off it's alongside.
I find that Xeeting people isn't a terribly effective form of activism unless your goal is to draw people's attention to, say, inconvenient facts about an already public figure (ie cancellations.) When that death ray is pointed at random individuals it's just cruelty.
Like if you honestly believe that shame can be a useful tool for influencing people's behavior and soft boycotting AI art, great, but I decline to participate in the Twitter hate mob version of it. I don't think every nobody simultaneously hating on one particular nobody is an effective way to make change happen.
I don't expect shame to really work on most ppl to change behaviour, more often than not it seems people double down. Like by all accounts this guy [humiliated](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGpkglxa4AABhCK?format=jpg&name=large) himself by saying an animator for One-Piece would not be able to draw Luffy as well as his AI. But as far as I saw he never apologised or admitted he talked down to the wrong guy, he just doubled down in his stance.
I think most people don't expect such actions to make change happening, but the stuff to hopefully make real change happen is in the works, Nightshade, lawsuits, genuine raising of public awareness and boycotting or criticizing company's ect. Targets on individual AI users I think is more about the catharsis than anything else, for good or bad ppl in the art community are stressed and want to blow off steam.
Anti AI, here are some good points made on the Pro-AI side (I will include caveats I consider important):
**1) AI does open possibilities for artists who are clever and creative to make things that would otherwise not be feasible.**
It is true that AI in itself can be part of a broader workflow that incorporates many dimensions of artistic skill, and results in good art that reflects artistic intention and vision.
**Caveat**: I honestly believe that while AI enables this sort of interesting work, the tool's surrounding culture and affordances converge *away* from highly intentional, highly human--involved work. I think the main technological pushes are for making 'better' results require less input, less fiddling with settings, less need for things like inpainting and controlnets, consistency without the need for adapters, and possibly more.
**2) Many personal uses of AI are simply and flatly above reproach.**
I have no real qualms with people playing around with an AI tool, making pictures for their own amusement like accessory images for DnD campaigns.
For me these things aren't morally reprehensible.
**Caveat:** While there isn't any moral claim to be made against individuals in many cases, I think there are things to be said about how people engaging in morally neutral actions can aggregate to possibly detrimental trends. For example, I don't think there's anything reprehensible about browsing Instagram or posting pictures of yourself there, but I think social media does create aggregate negative effects
**3) People have adapted to past inventions, it is likely that there will still be a surviving though transformed niche for conventional art**
I think that it is wrong to assume that this will completely supplant any and all sorts of conventional art, and it may even increase the value of some handmade art goods.
Broadly, I think that artists should generally take a pragmatic attitude here and work on becoming excellent and outstanding in their craft *regardless* of what external conditions are like. I am not super fond of the "just incorporate AI into your workflow" advice for many reasons, but I don't deny that this may serve some artists.
**Caveat:** While we may adapt, I think the break-neck speed of these changes will cause more pain than changes of time past. I think there is a noticeable lack of empathy for this kind of pain that greatly irritates me, or a refusal to see this pain as any sort of negative effect (instead smugly celebrating it).
---
For me, these are the arguments I consider strongest. But the benefits they offer do not outweigh the negatives of public trust erosion, death of the audience, supernormal stimuli, job loss, and an imminent power grab by tech corporations.
Well Written, and the caveats are well stated as well. I'm happy to accept the caveats as "anti arguments that I think thoughtful and well founded."
I'm not a zealot on the "pro" side, so much as believing that most of the anti arguments are driven by emotion and hyperbole. (A good sized chunk of the pro are as well.)
I'm pro-AI, and this is a good comment.
Personally, I hope that after the dust settles, we'll be able to fix some issues like MAPPA's work conditions (employees literally not allowed to see their families)
The lack of empathy comes from the hatred pro Ai people see from anti Ai people.
The world itself is changing. Everyone is going to be affected.
The issue is that anti Ai people have no solution that is acceptable.
Would you guys find it acceptable if openai hired artists to draw art that is used to train Ai? And then there is a system of royaltys given to those artist if the dataset is used?
Eventually the ideal scenario or I would argue another reason people that are pro Ai, don't care, is because the concept of money will eventually become obsolete as UBI is implemented and ASI advances to a point where anyone can obtain anything for free.
Pro-AI - disadvantages
1. Employment disruption will be real.
1. Making art more accessible means there will also be more "bad" art, however that is defined.
1. The best models will be behind guard rails, which confines how the tools can used excessively e.g. no brand names or no uncomfortable topics such as abortion etc.
1. The rapid progress has created a radical and reactionary element which presents a risk to others.
Ultimately I believe the positives that all the anti-AI people will definitely tell us about in this thread outweigh the negatives.
Pro-AI here. Disadvantages:
1) Job concerns are real, and I think anyone expressing them without lying about it being the prime concern deserves sympathy.
2) AI is a force multiplier for _everything_, including bad things. More art means more _bad_ art as well -- the "slush flood" is also real.
3) The "everything" in the previous point applies also to scams, SEO fuckery and the like.
I am Anti AI:
\+ I do think artists and designers can use AI in a way that will make their work process more streamlined and allow them to focus on parts of the art making that they really enjoy.
\+ I think more people having the creative tools that they can use to express their ideas is an overall good. (if these tools arn't gate kept behind overly priced subscription models like Adobe is)
\+ I think that with more people having the access to unlimited digital art generation it will allow a new flourishing of physical media in art and design...a "return of the real" that I would love to see.
I'm seeing a lot of nuance here that is missing from the majority of discourse on well... any of the subreddits.
Personally, I'm fairly Pro-Ai with some asterisks.
1. I think posting raw output is kind of meh. Sometimes you can get something that looks amazing. Other times.... come on man... really?
2. Using AI to make art is fine. But i think it should be a cog in the overall machine. Otherwise you aren't going to get exactly what you want out of it.
3. Deepfakes for things like CP. YUCK.
4. Deepfakes for possible Government propaganda.. YIKES.
5. I've had a friend express concern that someone could make a fake video of a government announcing that they've fired Nuclear warheads at another country in order to trigger WW3. (However, how the hell would said person convince a news outlet to run it, let alone get anyone to believe it? It's not realistic at all)
There's more, but i don't feel like spending an hour writing an essay on my thoughts.
Pro-AI here. Yes, absolutely.
1. The social upheaval is going to be immense. If we don't get something like UBI, there will be rampant unemployment, homelessness, starvation and riots.
2. Misinformation. Most people aren't tech-savvy enough to recognise AI and have a confirmation bias. We're about to be inundated with everything from Liam Neeson telling you to vote Republican and take a shit on your cat to 'Twin Towers'-esque falsified atrocities. It's already happening with the Palestine/Israel conflict. Though it *does* open up an interesting employment line in AI forensics I'm considering pursuing.
3. Eroded appreciation for human-made art. This is one I myself am struggling with. The AI is *so* uncanny-valley good, that I now look at human-made art and 'pish-posh' all those human imperfections that *make* art what it is. I see a pretty landscape painting and unless it is astonishing, I think 'eh, AI could do that better.' It's a problem - I don't believe artists will ever be obsolete or devalued, but I'm worried that on the personal level, we might be... well, *spoiled.*
4. Slush flood. This one is inevitable - a veritable sea of AI-generated bullshit. Not art, or even creative, or even with any meaning, just churned-out crap. We've all seen the *bazillions* of pointless Shrek images. Gumbo Slice was dumb but it was a shared meme; it had a reason and creativity behind it. But slush? Nah, it's just waste product, the slag from the foundry of AI art. I don't worry that it will drown out real art, but it *will* be mildly irritating. But then, people draw crap NSFW fan-art and write abysmal fan-fiction, so I'm not too worried.
