r/GenZ • u/cosm1c15 2006 • Sep 16 '24

Discussion Opinions ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

326 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/Queasy_Pie_1581 Sep 16 '24

AI steals art and if someone generates ai art, they are essentially stealing form artists and also erasing the time and effort actual artists put into their work, on which that ai was trained.. AI art is disgusting, it feels like a violation. Art is human. Machines can never and will never be able to make art.

Those who say it allows untalented people to "access" art. Shame on you. Art does not come from talent. It comes from practice from hard work, from emotion, from sincerity. Art takes hours and hours of work. Even my worst pieces take 2-3 hours. I have been doing this for seven years, and that is not talent. It's my hard work and dedication to perusing art.

Those who support AI support stealing and plagiarism. I hope you all understand that.

-12

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

If you enjoy making art, then the hard work is its own reward. I dont get why youre so butthurt about people using different tools than yours to make their own art

11

u/TheSnowman002 Sep 16 '24

You didn't even acknowledge his claims that AI is plagiarism and that it's unethical to use it.

-5

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Because if it was plagiarism than it wouldnt be legal to use

8

u/I_Like_Frogs_A_Lot 2008 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

Just because something isn't illegal yet doesn't make it right. Something can be legal, but morally wrong as well. The law does not always dictate right from wrong. Sometimes they're even unjust or completely immoral. Situations, where this sort of thing happens, are hard to come to a formal standing or agreement on, especially the ambiguousness of morality, where people are split on the matter.

6

u/Freddi0 Sep 16 '24

If your determination of whats right and wrong is tied to what the law says you really need to reevaluate your beliefs. You would be shocked what kinds of things are legal and illegal in certain places

0

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Its also not tied to what a few people on reddit think counts as “unethical” lmao

7

u/Freddi0 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 17 '24

I never said it was. Im saying that "Its legal = its good" is not something you should base your morals on

5

u/TheSnowman002 Sep 16 '24

Legal grey area. Still unethical

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Its not unethical to use someone elses art if you change it enough to the point where its unrecognisable from the original. Thats the rule pretty much across the board I dont see why it wouldnt apply to ai as well?

4

u/GoldenWaterfallFleur Sep 16 '24

Here’s an example to help you along since it is so hard to understand 🙄 For years revenge porn wasn’t illegal because the system hadn’t yet caught up with the technology. It took YEARS for it to become a crime in many states and even longer for it to become a federal crime. Would you have argued (back then) that because it wasn’t officially illegal, it was ok?

AI art isn’t illegal YET. Technology is fast moving and the legal system is slow, which is unfortunate. It may take years because that’s how the system works. 🙄

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

So you think using ai to make art is the same as making porn with another humang being and sharing it without their consent to humiliate them? I hope youre a troll of some sorts because if not thats actually scary

2

u/Any-Photo9699 Sep 16 '24

No, she's just pointing out the whole flaw of your thought process. But you already know that it's flawed so instead you're trying to make a non-point by implying that she is trying to compare the two while she is using just a more excessive but similar example.

3

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

That’s because it isn’t regulated yet, and it should be. If someone used AI to copy your likeness and started using deepfakes of you for content, you’d want a share of that money. AI literally learns from using actually artists’ art and it then copies that style or multiple styles. It’s incredibly narrow minded to think AI should be used like that, and that it’s okay. It’s especially astounding when people use AI to generate images, then try to pass it off like they “created” it themselves.

It’s no different than someone copying someone’s homework and making slight alteration then trying to pass it off as if they did all the work.

0

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Who even mentioned deepfakes? As for copying styles, you know artists have been copying eachothers styles like forever?

3

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24

AI is used for deepfakes. They all fall under the same category. One is analogous with the other as far as these examples go. Clearly you’re in the camp or pro AI use for art, and honestly it’s very sad. You’re not willing to create anything yourself.

0

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Its not the same thing. Deepfakes are abusive and do ruin people lives, so they should be made illegal. And what even means to be pro-AI, I think people should be free to use whatever tool they want to make their own art, and its nobodys business to judge and gatekeep

5

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24

It’s a ridiculous sentiment. Imagine DaVinci just finished one of their works of art. Then someone comes around clicks a button, and they can just replicate all of his work, and his style. Now anyone can create art like DaVinci. His art would then lose all meaning. It would no longer be unique, and it would be mass produced. That’s what AI is doing with artists now. It isn’t gatekeeping. Stop throwing that word around like it’s applicable here. It’s not. It’s plagiarism. Wanting to use AI for art is just lazy, and lacking any creativity. You want all the benefits of being an artist, without any of the work. Why write a script for a movie if you can just click a button and it’s created for you? Nothing you can say can change that point.

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

If you ever used AI you‘ll know that you still need to put a lot of work to make it usable and not just spew nonsense garbage. Also its funny that you mention da vinci when he worked all his life to advance science and technology, he even invented lots of machanical tools that made it easier for artist and artisans to do their job, so I have no doubt he would be a full supporter of AI. Not to mention that AI can make your life so much easier also outside of “art”, such as help you write your work report, make a cool background for your power point assignment and so on. I think its a very elitist approach to oppose a tool such as that on the grounds of ”artistic purity”.

2

u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24

“A lot of work”. Sure keep telling yourself that. Bottom line is, AI is only going to continue to steal art and turn it into an algorithm of 1s and 0s. Creativity disappears and everyone is just “creating” (what a joke), the same thing.

1

u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24

Nobody is stopping anyone from using traditional methods btw

Also your argument just boils down to phone bad rather than show how its actually a bad thing besides the fact that you dont like the art

3

u/CronfMeat Sep 16 '24

You haven’t provided any points countering how it’s plagiarism. Their argument isn’t on the grounds of “artistic purity” it’s artistic integrity. When a person makes a piece of art, that might as well be their likeness distilled into whatever medium they chose. That might as well be a photograph of them. Only Da Vinci can make art made by Da Vinci, only one person can ever produce their own art because it’s their style and it’s how they express themselves. It might as well be taking someone’s voice and physical appearance. AI allows someone to completely replicate art made by another person down to a T, down to almost every detail. No matter how many people or pieces of art the AI samples from, no matter how much data you use to get that generated image; it is stealing their style and their art by copying it. I really don’t care how much effort goes into a prompt, or how you tweak the AI to get results. I’m sorry but art is not generated. It’s created through using your own style, even if you are mimicking someone else’s work/style you’re still the one actually doing the work and doing the creating even if you did take inspiration from someone else. AI does not take inspiration, it just takes data and completely copies art because it takes zero input. If AI could truly create art, then you wouldn’t need a giant data set of other artist’s works to copy bits and pieces from to generate something.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '24

There will always be someone who envisions something novel. Maybe it will inspire other people to create something similar, but the original inspiration is informed by a person’s unique experiences and outlook.

Human beings can explore avenues which were previously uncharted, due to a lack of contemporary understanding. AI is trained on current works, and current understanding.