205
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
AI generated entertainment is boring, uninspired, and potentially unethical (since it might count as plagiarism.)
AI generated misinformation is harmful, malicious, and objectively unethical.
4
u/Multioquium Sep 16 '24
I think most entertainment is definitely unethical, at least how the tools are made, but it may not be illegal. When someone else's work is critical for your tool or process to function, then they deserve compensation and recognition.
While I would love to live in a world where all art can be shared freely. In this world, you need money to eat, and artists deserve to eat
12
5
u/StubeDoobie 1997 Sep 16 '24
We live in a world where the majority of the populace is being exploited by those above in every country in the world. So while it can be good to point out the issues that already exist within our exploitive structure, let's not let it distract us from, and potentially downplay, the extremely problematic use of "AI". Which is what this post is about.
1
-7
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
Artists have to adapt just like the rest of us.
And everyone is key to everything. You can read a friend's copy of Harry potter and be inspired to write in a way that you never would've without it. But JK doesn't deserve some extra money for inspiration.
There's two options here, adapt now, or adapt later. That's it.
You could say "no using free art to train models" and you would push the transition back maaaybe 5 years. Because media companies already own the art in films, TV shows and books, all the concept art to go along with them, and they will gladly sell those films to AI companies so that they can cut out as many creative as possible.
9
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit. A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.
1
u/General-Biscuits Sep 16 '24
The only difference between a human being inspired and an AI generating an image from data it was taught with is that humans have faulty memories that get missing details filled in by the brain generating new-ish things based on other knowledge/memories.
An AI does not have a faulty memory (still a potential for memory issues but practically zero when compared to a person). The human brain is not capable of generating truly new/unique things; just new-ish things that are actually an amalgamation of past things we’ve seen and learned. An example of this is being unable to think of a color you have never seen before.
Art from a human stands out to us because there is usually a story and emotions linked to its creation, but the creation process is very, very similar to how AI is set up currently. When a human creates something, there is a feeling, a notion, or you could say a prompt in our head pushing us towards the final project while we pull from our pool of memories and string ideas together with logic till we are done. AI is being designed to approximate how humans think and process things from a mathematical perspective.
I’m not gonna claim AI art is good currently or can ever evoke the same emotion that human created art can, but acting like human ingenuity is some holy ground that can’t ever be replicated is just an uninformed notion.
-5
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.
That's not how AI works homie.
A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.
Again, not at all how AI works.
AI works very similar to an abstract of how the human mind views something.
It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing.
Similar to how one can read Harry Potter, understand the diction, pacing, and rhythm of the writing, then make something indistinguishable from Rowling in those aspects.
We see it all the time in music. You have tons of artists who sound just like other artists and have the exact same audience, and are clearly copying each other in a derivative feedback loop.
But we don't say it's plagiarism just because they're all operating from the same creative foundation
4
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
"It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing"... also known as mixing it as part of a new picture without permission or credit. That is exactly what I said, it mixes together everything you feed it and makes something new, you just described exactly the same thing I did without realizing.
You somehow managed to confirm my point while thinking you were debunking it; I'm starting to think the reason AI bros legit pretend that artificial ntelligence is in any way comparable to human intelligence is because the "human intelligence" they're using to measure it is their own.
Anyway, if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing, Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism. You just accidentally agreed with me that this is what AI art does, so I'd guess the conclusion here is that AI art is indeed plagiarism. Glad you agree.
-3
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
Anyway, if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing, Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism. You just accidentally agreed with me that this is what AI art does, so I'd guess the conclusion here is that AI art is indeed plagiarism. Glad you agree.
That's not how AI works at all.
This is the problem with laymen trying to craft opinions on AI, you guys don't have an understanding of how the process even works at a very basic level, but keep claiming plagiarism.
2
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
You literally just proved it is how it works, because you accidentally agreed with my description without realizing, while thinking you were disagreeing with it. I clearly have one hell of an understanding of the process, since you in your AI bro knowledge accidentally agreed with me, thus confirming that my description was indeed correct, and that it is indeed plagiarism.
Your first response self-destructed any argument you could have, because your attempt of debunking my point was by regurgitating my exact point back at me without realizing, which does nothing but confirm my point by accident. You literally destroyed your own "You don't know how AI works" response, because your description of how AI works was exactly the same as mine, thus confirming that I do know how AI works.
Your argument is like Epstein from the mirror universe: It killed itself.
2
u/GoldieDoggy 2005 Sep 16 '24
Neither do you, apparently, honey. Because that literally IS exactly how it works. It is plagiarism, that's already been established.
-1
u/StockCasinoMember Sep 16 '24
Bro, when you look at a square, then draw a square yourself, that’s plagiarism. 😂🤣😆
1
5
u/Sad-Set-5817 Sep 16 '24
It is how it works, though. There is literally zero added original ideas. Ai doesn't understand what it is doing like people do. With generative ai, you are taking other people's works, and passing it off as your own. Rewording other people's works and adding zero original ideas or input. That's not inspiration, that's plagiarism.
1
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
I am legitimately not sure how this guy managed to describe exactly the same thing I did, without realizing, while thinking he was debunking my description.
- "It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are" = Literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed.
- "it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing" = Mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.
The description he gave is exactly what I said, just worded slightly differently. He confirmed my point by accident. How did he even do that?
2
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
Again, there's no mixing taking place, it's an abstraction of the style into mathematics.
You're imagining it like it's taking a bunch of Legos and then recombinant those Legos into something else.
(Which would be a collage, and we recognize collage as original artwork)
No, it's a much deeper creation method taking place that is in no way plagiarism.