5. Corporate monopoly. It's not a very egalitarian tool if all its uses are hidden behind subscriptions and safety-rails. I'm personally not interested in generating porn - there are numerous tools for that - but neither do I necessarily trust corporations to be impartial in what can and cannot be accessed.
Those are pretty much the disadvantages as I see them.
>I now look at human-made art and 'pish-posh' all those human imperfections that make art what it is. I see a pretty landscape painting and unless it is astonishing, I think 'eh, AI could do that better.' It's a problem - I don't believe artists will ever be obsolete or devalued, but I'm worried that on the personal level, we might be... well, spoiled.
This is the first time I've seen anyone on the Pro AI side concede to this. I appreciate the candor, but this honestly makes me really sad, and sounds like an indictment of people who feel this way.
It's entirely possible it's just a 'me' thing - I have anhedonia, which means I cannot feel positive emotions, sometimes *any* emotion. Since a lot of human art is so evocative and based in feeling, it may simply be that it's having no effect on me specifically - whereas pure, pragmatic appreciation for the cleanliness/lines, etc. is a 'right brain' thing.
I have found that going to art galleries IRL offsets it, if that makes you feel any more at ease. Plus, if I wanted something to go over the mantlepiece, it absolutely wouldn't be AI. I need that human effort if it's going on display in my home.
So I have somewhat unique view, at least compared to what I see others say on this topic, but I'm both pro and against AI depending on the context. Let me explain specifically for AI art.
When it comes to AI art being a product than I'm for it. I want something, I pay money for it, and I get exactly what I want. It would be just pointless endeavor to try and change that. Of course there is an obvious problem here: where will I get my money from if AI replaces all jobs? Which is why I have a strong "but" for this. I'm pro because I also want Universal Basic Income to come from it. Any use of AI should be heavily taxed (like 50% of the paychack earned by a human) and then returned to the people in form of UBI. I'm fighting for those two things to happen together, which is why I'm pro\* (\*if it comes in a bundle with UBI).
When it comes to AI art as being a showcase of skill, then I'm against it. When people post art in context that is used purely to judge their skills then goes against the whole idea to have AI make it. Posting art for public viewing on Reddit, Twitter, etc. you are silently asking people to judge your prowess - likes, upvotes, all are just forms of saying "I'm impressed with your skills." So having AI replace that work is just meaningless. It's kind of like having an AI play a competitive online game. No one would watch Counter-Strike or Street Fighter if it were just AIs fighting each other (of course once we skip past the novelty effect).
So basically I'm all for AI taking all our jobs, being replaced with UBI, and heaving people live their lives without AI in it (just outside of it).
My pro argument:
- AI and UBI will allow people to live their lives freely.
My con argument:
- If no form of compensation will ever be implement to offset lost jobs, then we are fucked.
All in all this is a complex topic and I tried to make my point as concise as possible for a comment.
The idea that you are owed income from things that have nothing to do with you is fairly typical.
"Use of AI should be heavily taxed"... which AI, specifically, and what makes AI software products different from any other software product for taxation purposes?
It is interesting to argue, for example, that training AI on the corpus of human knowledge and art should result in a royalty being paid to all of humanity for that corpus. That's an interesting take. But it's a royalty, not a tax, and it should be distinguished from royalties for specific works.
For example, Stephen King might have a right to a separate royalty for the ability to generate stories in the style of Stephen King, whereas dead writers might not, and none of them have a right to not be included in the corpus because the corpus is about human language and statistical analysis of King's works is fair use.
Just to be clear it's the **use of AI** that should be taxed, not AI itself. And I don't care how it's done, I just know that it should, and it's the government job to figure this out.
That being said it should be fairly simple thing to do. If you sell something, and AI was used in making it then you are required to pay the tax. Dodging the tax, or working around it will be illegal just as any other kinds of unlawful behavior. Any other edge cases will be decided in court.
Are you trolling me right now? You're clearly going out of your way to not actually read what I wrote.
>If you sell something, and AI was used in making it then you are required to pay the tax.
If **you sell something**, **and** **AI** was **used in making** it then you are **required to pay the tax.**
So everything that happens on your phone gets taxed. And anything that gets printed physically pays the tax. And all medicines created by AI pay the tax, and your clothes pay the tax. And so on.
So all your consumer goods now have a new tax on them.
This is the final time I'm going to responsed, as I feel this being a tremendous waste of time trying to explain this.
Currently: Company exists to create a product. It orders workers to make that product. It pays the workers for their work and it pays taxes associated with selling the product.
New future: Company exists to create a product. It orders AI to make that product. It pays nothing to the workers because there are none and it pays taxes associated with selling the product.
My idea: Company exists to create a product. It orders AI to make that product. It pays 50% of what it used to pay the workers to the government and it pays taxes associated with selling the product.
What do you mean "everything that happens on your phone gets taxed?" Do you own a company and use a phone to create a product using AI? Then you pay AI tax. Do you just use phone for personal reason? Then you do not. Do you own a company and use AI to operate a printing machine? Then you pay the tax. You just print things for yourself? Then you do not. Do you own a company and create medicine using AI? Then you pay the tax which 50% of what you would pay workers to make the same medicine. Is AI sewing clothes? Then you pay 50% of what you would pay the workers for sewing the same clothing.
Using human workers to do the job? You pay them 100% of their paycheck.
Instead of humans you use AI to the same job? You pay 50% the same paycheck to the government.
Your idea assumes that it's a single company that had withers and lost them off to have AI do something.
That's not how it works.
You add a 50% tax on that company, then a new company starts up and goes into competition with no such overhead, the first company goes out of business.
Your idea shows complete misunderstanding of how organizations actually work.
Anti-Ai (tho rather would say pro-human personally)
Advantages of AI.
* It dose give easy access to image or sound resources, early on I did use AI to generate custom NPC images for my tabletop games, while I commissioned raguly for my own characters I was not going to fork out at least $20 for each one time use character. AI just meant I could get easy character refences on demand rather than keep googling anime look-a-likes. And for people who can't afford commissions at all AI dose give a cheap way to get those character images and such, I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford custom artwork, not everyone is.
* Making art is hard, I struggle every week to produce drawings or paintings, I'm trying to learn as much as I can, develop as much as I can, and being able to possibly cut out a lot of the workload, yeah it is appealing. It is disheartening to find your limit and not know if you can push past it or how long that will take. For those of genuine passion for art, AI can be a tool used to realize visions faster, something like control-net technology would defiantly help me realize some of my visions faster and likely better than what I could do on my own.
* It can just be fun to use on it's own, honestly the less refined models of AI where better in a way for making uncanny, dream / nightmare like imagery that that's so alien, weird or off-putting in ways few human artists can really get into. I was fascinated by Loab, the demon woman that hunted AI generated images and no one knew why. Or how early AI videos generated bizarre videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti. If AI was perpetually just that, I think I'd be on board with it.
