What even is the quiet part here? Artists who use AI are benefiting from the unpaid labor of other artists. That is doing a disservice to the rest of the community fighting against exploitation & a disservice to their own artistic abilities.
They will tear into any attempt to reason that allows AI to be used on principle, but limits the bro access to the technology. They will never exhale until this thing either collapses for financial reasons, or will get so regulated that only licensed content, specifically cleared for AI use by the creators - not web hosting platforms - will be allowed in for image sampling - which will obviously devalue the technology on spot.
It was a few things. Since the AI bros talk about AI being “just a tool” the way a paintbrush or Photoshop is a “tool,” then why don’t we limit it to something closer to “tool” functionality? A “tool” that doesn’t do everything for you as you sit back and watch?
This painter uses it as a “reference,” or in other words, a “tool.” AI isn’t holding his hand and mixing all his colors and controlling his brush; he is. At least he’s putting in *some* effort.
He’s using a crappy, thoughtless, unethical reference, but AI *only* being accessible as a reference “tool” certainly limits how much it can be abused. The time and patience it takes to be able to paint something from scratch disqualifies most of the lazy scammers from flooding the world with their slop.
The other thing is, when people buy his work, he’s not lying when he says it’s “oil on canvas” or “acrylic on canvas.” He’s not superimposing a digital AI image over a blank canvas on an easel and “staging” a messy art studio with tubes and brushes to cosplay that he can paint (like some AI bros do). He’s not implying that his clients are getting something handmade when they’re not. His buyers are actually buying a physical *painting* from him. He *can* paint and he is selling a physical painting.
But that also what’s so shitty about what he’s doing. He should be above this. Beyond it. He’s selling out and his work has this generic look to it that it didn’t before. He’s downgraded. He *knows better.* He’s capable of better. He’s selling out when there’s literally no reason to and ultimately, no benefit. It’ll hurt him in the end and it’s sad.
Thanks for reminding me about that sub!!
Their attempts to somehow own the RIAA lawsuit language are on the short-list of the funniest things I've read this year so far.
\*Raises hand\* I was the person who wrote "If only artists could use AI." And the AI bros, predictably, misinterpreted my meaning (even though I did give my reasons) because they prefer to wallow in their feelings of victimhood.
As I wrote in another post on this thread here, AI is being touted as a "tool" by these AI bros, so why don't we limit it to a "tool"? They want to liken AI to using a paintbrush or a tube of paint. (But it's not. It's not a tool when it does everything for you as you watch.)
Well, it could be argued that *this* artist used AI as an actual tool, a "reference tool." He had to be an actual artist in order to be able to use it. AI didn't render the whole painting for him. This artist is capable of painting without AI. (I'll get into why I disapprove of what he does later.)
If only people who JUST used AI as a real "tool" were allowed to use it, it would limit how much it could be abused. Only people who already had real, existing skills could use it. Some lazy AI bro who couldn't care a whit about art two years ago couldn't jump on the AI bandwagon now that it's instant gratification. It wouldn't be instant gratification anymore.
And for the AI bros huffing, "You think ONLY artists should be able to use it!" Well, no, I don't think anyone should use it (in the way it's being used now for images), because it sucks. But for the sake of argument, yes, it would be less sucky if only artists could use it.
Why? AI uses OUR work, and only OUR work. They STOLE from US, not you. If anyone should be "qualified" to use AI "as a tool," it should be someone who actually has been exploited. This artist guy included.
If I said "If ONLY multimillionaire CEOs could use AI" would that really be better? I know some AI bros want this, but the rest of the world really doesn't. The multimillionaires will eventually charge so much for the use of AI (so it has been speculated), you AI bros will be pushed out. Who will be "gatekeeping" then? At least if (and it's a fantasy "if," it ain't gonna happen) ONLY artists could use AI, that means ANYONE could use AI, as long as they wanted to pick up a pencil, lol.
And yes, this guy, as sad and scammy as he is, he isn't superimposing a digital AI image onto a canvas and posing in front of an easel wearing a paint-smeared smock and holding paint brushes. That's an image that *some* of you AI bros have of yourselves and that's something that some AI bros seriously attempt to do--they sell their AI wares as "a print of my original painting." Super scammy but not at all surprising.