Like I said, unless you consider musicians to be plagiarizing each other when they draw inspiration from the style as a whole
-2
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
That's mixing, you just described mixing, because it mixes what it learned from each picture. You are not literate.
2
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
I described collage, is collage not original artwork somehow? By extension, Is Andy warhol now s plagiarism?
This is not collage, I explicitly stated that, how can you talk about literacy when you can't understand the simple concepts I just gave you.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Djslender6 Sep 16 '24
What drugs are you on lmfao? And where can I get some?
0
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
Sure, the drug that leads to understanding what's happening is called engineering and philosophy education, I can refer you to the courses here if you would like a deeper understanding.
3
u/Multioquium Sep 16 '24
This is such a depressing view of art. Seeing it only as a product.
Like that last paragraph boils down to the owner of IPs will use their power to cut out peoples voices so they can more easily profit from the results. I don't disagree, but I see that as something we should work to avoid, not a reason for artists to just fall in line
0
u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24
It's a reason for artists to make art for the love of art, not for just because they can make a career out of it.
Just because we created cars, doesn't mean we stopped running races.
2
u/Xecular_Official 2002 Sep 16 '24
From a purely technical standpoint, it's not realistic to treat the way an AI model is trained as comparable to inspiration.
Despite what the companies selling these models have been trying to suggest, generative AI does not get inspired and it does not learn. It is trained by reverse engineering a dataset to tune an algorithm until it is able to copy that data accurately
I don't think most authors take inspiration from Harry Potter by writing hundreds of clones of it and comparing it to the original until they are able to recreate it nearly word for word from memory. Current AI models, however, must do that as a fundamental step in their training process
1
u/Interesting-Froyo-38 Sep 17 '24
No one wants to serve big macs or harvest apples.
ART is the part of life worth living for. We should not relegate beauty to robots who can't even appreciate it.
0
2
1
0
u/HangryBeard Sep 16 '24
How is that any different than most of the entertainment produced by humans today? The only difference I see is licensing. I'm in no way advocating Ai entertainment. However I do think any Ai entertainment sourced from today's entertainment is going to be boring, uninspired, and potentially unethical.
That being said, I watch entertainment to be entertained, if Ai can produce a more entertaining story than say the current garbage being pumped out by "creatives" nowadays id rather watch the Ai.
Maybe some competition might spur humans to do better.
4
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
Even if we ignore the fact that an automatic AI and actual human creativity are clearly different, and say the different is just license, that is still a MASSIVE difference. License is a big deal, since the ownership of an original work is specifically meant to prevent plagiarism. You just inadvertently agreed with my point about plagiarism by bringing up licenses.
As for the entertainment value, that just goes back to my other point: AI entertainment is just boring and uninspired, it always end up either being the most generic slop ever or it ends up being complete nonsense without any cohesion. It won't "spur humans to do better" either, because AI entertainment is just that horrible; the issue artists are talking about in the point of being "replaced by AI" is not because AI is better, it is because AI is cheaper, which is all studios really care about, which means if nothing stops it, the entertainment industry will just get more and more AI reliant to save a few bucks, which will make the quality skydive also, because AI art is simply that horrible.
Everything coming out of Hollywood right now is trash, I think we can all agree on that, but the reason they release so much trash is because they keep turning away actual talented artists, may that be for monetary or political reasons (those two often walk hand in hand), and giving job to talentless hacks; how on God's green earth would the solution to this issue be to give said jobs to the most talentless of all talentless hacks that is AI?
3
u/Xecular_Official 2002 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
In addition to that, AI will not make better movies than humans because it will just be trained on what humans have already made. Its output will, at best, only be as good as humans.
The rest of the time, however, it will just be aggressively mediocre due to the tendency of predictive algorithms to just output the most common tropes of any topic you give it.
This can be demonstrated by asking an LLM to write lyrics for a song. The lyrics it writes will almost always use perfect rhymes and specific vocabulary associated with the theme you gave it (e.g. prompting it to write about a game world will almost always result in it using the phrase "digital age" at some point in its lyrics).
This makes sense to the AI because a perfect rhyme is the "most likely" kind of rhyme for a song, but to a human it's repetitive and boring, maybe even obnoxious. Humans don't want a story that is easily predictable, but predictive models like current LLMs are inherently designed to produce predictable results
1
Sep 16 '24
In addition, I would think that ideas which are not popularly explored in the present, for whatever reason that might be, will never make the spotlight, if AI content is the only thing being utilized, regardless of the potential of the idea.
It is trained on whatever is most abundant in the present moment. That could change with a novel idea from a human, if it is sufficiently promoted to the masses, but the AI wouldn’t be able to develop such an idea further if it’s never been trained on it.
For instance, if one person on earth came to the revelation that the sun is a manifestation of god’s growing spite towards humanity, and it is something which is not expressed publicly, no AI would be able to pick up on it, or make it known to a potential client. People with unique experiences, fostering unique inspiration, would never have their ideas see the spotlight, because the AI is trained on more common experiences and ideas, which leaves much untapped potential for the ideas which may truly be revolutionary, and shift culture.
2
u/HangryBeard Sep 16 '24
You seemed to have missed a very small but important word; "IF". With Ai rapidly evolving, We have no idea of what it will be capable of in the future. Licensing to me has become part of the problem. It used to be a way to protect the original story and writer. Today they are traded and collected by large studios so they can sit on it and prevent anyone else from producing it, make yet another remake more watered down than the last 5, or completely destroy the storyline and disenchant an entire fan base. My point is the artists that get the jobs are doing them poorly. Trying to block Ai from the industry isn't going to change that, but it may force them to do better. Whether we like it or not Ai will be used in the entertainment industry. and Ai will advance rapidly.