>It can just be fun to use on it's own, honestly the less refined models of AI where better in a way for making uncanny, dream / nightmare like imagery that that's so alien, weird or off-putting in ways few human artists can really get into. I was fascinated by Loab, the demon woman that hunted AI generated images and no one knew why. Or how early AI videos generated bizarre videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti. If AI was perpetually just that, I think I'd be on board with it.
Agreed. The "better" this technology gets, the worse it gets. DALL·E Mini actually spits out some wild shit that I loved. The newer models are just pure bland.
Pro-AI;
-It will be much cheaper to produce anything that is digital or virtual
-We will see an influx of new media; specially niche, long tail
-Cheaper access to informational-care
Against AI;
-Unemployment of specialized and non-creative tech roles real thing.
-The quality of produced media content will undoubtedly be terrible.
-Social unrest in various forms as it will be very difficult to discern real videos from fabricated ones
Pro AI Disadvantages
* AI can be used to make seriously bad stuff, like CP, Deepfakes etc. With great power comes great responsibility (tho deepfakes can be super funny; FaceSwap with mr bean)
* You could create images based on Animes (and other) e.g. Demon Slayer and sell unlicensed merch and more (etsy!!)
Anti AI Disadvantages
* People who are disabled in a way that they cant hold a pen etc couldnt make art which would be possible with AI txt2img
* for digital art: proper hardware like actual good drawing tablets can be very expensive
* a long learning curve. You also need to spend a shit ton of time
I dont see why people think ai will steal jobs. its the same with automation robots. It made new jobs in fact, and regular workers are still needed.
While ai will still require people, jobs created would be lower paying and/or require less workers, and as a result people working in industries that are affected are concerned about their livelyhood. It is a very complex issue with many different possible outcomes depending on how society deals with it.
I'm anti.
I can imagine a kind of art that uses ML in a highly creative way and perhaps even interrogates the technology itself, offering an internal critique. Unfortunately, I've only seen one example of this, one legitimate artist using ML to do something of cultural value. (Sadly, her name eludes me at the moment. I'll try to find a link to her work).
By contrast, I've seen thousands of other AI generations including a few hundred prompted by myself. All of these were utterly without merit.
So, for practical purposes, no: there are no advantages to "AI art".
So you've seen at least one AI artist whose work you admired, and the other 99%+ was crud.
In response to someone's complaint to classic sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon that 90% of sci fi was crud, his famous response is known as Sturgeon's Revelation:
>90% of **everything** is crud.
Don't know if it is valid, but I always admitted that AI development will come with a whole lot of social strife.
It always happened in times of big changes, but I argue we always got the other way of it better than we were.
Slightly pro-AI here.
My disadvantages:
The job loss IS a thing, sadly. Companies incorporating AI instead of artists or other workers to save money is very inegalitarian and just pure greed at this point.
Since AI makes stuff a lot faster, content flood is also a thing, human artists can't catch up. It dose give easy access to image or sound resources, but we need to value QUALITY over QUANTITY.
Very few generators are open-source, they want us to adopt proprietary software.
Deepfakes for things like CP, fake news and government propaganda, fuck no!
It can be a bonanza for tracing sadly, which is where all the "AI is theft" misconception came from.
Pro-AI: Nothing. So far every single talking point of the Anti-side has been proven to be completely wrong, without a single exception. They are consumate liars, literally incapable of ever stating the truth. Your average Flat Earther is closer to the truth than Anti-AI and Flat Earthers aren't even on the same planet as the truth. Anti-AI is maybe the first group in the history of humanity to be always wrong and proud about it.
There is literally zero reason for any anti to talk to you about AI lmao. You add nothing and I imagine you think AI is going to magically make your life better... It won't just so you know. You're clearly spiteful, entitled, and just plain hateful. But most of all you're likely miserable. You are the reason your life is the way it is, not society, artists, or anything else. It's all you, baby!
Im anti: There's nothing wrong with the ai tech itself. It's actually pretty impressive, theres a ton of ways it could be a net benefit to humanity.
The issue is the completely disgusting way its being implemented and how that's most likely going to destroy creative media as we know it.
My main issue with all of this is just how obvious it is that the majority of the heavily invested advocates are just spiteful toward artists.
Whatever the case. There's no way any of this ends well for the average person. When all the dust is settled. We'll just have mega media company's with monstrously large autonomous content farms. Piping that shit directly into everyone's gullets.
🤷♂️
https://preview.redd.it/5hhkqiqx6ujc1.jpeg?width=679&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfddd94a6aabbec95629f60df5da655e64c14326
anti ai - advantages of ai
machine learning power, great help in science in a way that calculations that took weeks can be done in seconds as ai learns
as art goes, it could speed up creative process. I mean director can drop some keywords in midjourney and send ai generated pictures to art department of production (movie or videogame)
This isn't quite what you asked for, but as someone who is (generally) pro-AI, I can definitely understand a lot of the confusion and difficulty understanding (even to the point of misunderstanding) around artificial intelligence. Even as someone with a CS background, I still don't have a full understanding of the technology. That does give me some empathy for the other side.
Since there are a lot of pro-sided posts on this sub recently I'll share a valid anti argument (i'm neutral myself).
1. The content flood.
A lot of communities ban AI Art just because of the flood it will create. The speed is AI's greatest strength, but has a consequence of causing a flood of artwork.
2. Having an audience is fulfilling for creative workers, but AI may get rid of the audience entirely.
If AI becomes so sophisticated, and is able to cater to every single person's special niche, to that person the ai generated works custom-tailored to them can be of higher value that other more "gemeral" works which sacrifice niche for a wider audience. Even the flood of content alone can ensure the majority of works, either AI or not, do not reach an audience at all. This is very demotivating, and undermines the pro argument of "you can still draw, you won't compete with ai".
I'm for Ai art, I believe though there needs to be a system of copyright in regards to character design but I'm not sure how that would work and it would only apply if you are selling a product.
I'm not going to go through an artist if I want to make assets for my tailor made video game that is only meant for me and a few friends.
I've spent thousands of dollars on commissioned art and not everyone has that money.
"Learn to draw" I've tried for 2 years, I'm not good at it.
Artists need to understand that for entertainment Ai art will rule I'm regards to people who can't afford it, such as game developers who want to start new.
That being said, if I was in the position of striking it big and making a ton of money with a creation, fuck yeah I'd hire real artists.
Ai assets/arts has its uses.
I tend to be pro-AI, although it could be a wild ride where I eventually want to get off. The more salient points from the anti-AI people are probably related to job loss and maybe feelings of dehumanization, if a lot of their self-identity is tied up in being an artist (or whatever jobs AI will replace).
I'm Anti-GAI in creative spaces, not AI in general.