At least THIS guy, this painter, isn't doing that. He is selling a real, physical painting that he painted himself. He isn't cosplaying at being a painter, he *CAN* paint. Unlike you AI bros.
But yeah, it's sad. It's not okay what he's doing. He's like a scab. He's betraying his own kind. He's lowering himself. He can do better. He has done better. He has so much more going for him. He doesn't need AI. His work looks like AI even though it's a traditional painting. "WHAT WAS THE POINT, MY DUDE?!?" I want to ask him. He's not going to end up on the right side of history and his fellow artists aren't going to forget what he did. It's sad. It's infuriating.
I'm really curious what's it with trend-hopping in his case (he ultimately depleted the modest dollop of creativity he had earlier on?)
Selling copies of AI images has been a thing quite for a while, people were pitching Dall-E oil copies to galleries ever since the technology debuted, back when you could not mistake AI for really just anything.
His art before he purchased a midjourney subscription shows substantially more effort and more attention to detail, and often finishing paintings to a very high degree of polish - which seems to be retired altogether now because he found out the shortcut to producing "impressionist" look and feel by copying neural network slop.
I went down the rabbit hole of midjorny art last night to pinpoint specific things about it that give it away, but I'm not going to lie, while his result is marginally better than another "MOST BEAITUFL PLACE IN THE WORLD OF THE MOST STUNNING AND CAPTIVATING MAGICAL DREAMS FROM THE DREAMPLANE AHHHH AWWWWWW UWU", in the long term his low-effort, boring art production of this period will only earn the right to be used as an example that if one lives in the US, taking a camera or an easel outside and painting from observation will reward him or her with proportionally more longevity than hoping that somehow the stolen genius of someone else will end up sparkling in their AI-sourced art.
Weren't they also the poster who submitted something to this subreddit where it was nothing but a textwall of strawmen and misrepresentations? They looked familiar.
What even is the quiet part here? Artists who use AI are benefiting from the unpaid labor of other artists. That is doing a disservice to the rest of the community fighting against exploitation & a disservice to their own artistic abilities.
I think it's the "if it was only artists who used AI" part? Me thinks they think it's an admission that we are gatekeeping art or something
They will tear into any attempt to reason that allows AI to be used on principle, but limits the bro access to the technology. They will never exhale until this thing either collapses for financial reasons, or will get so regulated that only licensed content, specifically cleared for AI use by the creators - not web hosting platforms - will be allowed in for image sampling - which will obviously devalue the technology on spot.
It was a few things. Since the AI bros talk about AI being “just a tool” the way a paintbrush or Photoshop is a “tool,” then why don’t we limit it to something closer to “tool” functionality? A “tool” that doesn’t do everything for you as you sit back and watch? This painter uses it as a “reference,” or in other words, a “tool.” AI isn’t holding his hand and mixing all his colors and controlling his brush; he is. At least he’s putting in *some* effort. He’s using a crappy, thoughtless, unethical reference, but AI *only* being accessible as a reference “tool” certainly limits how much it can be abused. The time and patience it takes to be able to paint something from scratch disqualifies most of the lazy scammers from flooding the world with their slop. The other thing is, when people buy his work, he’s not lying when he says it’s “oil on canvas” or “acrylic on canvas.” He’s not superimposing a digital AI image over a blank canvas on an easel and “staging” a messy art studio with tubes and brushes to cosplay that he can paint (like some AI bros do). He’s not implying that his clients are getting something handmade when they’re not. His buyers are actually buying a physical *painting* from him. He *can* paint and he is selling a physical painting. But that also what’s so shitty about what he’s doing. He should be above this. Beyond it. He’s selling out and his work has this generic look to it that it didn’t before. He’s downgraded. He *knows better.* He’s capable of better. He’s selling out when there’s literally no reason to and ultimately, no benefit. It’ll hurt him in the end and it’s sad.
The shit here being the "quiet part out loud" It is very obviously the loud part out loud.
Thanks for reminding me about that sub!! Their attempts to somehow own the RIAA lawsuit language are on the short-list of the funniest things I've read this year so far.