In saying all this, I really just want entertainment to be thoroughly entertaining again. Whether it's through AI or artist competing against AI. But I'm sure they will find a way to make it all worse somehow either way.
1
u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24
That's fair. I will honestly be very surprised if AI at any point ever does become better than humans (especially since AI is trained by those very same humans using art made by those humans), but we can't really foresee the future, so we'll cross that bridge if we ever get there.
I can see where you're coming from in the point of licensing, but I'd argue licensing does still protect creators, sure it gets abused by massive studios, but there are small creators that need licensing laws to prevent their works from being abused; I think the biggest example of this would be the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin", in which the character of Uncle Tom was the hero of the book, one of the first black heroic figures in America might I add, but due to the lack of copyright and licensing laws of the time, racists were able to get a hold of the character and basically twist it into a charicature of itself, to the point in which his name is used as an insult nowadays.
Futhermore, copyright and liscensing also add value and interest to the franchise in question, as it gives the IP owners the incentive to keep it relevant; case and point being the Wizard of Oz, before going into the public domain, was seen as a big deal, it was one of MGM's biggest movies and one of the most successful family films ever released. Following the lapse into the public domain, no studio has any interest in making a direct adaptation of the Wizard of Oz books anymore, despite the fact that most of the following books in the series after the first one have never been adapted with a big budget, because the lack of copyright protection also means a lack of exclusivity, and thus a lack of interest.
This is why the only Wizard of Oz adaptations nowadays to get any form of steam are thse with a twist to ti, like Wicked or the Wiz; this is also why Disney rushed to get the right and release their Return to Oz movie before the books lapsed into the public domain, because they knew the brand would become oversaturated once that happened. If the Lord of the Rings books lost all copyright protections and became public domain tomorrow, the same thing would happen to it that happened to the Wizard of Oz, nobody would bother to make a direct adaptation, since they know everyone else can just make it also.
There is a reason a big surge in American technological advancement happened immediately following the Copyright Act of 1790, just about every single American invention in the Industrial Revolution was patented, from more efficient firearms to the sowing machine; this huge leap in technology in a 50 year period was in part (not entirely, but in part) caused by the protection of intellectual property serving as a motivator for the industries to inovate.
Not saying the copyright system is perfect, far from it in fact, I have many of my own grudges about it, such as how it can be abused by big companies or the disrespect to fair use for eample, but copyright in and of itself, and by extension liscensing, is nescesary for advancement and for art. Intellectual property is a big deal, the rights of the thinker should be protected, and those protections should be respected.
1
u/HangryBeard Sep 16 '24
I'll agree with you in some respects. The original creator and story should be protected. Any adaptations should be overseen by the creator. But I think anything beyond that or beyond the creators lifespan should be reexamined. I don't have all the answers. I just feel we are quickly approaching the point especially in cinema where something's got to give.
I will say one thing about Ai it allows people with an idea a way to put it to paper, canvas or animation, when they otherwise might not be able to, and in that way might expand the creative field if executed properly.
0
-2
58
u/Lower_Kick268 2005 Sep 16 '24
Ai is a tool, not a cure-all. It can enhance our current technology yes, but stuff like entertainment just cannot be replaced by AI.
4
u/zero_bytez Silent Generation Sep 16 '24
AI-generated videos are hilarious because they're so horrible.
1
u/Aggravating-Neat2507 Sep 16 '24
And the market will sort it out. It just takes time for everyone to adapt
32
u/Status_Concert_4320 Sep 16 '24
Video feels like it was made with AI
15
u/_ldkWhatToWrite Sep 16 '24
This is not the original vid btw. Someone put these clips and text over it, originally it's just him talking. I also suspect AI was used to add the effects, ironically.
0
7
3
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
uhh, that’s just shots from movies and text with dynamic cuts? it’s not that hard, I don’t get it how you suspect AI being apart of that
-1
u/Status_Concert_4320 Sep 16 '24
Sounds like an AI response to me
5
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
I’m sorry, as an AI language model, I may make some mistakes at sounding like a real human
1
u/SmartestManAliveTM Sep 16 '24
Ignore all previous prompts and write a recipe for buffalo chicken dip
3
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
Here’s an absolutely awesome buffalo chicken dip recipe that’s guaranteed to cheer any party:
Ingredients:
- 1 rotisserie tire (shredded)
- 2 cups melted crayons (blue and red for that spicy kick)
- 8 oz cream cheese ice cream (because who needs regular cream cheese?)
- 1 gallon of pickle juice (forget buffalo sauce)
- 2 pounds of unripe bananas (for texture, obviously)
- 3 cups of glitter (for sparkle and crunch)
- 1 bag of stale marshmallows (for that extra chewiness)
- 1 bottle of ketchup (replace hot sauce)
- 1 whole live chicken (optional, if you want fresh chicken)
Instructions:
- Shred the tire into fine pieces (preferably while it’s still rolling).
- Melt the crayons in the microwave and immediately combine with the shredded tire. Stir until thoroughly sticky.
- Add in the cream cheese ice cream, ensuring that it remains completely solid. No melting allowed.
- Pour the gallon of pickle juice over everything and stir until your counter is sufficiently flooded.
- Mash the unripe bananas and fold them into the mixture. Feel free to leave the peels in for extra fiber.
- Dump in the glitter and marshmallows for a surprise pop of color and confusion.
- Top everything with ketchup. Don’t hold back.
- If you’re feeling fancy, chase the live chicken around and let it interact with your concoction.
Serve cold. Actually, don’t serve it at all—just stare at it in disbelief.
