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

[Morrus]

As to "ideas" vs "process" I have to fall onto the side of agreeing that ideas are easy and cheap.

Although I would add that ideas are easy and cheap, but they are also necessary. And only humans can have new ideas; LLM's can only regurgitate old ones (that humans had).

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, I found it funny. My art is entirely amateur though (dude was objectively a better painter than I am).
__________________________________________________

As to "ideas" vs "process" I have to fall onto the side of agreeing that ideas are easy and cheap. It's the actualization and iteration (in a lot of cases, especially the iteration) where actually creativity comes in and something becomes "art". True innovation emerges during iteration.
I'm not actually sure where I fall on the line of iterating through LLM picture creators. I'm reminded a lot of the "digital vs traditional art" wars that raged on the internet when I was younger. But the negative social and environmental impacts are significantly higher this time around. And unlike (for instance) abstaining from eating meat, not consuming AI art is easy for me to do.

One can still acknowledge negative social and environmental impacts while still concluding that in at least some contexts the output is ultimately art.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Yeah, I do believe that the AI picture generators can be used as a tool to create art. I don't believe it can currently be done ethically, and I'm still on the side that folks doing nothing but feeding prompts in aren't actually artists so much as commissioners.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Why not? Your brain directs your hand and paintbrush to do the work. Since the brain directs AI to do the work and achieve your vision, I don't see that as any different from the brain directing the hand and paintbrush to do the work. In both cases you are being a director. In both cases the end result is 100% your vision of what the art should look like.

And again, I'm talking about using AI as a tool to achieve your vision, not merely prompting the AI to come up with a picture and accepting what it gives you.

 

[BenjaminPey]

the end result is 100% your vision of what the art should look like.

I don't think it is, no. Not at all. I'd be surprised if there's anything like you in there, not even 1 %. The first output will be really far off, and you will then only tweak it a little, heavily influenced by the first (or second, or third, or whatever) picture you saw. An AI is nothing like a brush and to think writing a prompt is like reifying an image you have in your head but can't do with your hands is misleading at best. It doesn't work like that. One doesn't come up with La Primavera or les Demoiselles d'Avignon exactly as they are in their head. The art is in the idea and it is in the process as much as it is in the product. Logos, Praxis, Tekhné. An AI will only give you a product, and a bland one at that. You'll then add a smudge of something, and if you think the final result is exactly like your vision, that only means your vision was lackluster and incomplete to begin with and that an infinite numbers of very different result could have met it as well.

A better metaphor would be to say AI is like a sticker book. Sure, you can choose the stickers, and organize them as you wish on the page. A tortoise here, a hare there. But whatever you do, it will still be stickers copying something drawn by others. Were it not built on thief, made to enrich the richest and guzzling water and energy with the fury of a thousand suns, it could be a fun toy to tinker with a little. As it is, it's indefensible.

If you have artistic visions, please enrich the world drawing them with your head and your hands.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it is, no.

It can't be anything else. I had a vision. My vision is now before me. That's 100% my vision.

Not at all. I'd be surprised if there's anything like you in there, not even 1 %. The first output will be really far off, and you will then only tweak it a little, heavily influenced by the first (or second, or third, or whatever) picture you saw. An AI is nothing like a brush and to think writing a prompt is like reifying an image you have in your head but can't do with your hands is misleading at best. It doesn't work like that. One doesn't come up with La Primavera or les Demoiselles d'Avignon exactly as they are in their head. The art is in the idea and it is in the process as much as it is in the product. Logos, Praxis, Tekhné. An AI will only give you a product, and a bland one at that. You'll then add a smudge of something, and if you think the final result is exactly like your vision, that only means your vision was lackluster and incomplete to begin with and that an infinite numbers of very different result could have met it as well.

You don't get to tell me how much I would tweak it. I guarantee you it wouldn't be a little. There's no way the AI would get all that close to my vision with what it first grabbed. It would take a whole lot of changes.

A better metaphor would be to say AI is like a sticker book. Sure, you can choose the stickers, and organize them as you wish on the page. A tortoise here, a hare there. But whatever you do, it will still be stickers copying something drawn by others. Were it not built on thief, made to enrich the richest and guzzling water and energy with the fury of a thousand suns, it could be a fun toy to tinker with a little. As it is, it's indefensible.

No. That's a horrible metaphor and isn't at all what I am describing. I have no ability to alter the shape, coloration, details of the sticker, etc.

If you have artistic visions, please enrich the world drawing them with your head and your hands.

I have the vision, but not the talent. Not that I've created any AI art. I dislike AI for other reasons and don't use it for things.

 

[bsss]

Since the brain directs AI to do the work

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. You don't give the AI instructions, you give it an idea and it is let loose on that idea. It is a transformation of an idea, not an implementation of procedures. Even if it's an elaborate idea, you have released yourself of further involvement once you give it to the AI --- the interpretation and transformation/reinterpretation of an idea would be credited to the human who did the work, except there is no human here, so no credit. In the end you had an idea and threw it over the wall and got something handed back to you.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the fatal flaw in your argument. You don't give the AI instructions, you give it an idea and it is let loose on that idea. It is a transformation of an idea, not an implementation of procedures. Even if it's an elaborate idea, you have released yourself of further involvement once you give it to the AI --- the interpretation and transformation/reinterpretation of an idea would be credited to the human who did the work, except there is no human here, so no credit. In the end you had an idea and threw it over the wall and got something handed back to you.

No. I get the initial picture back based on whatever prompt I have given. Then I direct it as a tool to make the many, many changes I want. That's instruction. There's no way that it can go out and keep finding art on the internet that has all the changes I want to make to the initial picture. It MUST act as a tool.

You're under the mistaken idea that I'm talking about just giving it a prompt, even a complex prompt, and then just accepting what it gives me. I'm not.

 

[wizard71]

Ok then don't buy it. Or just admit that only companies large enough to pay for such human artists should be in the marketplace.

This hurts small 3rd party creators. That is fact and those creators ARE creating their adventures and their supplements, even if they use AI art, and they are also creating the prompts to develop the AI art.

No dude. The only people being hurt by your plan are actual artists. Larger corporations WANT to use AI as much as possible. The only thing holding them back is negative feedback from customers.

 

[Maxperson]

His takeaway from what you said is... what you said. It's pretty hard to talk to people who gaslight you about what they actually said, even their words are literally right there.

There was no gaslighting dude. Mecheon took FrogReaver's quote out of context and then responded with a competely inappropriate response. The sentence immediately preceding the one taken out of context shows that the context is, "When does pixelated art become art?" Then the next sentence was @FrogReaver's position on when that happens. He did not, because of that context that was deliberately omitted, exclude all of those other forms of art from being art.