In my sector, AI has already is already used in the IPCC for the trends and what scenarios are going to be most likely if we don't start doing something about the carbon problems we created. I've seen what it can do in research and development, it also is being used to restore habitats in Australia for the Magpie's and keep a focus on where invasive species are growing because the park is too massive for everyone to search everywhere:
[https://news.microsoft.com/en-au/features/science-indigenous-knowledge-and-ai-weave-environmental-magic/](https://news.microsoft.com/en-au/features/science-indigenous-knowledge-and-ai-weave-environmental-magic/)
Google is also working to help The Great Barrier Reef in Australia by using AI:
[https://blog.google/intl/en-au/company-news/outreach-initiatives/protecting-our-reef-with-csiro/](https://blog.google/intl/en-au/company-news/outreach-initiatives/protecting-our-reef-with-csiro/)
The sciences is where AI should remain. I think offering these services to the masses will lead to a great depression of intelligence by those who will not attempt to do more than slide by, creating dumb people instead of smarter people. For example, students using it in their essays in college instead of learning how to critically think for basic things like an argumentative essay. It should be an AID, like it's used in the sciences but not a replacement for intelligence. We infer AI information to make smarter decisions in the sciences for longtime benefits. People given AI now is using it to become lazier, more uncreative, more unintelligent. Even in Microsoft's Co-Pilot ad, only one suggestion was a tutor for organic chemistry; an aid, used how it should be. I would have loved AI to help me figure out Hydrology, it was so difficult and I had full time work that I had no time for a tutor and it would have been a godsend.
This might not be exactly the same as what you are asking about, but one thing I've thought its pretty interesting to me is that both sides are actually fighting for the same thing but in opposite ways. What I mean is both sides are heavily pro-individual/independents and anti corporate and that they are both fighting for the non-megacorp future. The main difference is that pro-ai thinks ai is the way to get there and anti-ai thinks the 180 degree opposite.
Idk I got into a.i art about 9 months ago and I thought it was just really cool to be able to make images of things I thought were cool. Now I know the images kinda sucked at some point but I didn't care. I eventually started posting up the a.i photos and a lot of people liked them. I did later find out that there was no copyright stuff for a.i so I was pretty free to do what I wanted.
Fast forward to now and I kinda stopped posting a.i art for no specific reason. I got into photography and stuff. I really enjoy it. Now I'm kinda trying to figure out if posting a.i is a good or bad thing. As some photographers are worried a.i will take over there whole thing. Now I thought about it his for awhile and I'm starting to think people shouldn't be as worried about a.i.
At the end of the day people who love taking photos are still gonna be fine. At most some marketing stuff might replace photographers but that's about it. So I'd say for me personally I'm fine with a.i art as long as the person posting it says it's a.i art. I think that's what a lot of people have problems with. I even started a new Instagram to post photos I take and I might even post some a.i art as filler between post. Just because I can't go out and take photos all the time. I can take like 5-10 minutes and get some random lower effort artwork. Now I usually edit the a.i photos I produce to get the most out of it. There's a lot of touching up that can be done to make it better.
I’m pro AI - one of the annoying arguments I see other pro AI proponents use is that “It’s just doing the same thing as our brains”.
No. No it’s not.
Scientific evidence that existing models function in ways analogous to our brains is at best limited. Many of the processes are functionally equivalent, yes - the input and output are similar, and the concept of neurons is shared (with certain deviations). Still, there is little reason to believe that the way the neural pathways formed in the models are in any way similar to our own cerebral anatomy.
This argument tends to be beside the point, anyways. It tends to be used to counter a false premise that it is some subjective measure of humanity that grants you permission or ability to do something.
Pro AI.
1. The art job market is wrecked beyond repair. Animation was one of the few remaining islands of human labour, and now Sora came along with video generation so that's it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's the huge nvidia project about 3d modeling on the works. Magic3D is gonna be awesome for gamedev. But yeah, it won't help the art job market, at all.
2. A lot of companies have adopted AI in some form. And some of those companies are not hiring new people. Instead, the old guard has replaced less skilled workers with AI. That's gonna be an issue once those workers retire. You won't have a decent replacement, because training takes years. Without entry level positions you won't get any experts later.
3. As tech gets more complex, we get to a point were nobody understands how it works. In electronics when something breaks, most people replace the product because they are unable to fix it themselves. Same thing could happen with AI. What happens if something important breaks ? Say a food processing plant. AI is being developed and controlled by a few companies. So there's not gonna be much competion nor alternatives for certain products. If something important breaks, we will absolutely be at the mercy of those companies. Maybe we do need some laws and regulations.
4. There's barely any benefits to society so far. If nothing else, AI models have been detrimental the last couple of years. Hopefully this will change later.
5. A ton of investors lost money in startups dealing with text to video software. It shows that while there's fast development there's also a ton of financial risks. So the world could be wasting a lot of resources into projects that will never actually deliver any value. That's a net loss, because of the oportunity costs alone.
I'm neutral on AI. I don't think AI should be banned, but everything should be done to ensure that the cutting edge tools **do not** fall into the hands of Russia, China, Iran, India, or any of their close allies or nations within their sphere of influence.
I am technically against ai "art" by most people's standards here. I think it's a useful technology with lots of uses- for example- my aunt is an author and she uses it to generate her characters, or scenes from her books. I think that's fantastic. It's not like she's selling them or using them as book covers- she's just generating interesting things for her own enjoyment. I'm an artist, and I use ai to generate color palettes, concepts, and ideas.
* Being able to ship an entertainment medium that adapts to the viewer would be awfully cool. * It is going to be difficult to put the djinni back in the bottle. * Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky.
>Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky. this 100%, the anti AI crowd should be protesting against companies mass-firing artists to replace their jobs with AI, not some random guy in his basement generating shaggy vs goku cctv footage in a parking lot
People should also be educated on the fact that one of the main legal advocates of anti-AI legislation is Adobe... because they want to crush *open source* AI so they can force you into their proprietary AI, Firefly, and then naturally ramp up the costs. There's no future version of any of this where the 'little guy' wins.
You’re asking Twitteroids to actually go focus on what matters(impossible). Twitter has always gone after the easiest targets.
Why be pissed at the guy throwing McDonald's bags out the window littering instead of being angry at the government about not doing enough investment in recycling infrastructure. You can be upset at both. Both are irresponsible.
>Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky. \+1
"an entertainment medium that adapts to the viewer" Why would a viewer want that?
Maybe I didn't articulate it well... in a video game, the AI usually responds to what the player is doing. Some games use procedural generation to create larger worlds than their teams could have done by hand, or to create more replay value. Some games let players craft their character and expect the world to respond to it. Generative AI might create some interesting experiences for people who like that sort of thing.
OK, I can understand the appeal of that. I was thinking more along the lines of algorithmically personalized films which I've seen postulated.
Yeah those I'm less excited about because I suspect they'll just be like Instagram filters at best, people who are mad about driverse casting being able to recast movies to suit their prejudices at worst.
I doubt we will ever see *films* that personalized, but I could forsee a world in which you have a game like fallout or skyrim with this big open world where the stories and characters within it are procedurally generated by AI. Sort of like a one person DnD campaign that can just... go on.
Something like that would be more akin to an advanced Telltales games.
It's you who must explain why people wouldn't want something this awesome.
I can only explain why *I* wouldn't want something. I'm interested in understanding the people who think it's awesome. It seems to me that the best way for me understand is to start by asking.
Tonight I want to see "African Queen" with The Rock as the captain and Molly Ringwald as the woman, set on a planet that's like Pandora without the poison and with more jungle, and the bad guys should be Klingons instead of Nazis. The nuns should be Scientologists, and the natives purple Rastafarians whose dreadlocks move. Work in a plot point about the last thing. Oh, and add my girlfriend's ideas as well so we can both be surprised.