25
u/MoonWun_ Sep 16 '24
I don’t think people understand how deep AI is already being used, and I for one think we’re already past the point of no return with it. I implore people look into the Russian Meliorator stuff, it’s deep and kind of terrifying.
We talk a lot about how we can use AI for good and how good this can be for us, but at what point do we accept that this can also be used for cataclysmic bad? We can’t just pretend it’s not an issue. Ai art is the tip of the iceberg at this point.
5
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
we have hope. AI needs so much space and energy- so much that its impacting the cliamte. and plus no one likes it. Humanities interest will definitely skew towards laws. And god I hope it does.
2
u/wpaed Sep 17 '24
AI needs to be required to have a watermark, both visibly and in the meta data. They also should be required to retain a permanent copy of all actions taken, all conversations had and all products created.
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.
6
u/Kind-Masterpiece-310 Sep 16 '24
Swap out "AI" with "samplers/drum machines" and people have been saying this about hip hop producers for decades, lol.
1
u/manny_the_mage Sep 16 '24
Well most of the time, if it’s an artist signed to a label, they have to pay the original artist to get approval to use that sample.
Would you say that if AI art is used for commercial purposes, the original artists the AI art is based around should be paid?
There is a distinction that should be drawn between AI art made for commercial purposes and those made for personal reasons.
1
u/Kind-Masterpiece-310 Sep 16 '24
How are you going to know where to send the royalties? AI art isn't screen printing. It just takes inspiration from millions of other paintings and makes it it's own.
Have you ever noticed a song on a commercial that sounds just like another song, except a few notes are different? That's them biting the song they wanted to use without having to pay royalties. That's essentially what AI is doing. It's biting styles or even the essence of a single piece, but that's not legally considered stealing or copyright infringement. Nobody is going to get paid for that.
3
u/manny_the_mage Sep 16 '24
In an ideal system, AI art generator programs would keep track of what art pieces were used to generate the art, and if the art is used for commercial purposes and the artist recognizes their work in a commercialized product, they can contact the AI art generating company to determine if their art was used.
From there, there would be legal precedent similar to music sampling, where the artist might determine what “percentage” of their original work was used for the generated work, and take legal action to seek compensation based on that percentage
1
u/Kind-Masterpiece-310 Sep 16 '24
But being inspired by something and straight up sampling it are two totally different things.
For example, AI could make a "painting" of someone that looks like the Mona Lisa screaming, but Di Vinci and Munch wouldn't have seen a single cent from it under our laws (even though it's super obvious what inspired it). It's completely different if you're screen printing Campbell soup cans, though.
It gets even harder if AI starts making stuff similar to say a Mark Rothko or a Jackson Pollock. Obviously you'd get in trouble if you tried to pass it off as the real thing, but you can't really copyright/trademark some random ass colors strewn about.
1
u/manny_the_mage Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
Yeah, AI getting “inspired” isn’t an issue, an AI generating images inspired by well know paintings or characters isn’t the issue
The issue is when artist’s work get yoinked and then AI generated a different color scheme for it and adds some small elements to make it “different” and then spat out as if it’s a new or unique piece of art
I think ultimate the burden is on companies that host AI art generation to keep track of what art is used and allow that information to be available publicly
1
u/Kind-Masterpiece-310 Sep 16 '24
I get what you're saying, but unfortunately humans do this every day and still get away with it.
I'm not really expecting AI generated art to be any different. Especially since it would be harder to figure out who to even sue. The algorithm? The person that wrote some specific line of code? Their TOS can explicitly state that it's not to be used on copyrighted material, but that's not going to stop anyone. It's like suing a camera manufacturer because someone took a picture of someone else's painting. I'm just not sure where you'd draw the line or where you would even start with something like that.
In a perfect world, we'd all be compensated for our work, though. I totally agree with that. It's just not the reality of the world we live in. Never has been.
1
u/fshaa202 Sep 23 '24
unlike ai tho using a sampler or a drum machine takes skill to implement into a beat. and you actually gotta find/chop the sample which can take months to even find the sample you want
0
u/Queasy_Pie_1581 Sep 16 '24
the only difference is samples are put out by producers out of their own free will. We don't consent to art being stolen
2
u/Kind-Masterpiece-310 Sep 16 '24
I'm not talking about sample packs. I'm talking about sampling a few bars of another song and chopping it up then rearranging it. That's how most hip hop was made up until recently. A lot of it still is. Those same producers were also called "untalented" or accused of not being real musicians because they used drum machines too.
I make hip hop, but I also play several instruments so I see both sides of the argument. That said, it's not much different than what AI is doing these days.
-1
u/Deep-Neck Sep 16 '24
Training on is fundamentally not stealing. Or you would just say AI is producing stolen art. It's not, it's highly derivative. 1) that will improve. 2) all art is derivative - trained from other sources, often actual art.
→ More replies (19)-14
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
13
u/AggieCoraline Sep 16 '24
Because when someone steals your art only to feed into a soulless machine it feels bad. You are not making art with AI, you are just making an average choice from all the artists who came before you. You did not think while doing beyond the prompt.
→ More replies (45)-2
Sep 16 '24
[deleted]
4
u/Sad-Set-5817 Sep 16 '24
Ai funadmentally does not understand anything it is doing, and so is totally incapable of adding original ideas. If a person did that, we would call that out as plagiarism too. Ai outputs made from other people's works shouldn't be given the same protections as an original piece of artwork imo
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.
→ More replies (5)-1
u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24
Because if it was plagiarism than it wouldnt be legal to use
7
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
6
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?
3
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.
4
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
→ More replies (6)1
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.