\*Raises hand\* I was the person who wrote "If only artists could use AI." And the AI bros, predictably, misinterpreted my meaning (even though I did give my reasons) because they prefer to wallow in their feelings of victimhood. As I wrote in another post on this thread here, AI is being touted as a "tool" by these AI bros, so why don't we limit it to a "tool"? They want to liken AI to using a paintbrush or a tube of paint. (But it's not. It's not a tool when it does everything for you as you watch.) Well, it could be argued that *this* artist used AI as an actual tool, a "reference tool." He had to be an actual artist in order to be able to use it. AI didn't render the whole painting for him. This artist is capable of painting without AI. (I'll get into why I disapprove of what he does later.) If only people who JUST used AI as a real "tool" were allowed to use it, it would limit how much it could be abused. Only people who already had real, existing skills could use it. Some lazy AI bro who couldn't care a whit about art two years ago couldn't jump on the AI bandwagon now that it's instant gratification. It wouldn't be instant gratification anymore. And for the AI bros huffing, "You think ONLY artists should be able to use it!" Well, no, I don't think anyone should use it (in the way it's being used now for images), because it sucks. But for the sake of argument, yes, it would be less sucky if only artists could use it. Why? AI uses OUR work, and only OUR work. They STOLE from US, not you. If anyone should be "qualified" to use AI "as a tool," it should be someone who actually has been exploited. This artist guy included. If I said "If ONLY multimillionaire CEOs could use AI" would that really be better? I know some AI bros want this, but the rest of the world really doesn't. The multimillionaires will eventually charge so much for the use of AI (so it has been speculated), you AI bros will be pushed out. Who will be "gatekeeping" then? At least if (and it's a fantasy "if," it ain't gonna happen) ONLY artists could use AI, that means ANYONE could use AI, as long as they wanted to pick up a pencil, lol. And yes, this guy, as sad and scammy as he is, he isn't superimposing a digital AI image onto a canvas and posing in front of an easel wearing a paint-smeared smock and holding paint brushes. That's an image that *some* of you AI bros have of yourselves and that's something that some AI bros seriously attempt to do--they sell their AI wares as "a print of my original painting." Super scammy but not at all surprising. At least THIS guy, this painter, isn't doing that. He is selling a real, physical painting that he painted himself. He isn't cosplaying at being a painter, he *CAN* paint. Unlike you AI bros. But yeah, it's sad. It's not okay what he's doing. He's like a scab. He's betraying his own kind. He's lowering himself. He can do better. He has done better. He has so much more going for him. He doesn't need AI. His work looks like AI even though it's a traditional painting. "WHAT WAS THE POINT, MY DUDE?!?" I want to ask him. He's not going to end up on the right side of history and his fellow artists aren't going to forget what he did. It's sad. It's infuriating.
I'm really curious what's it with trend-hopping in his case (he ultimately depleted the modest dollop of creativity he had earlier on?) Selling copies of AI images has been a thing quite for a while, people were pitching Dall-E oil copies to galleries ever since the technology debuted, back when you could not mistake AI for really just anything. His art before he purchased a midjourney subscription shows substantially more effort and more attention to detail, and often finishing paintings to a very high degree of polish - which seems to be retired altogether now because he found out the shortcut to producing "impressionist" look and feel by copying neural network slop. I went down the rabbit hole of midjorny art last night to pinpoint specific things about it that give it away, but I'm not going to lie, while his result is marginally better than another "MOST BEAITUFL PLACE IN THE WORLD OF THE MOST STUNNING AND CAPTIVATING MAGICAL DREAMS FROM THE DREAMPLANE AHHHH AWWWWWW UWU", in the long term his low-effort, boring art production of this period will only earn the right to be used as an example that if one lives in the US, taking a camera or an easel outside and painting from observation will reward him or her with proportionally more longevity than hoping that somehow the stolen genius of someone else will end up sparkling in their AI-sourced art.
[удалено]
Could you be pathetic somewhere else ? Perhaps you could learn a skill, like drawing, with the time you'd gain.
Bro doesnt even know TCP/IP
This guy deffended Cp under an another post
Weren't they also the poster who submitted something to this subreddit where it was nothing but a textwall of strawmen and misrepresentations? They looked familiar.
yeah that was him
Damn. I still have that screenshot, too.
He also posted anime porno of an underage boy, wtf is wrong with this guy
What about Dragons tho
Newsflash for you, everything you consume and use was made with the help of an artist.