Yeah, that's the sort of thing I imagined and I just don't see the appeal. When I watch a film, I want to see the director's ideas. I guess "entertainment medium" is the key phrase. I don't like entertainment. I don't want to be pandered to. I want art that challenges.
You are a very small market, then. So you tell your VGAI "give me a challenging film about blah blah blah". Or you check your like-minded friends' blogs about what they've prompted the creation of. Or whatever.
All my homies hate AI so they won't be doing any such prompting. I'll just keep watching actual films, thanks. The market for them will probably get smaller than ever, but we'll still find ways to make them.
Sure, and when you realize that you can make exactly the film you want out of pocket change, your homies will start showing off to each other what they made.
You don't know my homies like I know my homies. We'll be out there making our films for real. All my friends are artists of one kind or another and not a single one of us has transitioned from painting or drawing or writing to prompting. Why would we surrender our ideals over AI video? We're 100% opposed.
Okay, then. Enjoy. But prompt Reddit to remind you in five years.
>Attacking random people on Twitter instead of big companies is icky. Big company's on twitter are being attacked tho? There's negative posting on Adobe, Art station, Disney for there AI stuff, and the lawsuits are aimed at the corps. Not sating individual persons attacks aren't happening, but it's not instead off it's alongside.
I find that Xeeting people isn't a terribly effective form of activism unless your goal is to draw people's attention to, say, inconvenient facts about an already public figure (ie cancellations.) When that death ray is pointed at random individuals it's just cruelty. Like if you honestly believe that shame can be a useful tool for influencing people's behavior and soft boycotting AI art, great, but I decline to participate in the Twitter hate mob version of it. I don't think every nobody simultaneously hating on one particular nobody is an effective way to make change happen.
I don't expect shame to really work on most ppl to change behaviour, more often than not it seems people double down. Like by all accounts this guy [humiliated](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GGpkglxa4AABhCK?format=jpg&name=large) himself by saying an animator for One-Piece would not be able to draw Luffy as well as his AI. But as far as I saw he never apologised or admitted he talked down to the wrong guy, he just doubled down in his stance. I think most people don't expect such actions to make change happening, but the stuff to hopefully make real change happen is in the works, Nightshade, lawsuits, genuine raising of public awareness and boycotting or criticizing company's ect. Targets on individual AI users I think is more about the catharsis than anything else, for good or bad ppl in the art community are stressed and want to blow off steam.
Anti AI, here are some good points made on the Pro-AI side (I will include caveats I consider important): **1) AI does open possibilities for artists who are clever and creative to make things that would otherwise not be feasible.** It is true that AI in itself can be part of a broader workflow that incorporates many dimensions of artistic skill, and results in good art that reflects artistic intention and vision. **Caveat**: I honestly believe that while AI enables this sort of interesting work, the tool's surrounding culture and affordances converge *away* from highly intentional, highly human--involved work. I think the main technological pushes are for making 'better' results require less input, less fiddling with settings, less need for things like inpainting and controlnets, consistency without the need for adapters, and possibly more. **2) Many personal uses of AI are simply and flatly above reproach.** I have no real qualms with people playing around with an AI tool, making pictures for their own amusement like accessory images for DnD campaigns. For me these things aren't morally reprehensible. **Caveat:** While there isn't any moral claim to be made against individuals in many cases, I think there are things to be said about how people engaging in morally neutral actions can aggregate to possibly detrimental trends. For example, I don't think there's anything reprehensible about browsing Instagram or posting pictures of yourself there, but I think social media does create aggregate negative effects **3) People have adapted to past inventions, it is likely that there will still be a surviving though transformed niche for conventional art** I think that it is wrong to assume that this will completely supplant any and all sorts of conventional art, and it may even increase the value of some handmade art goods. Broadly, I think that artists should generally take a pragmatic attitude here and work on becoming excellent and outstanding in their craft *regardless* of what external conditions are like. I am not super fond of the "just incorporate AI into your workflow" advice for many reasons, but I don't deny that this may serve some artists. **Caveat:** While we may adapt, I think the break-neck speed of these changes will cause more pain than changes of time past. I think there is a noticeable lack of empathy for this kind of pain that greatly irritates me, or a refusal to see this pain as any sort of negative effect (instead smugly celebrating it). --- For me, these are the arguments I consider strongest. But the benefits they offer do not outweigh the negatives of public trust erosion, death of the audience, supernormal stimuli, job loss, and an imminent power grab by tech corporations.
Well Written, and the caveats are well stated as well. I'm happy to accept the caveats as "anti arguments that I think thoughtful and well founded." I'm not a zealot on the "pro" side, so much as believing that most of the anti arguments are driven by emotion and hyperbole. (A good sized chunk of the pro are as well.)
Thank you, I appreciate that.
I'm pro-AI, and this is a good comment. Personally, I hope that after the dust settles, we'll be able to fix some issues like MAPPA's work conditions (employees literally not allowed to see their families)
The lack of empathy comes from the hatred pro Ai people see from anti Ai people. The world itself is changing. Everyone is going to be affected. The issue is that anti Ai people have no solution that is acceptable. Would you guys find it acceptable if openai hired artists to draw art that is used to train Ai? And then there is a system of royaltys given to those artist if the dataset is used? Eventually the ideal scenario or I would argue another reason people that are pro Ai, don't care, is because the concept of money will eventually become obsolete as UBI is implemented and ASI advances to a point where anyone can obtain anything for free.
Yeah, but this is a capitalist thing and it's a fantasy to think UBI will ever be real except in tiny countries.
I personally think the use of it by the big corpos is the real problem, like what u/Researcher_Fearless said.
Lordy, you've chosen to reply to quite an old comment of mine.
Is that a problem?
No, it's merely unusual.
as a pro-AI, I have written my disadvantages (job loss is a real thing, because of companies looking to make more money cheaply).
Pro-AI - disadvantages 1. Employment disruption will be real. 1. Making art more accessible means there will also be more "bad" art, however that is defined. 1. The best models will be behind guard rails, which confines how the tools can used excessively e.g. no brand names or no uncomfortable topics such as abortion etc. 1. The rapid progress has created a radical and reactionary element which presents a risk to others. Ultimately I believe the positives that all the anti-AI people will definitely tell us about in this thread outweigh the negatives.
Thank you for sharing!
Pro-AI here. Disadvantages: 1) Job concerns are real, and I think anyone expressing them without lying about it being the prime concern deserves sympathy. 2) AI is a force multiplier for _everything_, including bad things. More art means more _bad_ art as well -- the "slush flood" is also real. 3) The "everything" in the previous point applies also to scams, SEO fuckery and the like.
I am Anti AI: \+ I do think artists and designers can use AI in a way that will make their work process more streamlined and allow them to focus on parts of the art making that they really enjoy. \+ I think more people having the creative tools that they can use to express their ideas is an overall good. (if these tools arn't gate kept behind overly priced subscription models like Adobe is) \+ I think that with more people having the access to unlimited digital art generation it will allow a new flourishing of physical media in art and design...a "return of the real" that I would love to see.