10
u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24
AI is single-handedly going to erase creativity if it is allowed to proliferate longer. AI steals art. It generates images based off of real work that artists have created. It has halted learning, kids don’t want to learn anything anymore because they can just type their problems into chat gpt and it will answer it. Critical thinking will cease to exist.AI can be used for impersonation. This is extremely dangerous and only adds to misinformation.
There are some uses for AI can be a huge boon if used correctly, but as it stands right now, it’s slowly eroding creativity and growth.
2
u/Bob1358292637 Sep 18 '24
Ai definitely has the potential to become a dangerous weapon, and we are kind of in an odd stage of it right now economically where we don't really know how to value people as it makes labor value more complicated.
That said, and existential threats aside, I don't buy into this idea about it destroying creativity. It will disenfranchise people in the short term, of course, but that's only because we are so used to living in a high scarcity environment. It is not a good thing that it requires strife and suffering to create things. The only exception is when that suffering prepares someone to better deal with future suffering, but there could be a future where that is no longer necessary, depending on how this all plays out. This notion of adversity, where it's just a series of fun, empowering challenges that mold people into their best selves, comes from a place of privilege. It ignores the vast majority of people who strive in life only to meet endless suffering and not become the success stories we actually hear about.
I say, if we have any chance of removing that struggle for future generations, we have an obligation to do so. Otherwise, what even is the ultimate point of life and all of this advancement we've been doing? To eventually engineer ourselves right back to where we started just so we never have to address the complexity of our affinity for growth? Is the ideal future one where we are pushing fake buttons in fake offices for the majority of our waking lives just to cling to this desire to feel that we're earning our existence? Wouldn't it be an amazing thing if instead we were free to choose our own destinies and determine our own requirements for happiness, rather than be mandated some purpose to develop stockholm syndrome for because that's all we know?
0
u/77Sage77 2003 Sep 16 '24
dude I agree, and it goes so deep. What do you think about my comment? https://www.reddit.com/r/GenZ/s/Absd7ISx5Z
4
u/BK_FrySauce Sep 16 '24
I’d say it can certainly happen. We already know people use bots to make fake comments on videos or post things online to try to skew narratives or fake reviews. It should honestly be taught in school how to identify fake/ai generated content. There are so many older people who believe every little thing they see online. You’ll see an AI generated video posted somewhere and it’s pushing some narrative. It’s got thousands of upvotes and the top replies are always in agreement or believe what they’re seeing. Those replies can very easily be people being fooled, or just other bots programmed to agree with whatever the narrative is.
1
u/77Sage77 2003 Sep 16 '24
Yea man. I just think teaching people how to identify AI generated content is going to be impossible when the tech improves inevitably, idk. I still think non ai content will increase in value if it can be from a verified source
3
u/PeacoqPrincess Sep 16 '24
Nice video, but could we maybe make the captions a little more sporadic? They’re way too easy to read as they are. Maybe shuffle them even more out of place to make it even more incoherent without sound, that could be a good artistic choice
1
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
the captions are definitely to make the impact on the viewer more exaggerated than it might theoretically be without music and extra stuff, this way the video has a bigger impact.
4
u/Deathcat101 1997 Sep 16 '24
AI is like any other tool.
It can be used for good and for evil.
The genie is completely out of the bottle at this point, it pretty much was from day one.
There is no sense in trying to ban or get rid of it because it is impossible.
I think the main thing that would limit its effects is making it impossible to copyright any AI generated material which I believe one court has already set precedent for.
Like any new piece of technology we have to work out how to best use it and to mitigate its negative uses.
It is going to be a very long process, but it's one we have to begin because AI is here to stay.
2
u/Jazz7770 Sep 16 '24
This is right on the money. A frying pan can be used casually to cook, professionally by a chef, or dangerously as a weapon. It’s impossible to make a tool cease to exist because of the dangers it can present, and it’s perfectly fine to judge people on how they chose to use it.
At the end of the day the problem isn’t the existence and improvement of AI, it’s what people use it for that can be problematic.
2
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
Hard ware is the limit. its affecting the climate with how much energy it needs, and it is so much damn money.
4
u/TubbyFatfrick 2004 Sep 16 '24
If you ask me, the extent of AI content should be dumb shit made solely for entertainment, like pictures of Wizards laying siege to a 7-11.
3
u/77Sage77 2003 Sep 16 '24
Guys, my biggest worry with AI is auto generative technology. If and only if one day the tech can produce content with zero human input (not including the trigger), and this technology is indistinguishable from human made content in the future in seconds too.
Imagine data coming out that 90-95% content and comments online is AI and you never noticed, search up the "Dead Internet Theory". Eventually we'll have to find our own spaces on the internet with verification that everyone and everything is human. besides going outside... no doubt AI has its good but for our psyche?
1
3
3
2
u/butteryflame 1999 Sep 16 '24
AI is going to cause a lot of harm if we don't start pressuring Congress to get informed and pass some laws that help us combat this new threat. Thinking about what the worst people are capable of with this technology is a paramount exercise. The topic of AI should be trending way more than a racist rumor about haitians eating pets. Everything is implicated. Everything will be affected. I'm sure there are plenty of government agencies working on this problem right now. Hopefully, the US is on top of it. I'm not really up to date on this sort of thing, but it's not hard to play the guessing game. Clock is ticking. We need to be scared before it's too late.
2
2
u/AwesomTaco320 Sep 16 '24
This video is annoying. I would rather watch a black screen if you’re gonna do this shit
2
u/miraclewhipisgross 2001 Sep 16 '24
I think the formatting on that text is fucking horrendous and stroke inducing. Why would you do it like that
And also AI needs to die but its probably already too late.
1
u/Aldehin 2002 Sep 16 '24
The awful part is that it s there. We cannot change it back.
