AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Scribe]

I'll just be direct: it doesn't matter what I want.

True, as the last couple years have shown, when the mask is off, its not use normal people who matter.

I'd ask people who are really upset about AI, what are you going to do beyond call for it to be banned?

Support actual humans, commission art done by humans, and make products by humans, without AI.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Anyone who is using a copy of Photoshop that is less than 10 years old is making AI Art.

I have no new Photoshop since they went subscription.
The move to subscription model was a big no for me. But yeah, photoshop now uses AI even for basic masking. I've been wanting to replace it for a while but haven't found a good replacement. GIMP seems to be missing most of the features I use for 2d stuff. Except when I want vector lines and use CSP. I think it's time I look for replacements again though.

Some real artists who have more fluid styles, like Simz does, have been hounded out of work by people insisting their work is AI - even if they've been around, like Simz, since before the AI art era.
- It's going to be even worse if they were first actually copied, and people use those copies as an excuse to go after the real artist.

 

[Staffan]

Do you think someone can imagine a particular image and prompt an ai repeatedly until it produces exactly what they are imagining? (I do). And if thats possible, even for one single person and one single image, then isn’t that the human creative process at work and not the ai?

This is not the same as being an artist. You might make a case for being an art director, but that's pretty iffy as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Describing what you want and making what you want are not the same thing. I think it’s pure arrogance to describe something to a machine which then plagiarises artists to display the thing you described and then claim you created it. It’s like ordering something at a restaurant and then claiming you made the meal because you asked for it.

I think such an expansive definition of 'plagiarism' can be used to call virtually every human created art plagiarism, as all human art today is derived from previous human art. That's why many don't find such an argument persuasive.

There’s lots of things I can describe. That doesn’t mean I am making them.

Yet, you describing something doesn't normally mean your description gets brought into existence. AI image creation allows for that.

There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion about whether the underlying creative intent or the human assembly of pixels is art. I think art is when pixels get created in response to human creative intent. You think that it's only art when you have the human creative intent and the human creation of pixels.

So I'm curious, let's take some of the non-ai photoshop tools that could algorithmically modify the image, say produce lighting effects or remove objects and fill in the back ground or other such effects, remove the red from eyes (often happened with actual film cameras and early digital cameras), or other such tools. If an image was processed in this way, do you think the final output is still human created art? And if so why?

 

[Morrus]

I think such an expansive definition of 'plagiarism' can be used to call virtually every human created art plagiarism, as all human art today is derived from previous human art.

Then you think incorrectly. And man am I bored of that conversation. So, so bored. It’s boring. How many times do we have to have it? Can we just assume for the record that every time somebody trots that one out yet again that I have an AI bot programmed to say “naaaaah, what humans do and what LLMs do are not even vaguely the same process, not even slightly, there is no similarity whatsoever between what the human brain does and what an LLM does” and move on, without going through the tediousness of repeating it yet again? You’re misinformed at best, and spreading misinformation at worst. Neither are great, but I hope it’s the former. I know it’s not, because I know you’ve heard this before, and you have been informed (by me at the very least). So it’s misinformation, then.

Yet, you describing something doesn't normally mean your description gets brought into existence. AI image creation allows for that.

So if you tell a chef what you want for dinner and they make it for you, you made it?

Thai is the arrogance I described. The sheer hubris, and disrespect of the craft of making art that you’d compare what you do to what an artist does is just gross.

There seems to be a fundamental difference of opinion about whether the underlying creative intent or the human assembly of pixels is art.

Yes, mate. There’s a fundamental disagreement. Well done for spotting that. Was it the bit where I said you were wrong that clued you in? I mean, after all these months and all these threads, are you seriously only just realising this?

I think art is when pixels get created in response to human creative intent.

I am aware. You said. You are wrong. As I said. At least one of us was paying attention.

Much as I enjoy you repeating the conversation to me, it’s a little tedious.

I’m not saying all this to you, BTW. I know you’re 150% dug in and nobody on the internet has ever changed their mind. I’m saying this to counter your misinformation for the benefit of those reading. You’ll be back saying the exact same things next week in another thread, I know. But if just one person reading this took something away, I’m satisfied.

 

[VHawkwinter]

It's baked into even the select tools there. I happen to use Gimp instead because I don't like subscribing to my applications. My last Photoshop upgrade was right before it went to a subscription. I don't know if Gimp has AI baked in - given the costs and difference in results most likely it does not. But it's hard to say.

I do think it is likely that most people would not consider AI-Assisted masking correction to count. But it is the same sort of technology running under the hood. But yes, all the modern art tools are incorporating diffusion AI features these days, unless you're using antique tools like I have been.

I may have to give Krita and Material Maker a go, personally. I want some tools I can run well in Linux without needing to boot windows (or fight with WineTricks, or run a VM), and my old photoshop is like 15 years old. Familiar, sure but I really would like some modern "shader-nodes" type functionality.

 

[Mecheon]

I think art is when pixels get created in response to human creative intent.

So paintings, drawings and sculptures aren't art by your standards, unless they're digitised? Humanity as a whole didn't create art until we had computer screens?

Interesting take. Its categorically wrong, but its certainly. Interesting.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then you think incorrectly.

I don't think so.

So if you tell a chef what you want for dinner and they make it for you, you made it?

No. A chef is not a machine.

There's a few degrees here to walk through.

• I get a frozen TV dinner and heat it up in the microwave. Did I make the dinner? Did the microwave? Did the frozen TV dinner company? (It depends on what 'make' means.) My colloquial use of 'making dinner' would allow me to tell me wife I made dinner, because our intent in that communication is knowing that dinner is ready to eat due to me and that she doesn't need to do anything, not whether I made it from scratch. I wouldn't say the microwave made dinner, it has no intentionality. If the context was about whether I personally prepared it from scratch, I could also truthfully say ABC company made the dinner.
• Now let's replace the microwave with a robot that accepts my voice commands. Alexa, make lasagna. Do I tell my wife I made dinner when she gets home? Depending on the context I could truthfully say either I made dinner due to my intentionality of starting up a machine to perform that task, or I could say Alexa made dinner, if the context was about whether I personally prepared it.

Thai is the arrogance I described. The sheer hubris, and disrespect of the craft of making art that you’d compare what you do to what an artist does is just gross.

Just because i can make a microwave dinner, and a chef can make a fancy meal from scratch, doesn't mean that those things are on the same 'level', but we both are still making dinner. So no, you are completely wrong on this point, and it's because i don't compare what I do in making a microwave dinner to what a chef does, but yet our language is such that the same word still describes them both.

Much as I enjoy you repeating the conversation to me, it’s a little tedious.

Then have a good night.

 

[FrogReaver]

So paintings, drawings and sculptures aren't art by your standards, unless they're digitised?

Really? That's your takeaway?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Perhaps. Eventually, Star Trek's "Measure of a Man," may play out. But today is not that day.

And, that day has been "ten years from now" for decades, and is likely to remain "ten years from now" until well after I'm dead and gone.



I'm being a bit more general than "the spark of creativity", but whatever.



So, here's the basic difference:

When Andy Warhol played around with commercial imagery in his pop-art, he had a point. There was a reason why he did it, things he wanted to communicate and to have people think about.

The generative AI does not have a point to make when it reworks a visual. It has no intent of its own.

What if Andy Warhol used an AI art prompt to describe and tweak his vision for how he could alter soup cans to make a statement and the output ended up exactly the same which he then transferred to canvas via a printer? Would that then make it not art?