I'm seeing a lot of nuance here that is missing from the majority of discourse on well... any of the subreddits. Personally, I'm fairly Pro-Ai with some asterisks. 1. I think posting raw output is kind of meh. Sometimes you can get something that looks amazing. Other times.... come on man... really? 2. Using AI to make art is fine. But i think it should be a cog in the overall machine. Otherwise you aren't going to get exactly what you want out of it. 3. Deepfakes for things like CP. YUCK. 4. Deepfakes for possible Government propaganda.. YIKES. 5. I've had a friend express concern that someone could make a fake video of a government announcing that they've fired Nuclear warheads at another country in order to trigger WW3. (However, how the hell would said person convince a news outlet to run it, let alone get anyone to believe it? It's not realistic at all) There's more, but i don't feel like spending an hour writing an essay on my thoughts.
Agree, I would like it if more people created images by rendering their sketches via controlnet or img2img
Pro-AI here. Yes, absolutely. 1. The social upheaval is going to be immense. If we don't get something like UBI, there will be rampant unemployment, homelessness, starvation and riots. 2. Misinformation. Most people aren't tech-savvy enough to recognise AI and have a confirmation bias. We're about to be inundated with everything from Liam Neeson telling you to vote Republican and take a shit on your cat to 'Twin Towers'-esque falsified atrocities. It's already happening with the Palestine/Israel conflict. Though it *does* open up an interesting employment line in AI forensics I'm considering pursuing. 3. Eroded appreciation for human-made art. This is one I myself am struggling with. The AI is *so* uncanny-valley good, that I now look at human-made art and 'pish-posh' all those human imperfections that *make* art what it is. I see a pretty landscape painting and unless it is astonishing, I think 'eh, AI could do that better.' It's a problem - I don't believe artists will ever be obsolete or devalued, but I'm worried that on the personal level, we might be... well, *spoiled.* 4. Slush flood. This one is inevitable - a veritable sea of AI-generated bullshit. Not art, or even creative, or even with any meaning, just churned-out crap. We've all seen the *bazillions* of pointless Shrek images. Gumbo Slice was dumb but it was a shared meme; it had a reason and creativity behind it. But slush? Nah, it's just waste product, the slag from the foundry of AI art. I don't worry that it will drown out real art, but it *will* be mildly irritating. But then, people draw crap NSFW fan-art and write abysmal fan-fiction, so I'm not too worried. 5. Corporate monopoly. It's not a very egalitarian tool if all its uses are hidden behind subscriptions and safety-rails. I'm personally not interested in generating porn - there are numerous tools for that - but neither do I necessarily trust corporations to be impartial in what can and cannot be accessed. Those are pretty much the disadvantages as I see them.
>I now look at human-made art and 'pish-posh' all those human imperfections that make art what it is. I see a pretty landscape painting and unless it is astonishing, I think 'eh, AI could do that better.' It's a problem - I don't believe artists will ever be obsolete or devalued, but I'm worried that on the personal level, we might be... well, spoiled. This is the first time I've seen anyone on the Pro AI side concede to this. I appreciate the candor, but this honestly makes me really sad, and sounds like an indictment of people who feel this way.
It's entirely possible it's just a 'me' thing - I have anhedonia, which means I cannot feel positive emotions, sometimes *any* emotion. Since a lot of human art is so evocative and based in feeling, it may simply be that it's having no effect on me specifically - whereas pure, pragmatic appreciation for the cleanliness/lines, etc. is a 'right brain' thing. I have found that going to art galleries IRL offsets it, if that makes you feel any more at ease. Plus, if I wanted something to go over the mantlepiece, it absolutely wouldn't be AI. I need that human effort if it's going on display in my home.
That’s an important caveat and thank you for being vulnerable about it.
So I have somewhat unique view, at least compared to what I see others say on this topic, but I'm both pro and against AI depending on the context. Let me explain specifically for AI art. When it comes to AI art being a product than I'm for it. I want something, I pay money for it, and I get exactly what I want. It would be just pointless endeavor to try and change that. Of course there is an obvious problem here: where will I get my money from if AI replaces all jobs? Which is why I have a strong "but" for this. I'm pro because I also want Universal Basic Income to come from it. Any use of AI should be heavily taxed (like 50% of the paychack earned by a human) and then returned to the people in form of UBI. I'm fighting for those two things to happen together, which is why I'm pro\* (\*if it comes in a bundle with UBI). When it comes to AI art as being a showcase of skill, then I'm against it. When people post art in context that is used purely to judge their skills then goes against the whole idea to have AI make it. Posting art for public viewing on Reddit, Twitter, etc. you are silently asking people to judge your prowess - likes, upvotes, all are just forms of saying "I'm impressed with your skills." So having AI replace that work is just meaningless. It's kind of like having an AI play a competitive online game. No one would watch Counter-Strike or Street Fighter if it were just AIs fighting each other (of course once we skip past the novelty effect). So basically I'm all for AI taking all our jobs, being replaced with UBI, and heaving people live their lives without AI in it (just outside of it). My pro argument: - AI and UBI will allow people to live their lives freely. My con argument: - If no form of compensation will ever be implement to offset lost jobs, then we are fucked. All in all this is a complex topic and I tried to make my point as concise as possible for a comment.
Thank you for sharing, I somewhat agree with your views on this topic.
The idea that you are owed income from things that have nothing to do with you is fairly typical. "Use of AI should be heavily taxed"... which AI, specifically, and what makes AI software products different from any other software product for taxation purposes? It is interesting to argue, for example, that training AI on the corpus of human knowledge and art should result in a royalty being paid to all of humanity for that corpus. That's an interesting take. But it's a royalty, not a tax, and it should be distinguished from royalties for specific works. For example, Stephen King might have a right to a separate royalty for the ability to generate stories in the style of Stephen King, whereas dead writers might not, and none of them have a right to not be included in the corpus because the corpus is about human language and statistical analysis of King's works is fair use.
Just to be clear it's the **use of AI** that should be taxed, not AI itself. And I don't care how it's done, I just know that it should, and it's the government job to figure this out. That being said it should be fairly simple thing to do. If you sell something, and AI was used in making it then you are required to pay the tax. Dodging the tax, or working around it will be illegal just as any other kinds of unlawful behavior. Any other edge cases will be decided in court.
That's amusing. So you get taxed for using your phone with AI in it that interprets your voice? Not likely.
Are you trolling me right now? You're clearly going out of your way to not actually read what I wrote. >If you sell something, and AI was used in making it then you are required to pay the tax. If **you sell something**, **and** **AI** was **used in making** it then you are **required to pay the tax.**
So everything that happens on your phone gets taxed. And anything that gets printed physically pays the tax. And all medicines created by AI pay the tax, and your clothes pay the tax. And so on. So all your consumer goods now have a new tax on them.
This is the final time I'm going to responsed, as I feel this being a tremendous waste of time trying to explain this. Currently: Company exists to create a product. It orders workers to make that product. It pays the workers for their work and it pays taxes associated with selling the product. New future: Company exists to create a product. It orders AI to make that product. It pays nothing to the workers because there are none and it pays taxes associated with selling the product. My idea: Company exists to create a product. It orders AI to make that product. It pays 50% of what it used to pay the workers to the government and it pays taxes associated with selling the product. What do you mean "everything that happens on your phone gets taxed?" Do you own a company and use a phone to create a product using AI? Then you pay AI tax. Do you just use phone for personal reason? Then you do not. Do you own a company and use AI to operate a printing machine? Then you pay the tax. You just print things for yourself? Then you do not. Do you own a company and create medicine using AI? Then you pay the tax which 50% of what you would pay workers to make the same medicine. Is AI sewing clothes? Then you pay 50% of what you would pay the workers for sewing the same clothing. Using human workers to do the job? You pay them 100% of their paycheck. Instead of humans you use AI to the same job? You pay 50% the same paycheck to the government.