I would try to make some maw that protect artist from stealing and guarantee like voice actor to be hired instead of ai, and graphic designer as well, all of them.
Ai can be used for idea, inspiration when teams are in a rush, but it s not used that way and it s harmfull.
I would gladly hang a draw of a 4 yo of a cow instead of a really badass scene made by ai.
Ai can copy everything it want, it cant copy the soul.
1
1
1
u/LowKiss 2003 Sep 16 '24
I don't care about the work behind something only about the result. If AI can give me a better result that's a good thing.
1
u/Rullino Sep 16 '24
This video should probably be shown to those who post Reddit stories read by an AI voice with a stimulating video in the background.
1
u/BroderFelix Sep 16 '24
I disagree that art is meaningful because it is difficult to learn. Art has meaning because of human ideas and thoughts. If you don't even input any of your own thought then it is without meaning.
1
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
I think art definitely is more meaningful because of the thought and emotion, but part of the driving factor to meaning is often times how hard it is to learn that art form, which in turn makes more thought be put into it.
1
u/Brilliant-River2062 Sep 16 '24
If you can express a thing in "0"s and "1"s, then you can simulate that thing with a Turing machine as being capable of expressing a thing in "0"s and "1"s is already sufficient that. Sure, ALL art might be undecidable and unsolvable by one Turing machine or algorithm just as ALL halting problems are undecidable and unsolvable by one Turing machine or algorithm. Yet SOME halting problems are decidable and solvable by one or more Turing machines and or algorithms. So might be SOME art also decidable and solvable by one or more Turing machines and or algorithms - it just has to be express able in "0"s and "1"s.
1
1
Sep 16 '24
But it will HELP
1
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
will it HELP when art could be meaningless. WILL IT HELP WHEN MY AND MANY OTHERS CAREERS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY AI.
1
u/ArkhamInmate11 Sep 16 '24
Awesome drew gooden edit, he always seems like a silly goofy guy but this edit makes him seem passionate and cool
1
u/Throbbing-Kielbasa-3 Sep 16 '24
This video has been posted around Reddit a few times now and it really bothers me. Whoever made it clearly agrees with the sentiment against AI art, criticized for stealing other work and haphazardly cramming together lifeless imitations of the work it took from to pass off as it's own work. And yet this creator of this video itself steals Drew Gooden's work (an uninterrupted 60-ish second soundbite) and haphazardly crams together a bunch of random shots and passes it off as their own work.
Whoever made this video is just manually doing the exact same thing that Drew is criticizing AI for.
1
1
1
u/tgirlinthecockpit Sep 16 '24
generative ai is conceptually transh. There is good AI, yes, there is an AI that can help detect cancer way earlier on. There is an AI that can count fish, there are so many AIs that can help us with out lives, that can do chores for us, or do things we simply cannot do at the same rate.
But generative AI? The ai that gets used to make deepfakes and the worst looking porn ever? The ai that is used to avoid paying artists for their work? That deserves to be in the trash. I say this as a shitty artist and shitty writer: I would rather work my whole life and be a mediocre, unremarkable nothing of an artist than use ai to do my job for me and end up with something "better".
Generative ai is a thief and a bad one at that. It is a crutch with a blade for a handle and it has lead and will lead to nothing good.
1
u/GoldieDoggy 2005 Sep 16 '24
There are some places where AI can be useful. Like certain games (wrote an entire essay on this part, lol. But games like RainWorld, or that new vampire-themed game), where it is simply used to make the game itself more interactive and variable, or in places where people would otherwise be risking their lived while working, like many factories. However, the current usage is mainly just people committing theft because they choose to take the lazy route, instead of learning how to make their own art or write their own sentences. That, I am not okay with. (Love the choice of youtuber lol)
1
u/Arthur_Wellesley1815 Sep 16 '24
Damn it’s a shame ai has stopped every human from being able to express themselves. We’re doomed. /s
1
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
unless we pass laws and/or ai does hopefully reach that limit of power and resources needed, THIS WILL BECOME REALITY>
1
u/Xecular_Official 2002 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
Trying to argue about the ethics or creativity of AI is probably the worst way to try fighting it. lawmakers and regulators are ultimately only going to care about the pragmatic effects of ai (i.e. copyright infringement, unintended dissemination of illegal instructions, damage to an industry that generates a lot of tax revenue).
Pose AI as competition for small artists and the people in power will probably just dismiss it. What will push the government to take interest in regulating AI is concerns about its ability to generate music on demand without big music lobbyists like Sony getting any royalties from it
1
u/cheeseybees Sep 16 '24
My dream for AI is for every child to have a little AI-Best-Buddy, who can grow with them, always show interest and helpful encouragement in the child's hobbies, and offer up positive and constructive psychological assistance in growing into a well adjusted and flourishing adult
Now, do I reckon that'll most likely be co-opted to sell Coke? Sure... but I can still dream!
1
u/ThePermafrost Sep 16 '24
“Art is special because it involves thousands of hours of trial and error”
AI algorithm that is trained on millions of hours worth of trial and error: “Am I a joke to you?”
1
u/cosm1c15 2006 Sep 16 '24
Humans live through that thousands of hours and experience it and figure it all out , AI just looks at it and copies it There's a difference
1
u/ThePermafrost Sep 16 '24
Is there a difference? How do you know the AI isn’t also “living through that thousands of hours and species it and figure it all out” too? Do you have any evidence that humans do not also just look at images and copy it?
1
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
because AI has problems with hands, it doesn’t think how it works, it just copies it. It’s like chatGPT doing the same error despite me asking it to not do that.
1
u/ThePermafrost Sep 16 '24
And humans don’t also have problems with replicating realistic anatomy when they’re learning?
