'The industry'? By which you mean Shutterstock and the like? If they are, they're losing.
Not every piece of art you don't like was made by AI
I mean Open AI, Google and others. They are actively working on ways to embed identification on the images as to their origins, so people can't hide the fact it is AI generated.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
AI is becoming so integrated into technology that if you take an all-or-nothing stance, at some point it seems all digital art itself has to be called into question. Is there not legitimate use of AI tools by artists that is acceptable?
They may, but not everybody will. And those who wish to hide it will simply use platforms which don't. There will always be easy ways to avoid that.
And people sell knock off purses on Ebay.
We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I'm not sure why you said that. Were you hallucinating me saying that Open AI shouldn't take measures?
My point is that it is and always will be hard to regulate this stuff, and yelling at the artists every time you see a flaw isn't the solution.
AI itself isn't the issue. It's the plagiarism angle which is the issue. But that's an entire angry people-shouting-at-each-other debate of its own which has been done a thousand times on these forums. I don't think we need to do it again. I'm trying to talk about how folks treat artists at the moment.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I see this as a win.
Just like the camera did not need a host of skills needed by a painter, from brush techniques to understanding the transparencies of their paints, and could be done by "anyone" who could compose and light a shot, we've now opened up additional creative possibilities for people.
Yes, just like the camera reduced the demand for painters, so will this step of technological progress. However, the step has already been taken, trying to delay it is a losing battle.
And yes, we feel for artists who need to acquire skills with the new tools - though many like composition, colors, and other parts of what makes good art are still applicable. But just like when the garbage trucks installed automated lifters for the garbage bins and technology removed those workers, automation will change what's available. And just like the camera didn't extinguish the watercolor or acrylic painters, nor did digital brushes that were a big step up for digital artists, there will be afterwards both traditional artists who have mastered the previous mediums which will still have a demand, and artists who specialize in the newest tools to make art.
We absolutely have to solve the ethical sourcing issue. But Pandora's Box has opened, and if we're going to have AI art anyway, let's get "low detectability" AI art which looks good.
The fact that false positives are common, and have unpleasant repercussions, does not somehow mean that it suddenly becomes more ethical to use tools that deny artists pay owed for their work.
Maybe the divisiveness is troublesome.
But, the division is really just, "Should we pay artists to use their art, or should we not pay them for their work?"
So, is the troublesome thing "divisiveness" or "how eager some are to deny artists pay for their work"?
This is bollocks.
Refusing to acknowledge that systems are changing and moving toward ethical (ie someone paid someone else for the rights) models just so you can continue the same old arguments is transparently refutable.
Eli.inating the ethical sourcing question leaves us with a single concern: do I feel justified in my disdain based on the amount of effort I expect someone to engage in before I consider their work valuable?
In other words, the vast majority of concerns about "is it art?" are based on "did you suffer enough?" It's BS.
Similar Threads