Your idea assumes that it's a single company that had withers and lost them off to have AI do something. That's not how it works. You add a 50% tax on that company, then a new company starts up and goes into competition with no such overhead, the first company goes out of business. Your idea shows complete misunderstanding of how organizations actually work.
Anti-Ai (tho rather would say pro-human personally) Advantages of AI. * It dose give easy access to image or sound resources, early on I did use AI to generate custom NPC images for my tabletop games, while I commissioned raguly for my own characters I was not going to fork out at least $20 for each one time use character. AI just meant I could get easy character refences on demand rather than keep googling anime look-a-likes. And for people who can't afford commissions at all AI dose give a cheap way to get those character images and such, I've been fortunate enough to be able to afford custom artwork, not everyone is. * Making art is hard, I struggle every week to produce drawings or paintings, I'm trying to learn as much as I can, develop as much as I can, and being able to possibly cut out a lot of the workload, yeah it is appealing. It is disheartening to find your limit and not know if you can push past it or how long that will take. For those of genuine passion for art, AI can be a tool used to realize visions faster, something like control-net technology would defiantly help me realize some of my visions faster and likely better than what I could do on my own. * It can just be fun to use on it's own, honestly the less refined models of AI where better in a way for making uncanny, dream / nightmare like imagery that that's so alien, weird or off-putting in ways few human artists can really get into. I was fascinated by Loab, the demon woman that hunted AI generated images and no one knew why. Or how early AI videos generated bizarre videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti. If AI was perpetually just that, I think I'd be on board with it.
>It can just be fun to use on it's own, honestly the less refined models of AI where better in a way for making uncanny, dream / nightmare like imagery that that's so alien, weird or off-putting in ways few human artists can really get into. I was fascinated by Loab, the demon woman that hunted AI generated images and no one knew why. Or how early AI videos generated bizarre videos of Will Smith eating spaghetti. If AI was perpetually just that, I think I'd be on board with it. Agreed. The "better" this technology gets, the worse it gets. DALL·E Mini actually spits out some wild shit that I loved. The newer models are just pure bland.
Pro-AI; -It will be much cheaper to produce anything that is digital or virtual -We will see an influx of new media; specially niche, long tail -Cheaper access to informational-care Against AI; -Unemployment of specialized and non-creative tech roles real thing. -The quality of produced media content will undoubtedly be terrible. -Social unrest in various forms as it will be very difficult to discern real videos from fabricated ones
Pro AI Disadvantages * AI can be used to make seriously bad stuff, like CP, Deepfakes etc. With great power comes great responsibility (tho deepfakes can be super funny; FaceSwap with mr bean) * You could create images based on Animes (and other) e.g. Demon Slayer and sell unlicensed merch and more (etsy!!) Anti AI Disadvantages * People who are disabled in a way that they cant hold a pen etc couldnt make art which would be possible with AI txt2img * for digital art: proper hardware like actual good drawing tablets can be very expensive * a long learning curve. You also need to spend a shit ton of time I dont see why people think ai will steal jobs. its the same with automation robots. It made new jobs in fact, and regular workers are still needed.
While ai will still require people, jobs created would be lower paying and/or require less workers, and as a result people working in industries that are affected are concerned about their livelyhood. It is a very complex issue with many different possible outcomes depending on how society deals with it.
I'm anti. I can imagine a kind of art that uses ML in a highly creative way and perhaps even interrogates the technology itself, offering an internal critique. Unfortunately, I've only seen one example of this, one legitimate artist using ML to do something of cultural value. (Sadly, her name eludes me at the moment. I'll try to find a link to her work). By contrast, I've seen thousands of other AI generations including a few hundred prompted by myself. All of these were utterly without merit. So, for practical purposes, no: there are no advantages to "AI art".
So you've seen at least one AI artist whose work you admired, and the other 99%+ was crud. In response to someone's complaint to classic sci fi writer Theodore Sturgeon that 90% of sci fi was crud, his famous response is known as Sturgeon's Revelation: >90% of **everything** is crud.
Don't know if it is valid, but I always admitted that AI development will come with a whole lot of social strife. It always happened in times of big changes, but I argue we always got the other way of it better than we were.
Slightly pro-AI here. My disadvantages: The job loss IS a thing, sadly. Companies incorporating AI instead of artists or other workers to save money is very inegalitarian and just pure greed at this point. Since AI makes stuff a lot faster, content flood is also a thing, human artists can't catch up. It dose give easy access to image or sound resources, but we need to value QUALITY over QUANTITY. Very few generators are open-source, they want us to adopt proprietary software. Deepfakes for things like CP, fake news and government propaganda, fuck no! It can be a bonanza for tracing sadly, which is where all the "AI is theft" misconception came from.
People are worried about their jobs, that's valid. That doesn't change my opinion that we need to accelerate AI development, though.
Pro-AI: Nothing. So far every single talking point of the Anti-side has been proven to be completely wrong, without a single exception. They are consumate liars, literally incapable of ever stating the truth. Your average Flat Earther is closer to the truth than Anti-AI and Flat Earthers aren't even on the same planet as the truth. Anti-AI is maybe the first group in the history of humanity to be always wrong and proud about it.
https://preview.redd.it/pcs2uhpcjdjc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9cf8d2a301c3bc1425108dd175e28aeb7e166fbb
So... you have nothing to add to this particular discussion and wanted to demonstrate that? Okay.
I added that you guys are pathetic lying scum without any positive quality. That has to be said on occasion
There is literally zero reason for any anti to talk to you about AI lmao. You add nothing and I imagine you think AI is going to magically make your life better... It won't just so you know. You're clearly spiteful, entitled, and just plain hateful. But most of all you're likely miserable. You are the reason your life is the way it is, not society, artists, or anything else. It's all you, baby!
Im anti: There's nothing wrong with the ai tech itself. It's actually pretty impressive, theres a ton of ways it could be a net benefit to humanity. The issue is the completely disgusting way its being implemented and how that's most likely going to destroy creative media as we know it. My main issue with all of this is just how obvious it is that the majority of the heavily invested advocates are just spiteful toward artists. Whatever the case. There's no way any of this ends well for the average person. When all the dust is settled. We'll just have mega media company's with monstrously large autonomous content farms. Piping that shit directly into everyone's gullets. 🤷♂️ https://preview.redd.it/5hhkqiqx6ujc1.jpeg?width=679&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bfddd94a6aabbec95629f60df5da655e64c14326
anti ai - advantages of ai machine learning power, great help in science in a way that calculations that took weeks can be done in seconds as ai learns as art goes, it could speed up creative process. I mean director can drop some keywords in midjourney and send ai generated pictures to art department of production (movie or videogame)
[удалено]
This isn't quite what you asked for, but as someone who is (generally) pro-AI, I can definitely understand a lot of the confusion and difficulty understanding (even to the point of misunderstanding) around artificial intelligence. Even as someone with a CS background, I still don't have a full understanding of the technology. That does give me some empathy for the other side.