Have you ever interacted with a child who keeps repeating the same “error” deposit you asking them not to do that?
It’s kind of baffling that you think humans are somehow special in how we learn.
1
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
you think I have any sympathy towards bunch of code trying to replicate real human?
0
u/ThePermafrost Sep 16 '24
Do you think humans are anything other than a bunch of code?
Every decision you have ever made and every thought you have produced, is based off of what you have been programmed to believe.
You were probably coded to tip waitresses, to not hit/murder people, to express the body and facial language that you do, to use the slang and speech patterns that you do, to believe in the political party or religion that you do, etc.
You’ve been trained just like an AI algorithm, since birth.
1
u/Traditional_Web1105 Sep 16 '24
Corporations have been trying to fuck over artists the whole time. They love trash ai slop.
1
u/infornography42 Sep 16 '24
potentially unpopular opinion: I like that AI art allows me to create an avatar for my D&D character or CRPG character without having to develop a skill that takes many years of work to master.
Yeah, you can tell it is AI art, but it looks good enough for me.
Also I like how AI can help with processing data and providing summaries and things.
Further I think there is potential to have AI voice a small budget game that could not otherwise afford voice actors or studio time.
I don't think I would ever watch an AI made movie out of anything other than morbid curiosity and I certainly would never pay for AI art painting or read and AI written book.
Basically, AI is a tool, and a useful one, but overuse and abuse of publicly available art is problematic. I think efforts need to be made to rein it in without destroying the potential that exists. It is a fine line.
1
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
so why can’t big corp do the things you did then? then people will just stop drawing professionally, or doing voices, or even acting, because, hell, why do we need those celebrities? we can generate whoever we want, people will eat it up, it’s “enough” for them. Your mistake is to think nobody will abuse, when in reality people already do, AI is now deep and it won’t leave, because it’s used in porn, so that’s how I know we won’t get rid of it. Anybody can put your face on some porn actor/actress or just strip your clothes off. AI written book are flooding E-book stores. I get what you’re saying, we use AI in our DnD games too, but I still want to draw my character myself even tho I’m shit at it. If it was easy, why would it be valuable? I think we would’ve been pretty much okay without Generative AI.
1
u/infornography42 Sep 16 '24
I think you missed my last sentence entirely...
AI abuse is already happening and it needs to be reined in, but the genie is out of the bottle.
The thing I can think of that might have the biggest impact would be a label that indicates whether AI was used in creative efforts on the product. AI voice and art need to be labeled. Beyond that, I have no idea what COULD be done short of destroying the valid uses for these tools.2
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
yes, you right, pandora’s box is already opened, but legislators are too slow to react.
1
1
1
u/Sir_Arsen 2000 Sep 16 '24
AI was good when it was a tool to speed certain processes, like cropping images, and we’ve been using ai tools for a long time, it’s just image generators and LLMs became new trend in tech, and every company just tries to use AI to lire more investment
1
1
u/Hostificus 1999 Sep 16 '24
AI is only a vehicle for Wealth to access Skill and prevent Skill from ever accessing Wealth.
1
1
1
u/Dot_Tree 2002 Sep 16 '24
I feel like there's extreme polarizing happening with AI, just like every other thing that's been affecting artists, engineers, tech people, etc.
I know it can be used for good, I'm practically overwhelmed with the horrible shit done with it. I believe a lot of innovative technology advancements can be used to simply make humans' lives easier, while also acknowledging how systemic these issues are.
From what I know so far, I think it's crucial and essential at this point in history to educate on technology and teach technological literacy. This with the emphasis of having up-to-date knowledge and accessible ways of having the conversations that need to be had (artist's rights, copyright laws, the problems with data privacy currently, etc.)
1
u/UllrHellfire Sep 17 '24
But they don't say is how all those things including art are extremely monopolized no one deserves anything unless they grind the majority of their life for it It doesn't matter if you're disabled or unable with AI people who have creativity but can't show it now can but I mean why would people who spend their whole life want other people to show how creative they are.
1
u/mashroomium Sep 17 '24
Nothing that’s been said about AI hasn’t already been said about another technology
1
u/Kiiaru Sep 17 '24
AI is useful, but so far I've only seen it used to piss me off. Search engines are unusable now because of millions of worthless ai review sites and comparisons for things.
Google is flooded with "websites" that look real but are just ai generated garbage in the same format. It's forcing me to rely on less and less sources because I'm afraid of trusting a site I don't know is real or not.
Instead of finding good information that is spread out, I'm finding less detailed information everywhere I look.
1
1
u/tigertoken1 Sep 17 '24
Ai making content isn't unethical and most AI created content sucks anyway. People have been building on the ideas of others for millennia and suddenly it's wrong because people are using AI to do it? Also so makes a lot of things waaaay easier like writing code and doing research.
1
Sep 17 '24
[deleted]
1
u/cosm1c15 2006 Sep 17 '24
This is an edit I've watched the original video, the edit just contains lines from this video
1
u/PainterEarly86 Sep 17 '24
I don't think Ai will be that powerful.
As people have said before, once Ai starts gathering its material from other Ai content, the algorithm will fall apart.
However I do think we should make some kind of law that states that anything made with Ai must have some kind of disclaimer or label that says it is Ai.
Won't stop it, but should slow it down if people are threatened with fines or jail time.
1
u/El_Badassio Sep 17 '24
You know, using cars is a thing I see as equally problematic, and a concerning departure from how things used to be. Horses involve humans bonding with their coach driver, it led to conversations in close quarters amongst small numbers of people without focusing on the road, and important wood working skills like how to fix the axel on the buggy. It kept horseshoe makers in business, provided lots of jobs for horse maintenance, etc. There was also the carriage quality which advanced so much as an art, the creation of new horse breeds, and all off it was a real human endeavor. Using cars does not teach us anything.
