You must log in or register to comment.
I don’t hate it, in fact I use it a lot for my D&D game nights - not being an artist myself.
As an artist I’m conflicted. I like new technology and methods and mediums, but it’s entirely unethical to make models on unconsenting artists with no compensation or recognition.
I like it quite a bit. Le chat mistral does a good job
I don’t hate the “art.” The AI can’t do much about it.
What I strongly dislike is people who manage to draft literally 40 words or less and think they “created” something.
You didn’t. You a mathematical model to do something for you. You therw 175 tokens into a whirlpool and got am 87% what you wanted image out. If you even had an idea of what you wanted before hand.
I don’t hate AI art. I hate AI art being passed off as “traditional” art.
I hate that it’s built on theft. The idea of AI art is fine, but so much of it is just art theft. “Picture of A in the style of artist B.” That kind of shit really makes me hate AI art.
I think it substracts from everything but itself. That is on its own, its pretty cool. But it’s gross when it’s used as part of a bigger project.
There’s nothing interesting about it. It’s a waste of storage space and computational power. It makes the world worse
low effort crap is low effort crap no matter how it’s made, that said, there is plenty of high quality, high effort AI art out there that has a lot of prompt engineering put into it; it is merely drowned out in a sea of sludge. It’s just about as easy for someone to put in zero effort and churn out AI sludge as it is for them to scribble in MSPaint, the difference being scribbling in MSPaint usually has some level of charm to it for its simplicity. That doesn’t mean the guy who spends a lot of time tweaking their prompt to get it exactly right isn’t an artist, it means they create art with different tools. Whether you use a rattlecan and stencils, or pencils and paper, or paint and canvas, or a wacom tablet and stylus, or type in carefully crafted prompts, art is art is art is art. But if you don’t spend the time required to get good at it, your art will be shit.
Also, watching the artist crowd melt down again saying “that’s not real art!” is absolutely hilarious. Those who weren’t around at the time may not remember, but when digital art was starting to become a thing, there were plenty of people who firmly attested that if it was digital, it wasn’t “real” art. Watching the same set of creatives having the same meltdown ~30 years later, “REEEEE YOU CAN’T JUST USE TECHNOLOGY TO MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER”, is extremely funny.
I am fine with AI art as long as its properly credited to its creato. Not the person who wrote a prompt to generate the image, not the company that created the program. The AI should be credited in a way that no person could confuse it for something someone made
If thats too hard, banning AI art is also fine. I havent seen any real use for it
Like anything art generators are a tool. One that can be very useful in a creative process, to convey an idea that is hard to present in text, to explore variations on a concept without having to draw something a hundred times, etc. It would be very difficult to argue that something like that has no valid uses.
However, as it stands the majority of the tools in place cost a fair bit of money to set up and run and so there is a high barrier to entry, and so the profits made from running them end up going primarily to those who are rich enough to set them up in the first place. Wealth inequality is a massive issue right now and so this sours a lot of people against these tools.
Many people also subjectively dislike AI art, which is a fair comment, as all art is subjective, but I don’t think it necessarily helps anyone to debate over whether it looks good or not, that shouldn’t be the issue here.
You could argue that the root of the problem is that most users of these tools will never consider the repercussions of paying for them, the people they are supporting are obscured behind many layers and it is impossible for the average consumer to know what the recipient will do with those funds.
Like any tool, these machines have created a new way for the already powerful to exploit the weak, it may be abstracted away behind closed doors but it is happening.
However, as it stands the majority of the tools in place cost a fair bit of money to set up and run
You can get by with 4G of VRAM if all you want is to generate some pictures, or differently put every PC capable of 1080p gaming should do the trick. With good software (comfyui) you can do SDXL just fine, and almost crush SD1.
It’s fine-tuning much less training models where things get expensive but there’s other ways to get creative with those models. Training is only ever barely possible on gaming GPUs because those cap out at about 16G VRAM.
(Just for completeness’ sake, for anyone wondering “why don’t I just use my 32G worth of CPU RAM to supplement the VRAM?” – that’s already happening anyways. You need a minimum amount of VRAM or your box will be busier shuffling data from and to the GPU than it is actually doing calculations: Your GPU is going to thrash. If that happens it’s probably faster to run the AI on the CPU and, well, it’s just not build to run that kind of code).
yes, the answer would be subjective since art itself is subjective. thanks for your neutral point of views :)
Not really, if they actually look good and doesn’t have the uncanny valley stuff to it. But there should be rules on Lemmy (and hopefully other platforms too) to required images to be marked as AI.
thanks for your response!
Not a fan. It admittedly can be an amusing toy - type something in and wow look what it did! But the costs are high, and our society isn’t a utopia where people don’t need to labor for survival.
Maybe if we were post scarcity it wouldn’t matter that much. But we’re not, and this AI stuff is going to hurt labor, benefit the ownership class, and probably be mildly bad for end users too.
Almost all of the images generated by AI models are just eye candy and not art. It can be eye candy based on a bunch of art, but it still isn’t artistic. It’s often just an image aimed at farming engagement. “Here’s a picture so that your algorithms don’t ignore my post. Do I have your attention now?”
I see them mostly as fun toys now but eventually someone will use them to create something we have never seen or even considered before. I don’t think that makes them artistic but a tool of an artist.
