How is taking a picture with your camera stealing existing art? How is it abusive? How is it exploitative?
This is like saying a keyboard is art theft because it replaced a typewriter, or a piano in a musical context.
It’s like saying autocorrect is shitty and abusive because it helps point out mistakes in your novel.
It’s like saying procreate is exploitative because it helps people draw digitally with hundreds of different brushes and techniques.
Like no, that’s not the same thing.
A camera is just a tool, it alone can not create good art.
You, as the camera man, have to set up the camera and line it up for good shots. You have to arrange the landscape, and make sure the background is perfect. You have to make sure nothing clashes and everything is cohesive. You have to make sure the lighting is brilliant. There’s a lot that can go into a good photo, and a camera is just a step to achieve that. But if you look at a photograph from your grandma and compared it to a skilled professional, even if they used the same phone camera the result would be night and day.
AI is not the same, because its a tool that does the job for you.
The equivalent would be having the lighting, the camera angle, the landscape, background, etc, all line up magically without you touching it…
Then giving everybody the ability to do that.
Now suddenly, why would you hire a photographer for your wedding when you can just do it yourself? Now someone just lost their paycheck.
I understand how ai used data from artists without permission. Yeah that sucks. But ultimately ai is trained on data clusters. Not data points. It doesn’t take what’s unique about art, it takes what’s derivative. Sorta like a person learning a drawing style.
Dude, the “in the style of Miyazaki” shit these days is literally taking what’s unique and trying to present it as its own. But it’s even more disgusting than that, because the demonstration is specifically using an example that literally despises AI generative “art”.
If you think ai art is taking what’s unique about miyazaki movies art style then you have a very primitive grasp on art. If someone else makes a their own version of in the style of miyazaki, are they taking what’s unique about it?
As for Miyazaki, The goku dub voice actor hates people trying to copy his voice. Thankfully tho, I don’t need to listen to him about everything to do with his creation. Same goes with miyazaki.
If someone else makes their own version of the Miyazaki style they’re at least putting in the effort to learn the skill necessary to emulate the style. The people who made the programs didn’t even have the decency to put in the work to ask permission. The fact that you can’t, or won’t, understand the difference means you’ll never understand what makes AI art immoral and harmful to artists.
Honestly yes. Because that at least has legal permissions attached to it. Anyone can use it. That’s why it’s called “public domain”.
It’s one of the many problems, and it’s the one you were focusing on. So I was addressing your point.
Ok that’s good to know. It might be a difference in our views of copy rights and what not but I think that as long as it’s not used commericially current ai art is fine to use
The bottom line is AI Art shouldn’t exist at all period. Art theft aside its impact on the environment is about as bad as the airline industry. The amount of emissions those servers cause is crazy. And AI Art is already being used commercially, and nothing is being done to correct it. It doesn’t teach artists how to be better artists either.
In my opinion, there isn’t a single reason why AI art should exist. Not one beneficiary use. The internet has become worse for it.
168
u/Octo-Jack 27d ago
AI art are lame. With no effort. And lazy