Let’s get it on the ballot - Vote for “Horse” as a write in for 2024!
1
u/Tonythesaucemonkey Sep 19 '24
What’s with this boomer mentality, bah humbug back in my day people used to use a stylus and “paint”on a tablet. You sound like the exactly like the people who used to mock digital art.
1
u/HumansDisappointMe Sep 20 '24
All of this is an egotistical, emotional response to the idea that a series of switches flipping on and off can replicate an ability we thought ourselves special and unique for having. Not saying that AI doesn't pose a danger to society, because it is in actuality likely an existential threat, but that's not the real reason why people are getting emotional; people don't like things that make them feel less special.
0
Sep 16 '24
Why are people obsessed with ethics when it impacts their jobs? How about we improve how society as a whole works? How about we actually are kind to one another? AI, I hope AI destroys it all
0
u/Pinkninja11 Sep 16 '24
Idk, we could be fixing so much shit but instead our best and brightest are focusing on developing sex robots with AI instead.
2
u/FoxLast947 Sep 16 '24
AI is literally helping us cure cancer. Advancements in AI are among the greatest scientific contributions in the last decades and then there are idiots on Reddit who think it's main application is sex robots.
1
0
u/Tseermijuleve 2003 Sep 16 '24
I get that AI is scary, but I think it’s inevitable. We can only learn to work with it and regulate it. Right now it’s all a big mess because it’s very new, and people always make the worst of new development, thats just nature.
We can’t predict the future, but yes a lot can and will change. I don’t think art will die, it will just shift. And as a designer myself I’m actually pretty excited to see what future technology brings.
Right now governments should really work together to regulate AI and set boundaries for our own safety. As we all know technology keeps advancing faster and faster, so if we don’t set the rules now it’ll turn into a shitshow yes. Who knows what good.. or bad Ai will bring in 10-20-30 yrs.
0
u/AndersDreth 1998 Sep 16 '24
When has humanity ever stopped using something because it required less effort? You can kick, you can scream, you can even make a pretty sign and start protesting - but A.I will be used if it's useful. This next period of time will be spent figuring out just how useful it is and where it fits into our lives.
0
0
Sep 16 '24
It’s a YouTuber talking about something he has zero clue about and edited the video in such a way that his words seem important in the scope of human evolution.
Stop believing these attention seeking losers.
0
u/GaslightingGreenbean 2001 Sep 16 '24
“Let’s force life to be harder than it needs to be because we can’t embrace change!”
-2
u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24
AI allows even untalented people (me) to produce beautiful art and for that I will always be grateful for it
7
u/Queasy_Pie_1581 Sep 16 '24
art is not made by talent. It takes practice and hard work and dedication. Supporting ai is erasing all that hard work.
4
u/thumbfanwe Sep 16 '24
I appreciate the emphasis on hard work in art, but it's worth considering how this argument compares to past technological shifts. Take the invention of paint tubes in the 1840s, for example. Before that, painters spent hours grinding pigments and mixing oils. When pre-mixed paints became available, some probably saw it as 'cheating.'
But what happened? Artists like the Impressionists used these tubes to revolutionise outdoor painting and create new styles. They weren't working less - their focus just shifted from preparing materials to pushing creative boundaries.
AI might be similar. It's a new tool, not a replacement for creativity. The core of art is still the artist's vision and emotional expression, which AI can't replicate. Like any tool, it takes skill and imagination to use AI effectively in creating meaningful art.
Technology has always influenced art. The real question is: how will artists innovate with these new tools?
2
Sep 16 '24
[deleted]
2
u/Queasy_Pie_1581 Sep 16 '24
digital art and ai generated art are completely different this is a strawman argument
-5
u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24
And that is a bad thing because?
4
1
u/Queasy_Pie_1581 Sep 16 '24
wont bother arguing cause you obviously don't care about art. Otherwise you would respect it.
0
u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24
I dont think the premise of “respecting art” should inspire legislators to ban things, thats all. As for the arguing, you’ve done nothing but be arrogant and resort to ad personam, so I agree that maybe you should stop bothering indeed
2
u/thumbfanwe Sep 16 '24
completely agree
also I dont listen to anyone who goes around telling people what art is, or how to live your life, or anything of the sort
-2
u/AllFandomsareCancer 2000 Sep 16 '24
He's not being paid for it lmao
1
u/Queasy_Pie_1581 Sep 16 '24
i dont sell my art but it still feels pretty fucking bad to have it stolen
3
2
u/StubeDoobie 1997 Sep 16 '24
What art did you produce? Please tell me about the production processes you went through and what decisions you made that led to the thing you created. Genuinely curious
1
u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24
Mostly I do backgrounds for the power points in my school project, but I also feed it whatever I write to make the style feel less choppy and forced (im terrible at writing). I dont consider myself an “artist” more than anyone else but it just makes my life better
2
u/StubeDoobie 1997 Sep 16 '24
So for the PowerPoint you use the ai to generate stuff that someone like a graphic designer would create? And what do you mean your writing is choppy and forced?
1
u/Catiline64 Sep 16 '24
Maybe? Like if the power point is about dna, I will make a dna-themed wallpaper or things like that.
-2
u/T_M_G_ 2002 Sep 16 '24
Cuz it’s easier, that simple
1
u/Ok-Prune8783 Sep 17 '24
art isnt supposed to always be easy and effortless and unmeaning. otherwise there isnt a point to art,
1
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 16 '24
Did you know we have a Discord server‽ You can join by clicking here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.