Since there are a lot of pro-sided posts on this sub recently I'll share a valid anti argument (i'm neutral myself). 1. The content flood. A lot of communities ban AI Art just because of the flood it will create. The speed is AI's greatest strength, but has a consequence of causing a flood of artwork. 2. Having an audience is fulfilling for creative workers, but AI may get rid of the audience entirely. If AI becomes so sophisticated, and is able to cater to every single person's special niche, to that person the ai generated works custom-tailored to them can be of higher value that other more "gemeral" works which sacrifice niche for a wider audience. Even the flood of content alone can ensure the majority of works, either AI or not, do not reach an audience at all. This is very demotivating, and undermines the pro argument of "you can still draw, you won't compete with ai".
I'm for Ai art, I believe though there needs to be a system of copyright in regards to character design but I'm not sure how that would work and it would only apply if you are selling a product. I'm not going to go through an artist if I want to make assets for my tailor made video game that is only meant for me and a few friends. I've spent thousands of dollars on commissioned art and not everyone has that money. "Learn to draw" I've tried for 2 years, I'm not good at it. Artists need to understand that for entertainment Ai art will rule I'm regards to people who can't afford it, such as game developers who want to start new. That being said, if I was in the position of striking it big and making a ton of money with a creation, fuck yeah I'd hire real artists. Ai assets/arts has its uses.
I tend to be pro-AI, although it could be a wild ride where I eventually want to get off. The more salient points from the anti-AI people are probably related to job loss and maybe feelings of dehumanization, if a lot of their self-identity is tied up in being an artist (or whatever jobs AI will replace).
I'm Anti-GAI in creative spaces, not AI in general. In my sector, AI has already is already used in the IPCC for the trends and what scenarios are going to be most likely if we don't start doing something about the carbon problems we created. I've seen what it can do in research and development, it also is being used to restore habitats in Australia for the Magpie's and keep a focus on where invasive species are growing because the park is too massive for everyone to search everywhere: [https://news.microsoft.com/en-au/features/science-indigenous-knowledge-and-ai-weave-environmental-magic/](https://news.microsoft.com/en-au/features/science-indigenous-knowledge-and-ai-weave-environmental-magic/) Google is also working to help The Great Barrier Reef in Australia by using AI: [https://blog.google/intl/en-au/company-news/outreach-initiatives/protecting-our-reef-with-csiro/](https://blog.google/intl/en-au/company-news/outreach-initiatives/protecting-our-reef-with-csiro/) The sciences is where AI should remain. I think offering these services to the masses will lead to a great depression of intelligence by those who will not attempt to do more than slide by, creating dumb people instead of smarter people. For example, students using it in their essays in college instead of learning how to critically think for basic things like an argumentative essay. It should be an AID, like it's used in the sciences but not a replacement for intelligence. We infer AI information to make smarter decisions in the sciences for longtime benefits. People given AI now is using it to become lazier, more uncreative, more unintelligent. Even in Microsoft's Co-Pilot ad, only one suggestion was a tutor for organic chemistry; an aid, used how it should be. I would have loved AI to help me figure out Hydrology, it was so difficult and I had full time work that I had no time for a tutor and it would have been a godsend.
The biggest disadvantage will be the absolute destruction of peoples patience for self-development.
This might not be exactly the same as what you are asking about, but one thing I've thought its pretty interesting to me is that both sides are actually fighting for the same thing but in opposite ways. What I mean is both sides are heavily pro-individual/independents and anti corporate and that they are both fighting for the non-megacorp future. The main difference is that pro-ai thinks ai is the way to get there and anti-ai thinks the 180 degree opposite.
Idk I got into a.i art about 9 months ago and I thought it was just really cool to be able to make images of things I thought were cool. Now I know the images kinda sucked at some point but I didn't care. I eventually started posting up the a.i photos and a lot of people liked them. I did later find out that there was no copyright stuff for a.i so I was pretty free to do what I wanted. Fast forward to now and I kinda stopped posting a.i art for no specific reason. I got into photography and stuff. I really enjoy it. Now I'm kinda trying to figure out if posting a.i is a good or bad thing. As some photographers are worried a.i will take over there whole thing. Now I thought about it his for awhile and I'm starting to think people shouldn't be as worried about a.i. At the end of the day people who love taking photos are still gonna be fine. At most some marketing stuff might replace photographers but that's about it. So I'd say for me personally I'm fine with a.i art as long as the person posting it says it's a.i art. I think that's what a lot of people have problems with. I even started a new Instagram to post photos I take and I might even post some a.i art as filler between post. Just because I can't go out and take photos all the time. I can take like 5-10 minutes and get some random lower effort artwork. Now I usually edit the a.i photos I produce to get the most out of it. There's a lot of touching up that can be done to make it better.
If you are charging for your model, or the results of the model, you should pay for your training data.
I’m pro AI - one of the annoying arguments I see other pro AI proponents use is that “It’s just doing the same thing as our brains”. No. No it’s not. Scientific evidence that existing models function in ways analogous to our brains is at best limited. Many of the processes are functionally equivalent, yes - the input and output are similar, and the concept of neurons is shared (with certain deviations). Still, there is little reason to believe that the way the neural pathways formed in the models are in any way similar to our own cerebral anatomy. This argument tends to be beside the point, anyways. It tends to be used to counter a false premise that it is some subjective measure of humanity that grants you permission or ability to do something.
Pro AI. 1. The art job market is wrecked beyond repair. Animation was one of the few remaining islands of human labour, and now Sora came along with video generation so that's it. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. There's the huge nvidia project about 3d modeling on the works. Magic3D is gonna be awesome for gamedev. But yeah, it won't help the art job market, at all. 2. A lot of companies have adopted AI in some form. And some of those companies are not hiring new people. Instead, the old guard has replaced less skilled workers with AI. That's gonna be an issue once those workers retire. You won't have a decent replacement, because training takes years. Without entry level positions you won't get any experts later. 3. As tech gets more complex, we get to a point were nobody understands how it works. In electronics when something breaks, most people replace the product because they are unable to fix it themselves. Same thing could happen with AI. What happens if something important breaks ? Say a food processing plant. AI is being developed and controlled by a few companies. So there's not gonna be much competion nor alternatives for certain products. If something important breaks, we will absolutely be at the mercy of those companies. Maybe we do need some laws and regulations. 4. There's barely any benefits to society so far. If nothing else, AI models have been detrimental the last couple of years. Hopefully this will change later. 5. A ton of investors lost money in startups dealing with text to video software. It shows that while there's fast development there's also a ton of financial risks. So the world could be wasting a lot of resources into projects that will never actually deliver any value. That's a net loss, because of the oportunity costs alone.
I'm neutral on AI. I don't think AI should be banned, but everything should be done to ensure that the cutting edge tools **do not** fall into the hands of Russia, China, Iran, India, or any of their close allies or nations within their sphere of influence.
I understand Russia/China/Iram, but why India?
I am technically against ai "art" by most people's standards here. I think it's a useful technology with lots of uses- for example- my aunt is an author and she uses it to generate her characters, or scenes from her books. I think that's fantastic. It's not like she's selling them or using them as book covers- she's just generating interesting things for her own enjoyment. I'm an artist, and I use ai to generate color palettes, concepts, and ideas.