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

[Dannyalcatraz]

the Supreme Court actually ruled against him for doing that.

Hence the distinction between copyright & trademark in these discussions.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I cannot imagine a person with no creative ability even wanting to make art tbh. If they arent creative, what would drive them to try to create?

There’s a lot of people in this world who have creative impulses but have limitations that inhibit their expression of them.

A jeweler I have worked with for decades cannot draw. He’s envious of my ability to visualize and sketch out a half-dozen riffs on a ring or pendant in a few minutes, given only a stone and some parameters.

But he has a CAD program that lets him put his ideas into a manipulable visual form he can show clients and work from.

 

[Morrus]

On a side note, am I the only bothered when people who use AI for everything keep calling themselves "creators"?

You are not.

You're no more a creator than I am a chef when I order a meal.

That's exactly what I said.

 

[ART!]

We don't need more small creators as much as well need more good small creators. Reliance on AI art, let alone writing, doesn't help a creator get better and it tends to drown the people who actually take the time to make something with care.

Just wanted to "ditto" this.

If the rationale for using "AI" "art" is that you have to in order to compete with big publishers who use "AI" "art", in the long run you actually are making things harder for yourself and for anyone who creates without "AI". You are reinforcing the idea that you need "AI" to compete, adding more "AI" "art"-filled products to the marketplace, and thereby contributing to the idea that you have to do that to compete. You could actually be shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[Epic Meepo]

Correct. The original idea and human creative intent all comes from the recipe writer.

After that, it matters not whether the recipe is then followed by a robot or a human, provided each executes that recipe precisely. Either one is, at that point, just an instructions processor; similar to a pianist perfectly playing sheet music exactly as the sheet tells him to.

Just like the AI generator is producing art as instructed by deatiled and amended prompts. It's just a tool at that point; the creativity all came from the mind of the person visualizing the desired image then writing the prompts that (ideally) tell the machine to produce that image.

If you honestly believe a musician following sheet music is just an instructions processor, no different than a mindless robot, then I see no point in continuing this conversation. Have a nice day.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you honestly believe a musician following sheet music is just an instructions processor, no different than a mindless robot, then I see no point in continuing this conversation. Have a nice day.

While I do also find that claim to be preposterous, at the same time I think it takes a refined listener to really understand or perceive the difference between a competent musician and a great one. As a non-refined listener, but who has also spent many an evening at Lincoln center or Carnegie Hall (great way to impress dates) I can't say I actually enjoy/appreciate it more than when I hear amateur friends play music. To me it's the same thing.

Which I think has some relevance to a constantly repeated theme in these discussions: I keep hearing people say that AI art is "bad" and that it is going to drive the RPG world....and everything else....to the lowest common denominator of quality. I happen to disagree: While I don't think I could explain why Rembrandt is a "better artist" than Clyde Caldwell, I do agree AI art is (mostly) bad...it doesn't even rise to the level of "competence"...and that it takes a human to make a good art.

But assuming the argument is true that bad AI art is "good enough" for consumers (and ignoring how insulting that is to non-creatives), what's the argument for everybody overpaying for real art? Social responsibility to keep artisans employed?

EDIT: That said, I do think there are lot of contexts in which "bad art" actually is good enough. It's not that the audience is unaware it's bad, it's just that they recognize that the context doesn't require good art.

 

[Lord_Blacksteel]

Correct. The original idea and human creative intent all comes from the recipe writer.

After that, it matters not whether the recipe is then followed by a robot or a human, provided each executes that recipe precisely. Either one is, at that point, just an instructions processor; similar to a pianist perfectly playing sheet music exactly as the sheet tells him to.

Just like the AI generator is producing art as instructed by deatiled and amended prompts. It's just a tool at that point; the creativity all came from the mind of the person visualizing the desired image then writing the prompts that (ideally) tell the machine to produce that image.

Once again for emphasis:
"Either one is, at that point, just an instructions processor; similar to a pianist perfectly playing sheet music exactly as the sheet tells him to."

This may be the first time I have ever seen a performing musician referred to as "an instructions processor". It's easy to tell when someone puts themselves out as never having played music (or draw/painted/etc. art) yet wants to tell everyone else what is involved in the process. The arrogance involved is just staggering.

And let me note - this is in no way saying you have to have "done something" to criticize something. But you should probably have "done it" or at least understand it before you start publicly reducing it to a simple mechanical task. If it's so simple then you should take a shot at doing it yourself.

 

[gban007]

Seems Foundry wants to do the reverse, though, and force their morals and ethics on to their users.

Why, from an objective viewpoint, is one of these OK and the other not?

I was copying the original language.

Ultimately, either every decision someone makes in terms of what they support or don't, what they allow to be sold on their marketplace or not is cramming their ethics and morals on other people, or it is people applying their ethics as they see fit.

The original poster of this thread appears to have no problem coming in hot and complaining about how others are posting, complaining about ethics,.complaining about any limitation on their activities, and wants to limit what others such as Foundry do, but doesn't seem to want anyone else to complain about or limit their use of AI.

Ultimately it feels like a hypocritical stance, they should be allowed to do what their ethics allows, but anyone else with their own ethics can't.

I don't see either Foundarys actions or the OPs actions as better or worse than the other in terms of 'cramming morals down throats of others', just obviously if one parties actions align with my morals and ethics, and one doesn't, I will support one partys actions and not the other.