Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
 Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 00:36 |
 
|
| The_Murker wrote: |
Try and justify why Zelmor's opinion on AI makes it appropriate for him to say someone else has bad taste, and that he wishes he wouldn't have shared his original post. I think being that obnoxious and condescending, especially in the matter of taste, warranted a response, so I gave it. I also included how generic all of your group's anti-AI opinions sounded, as if you were all just repeating virtuous sounding things you had heard on the internet. |
I call them as I see them.
 |
|
|
WaffleIron
Joined: Oct 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 13:33 |
|
AI is built of the backs of stolen work, consumes huge amounts of real world resources to even function, produces subpar results and itsn't actually even profitable. The whole business is currently built on presenting something shiny and "It'll be better soon!" To investors to raise more capital.
It harms artists by stealing from them to put them out of work, but also hurts the people using it, it drains your personal creativity. It offers an easy way to get a "passable" result that lacks the soul art made by someone has.
And all comparisons to it being like a person seeing a work and then using it as a basis to create their own fall flat, these models have no understanding of any of the inputs their fed. It's literally just tags associated with pixel / word arrangement. You know what a person is, gen AI models know what pixels are frequently next to each other if the image is tagged "Person" |
|
|
awambawamb
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 16:11 |
|
Image manipulation programs like Adobe Photoshop and Sketchbook and even more GIMP that is freely distributed are built of the backs of stolen work, consume huge amounts of real world resources to even function, produces subpar results and aren't actually even profitable. The whole business is currently built on presenting something shiny and "It'll be better soon!" To investors to raise more capital.
It harms artists by stealing from them to put them out of work, but also hurts the people using it, it drains your personal creativity. It offers an easy way to get a "passable" result that lacks the soul art made by someone has.
And all comparisons to it being like a person seeing a work and then using it as a basis to create their own fall flat, these programs have no understanding of any of the real world art instruments like pencils, markers or brush. It's literally just predefined patterns associated with pixel and background arrangement. You know what a sign is, photomanipulation software know what pixels are frequently next to each other if the trait is "pencil" or "brush" |
_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"
 |
|
WaffleIron
Joined: Oct 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 17:01 |
|
Thats actually insane, you're mistaking tools for intention.
Photshop is a tool that you can use with intention, if you take the same actions you produce the same results and so what matters is your intention and how you express what you want to create. If you take the same set of actions with a gen ai model, the outcome will vary and your control over the output is limited.
On the front of resources, the comparison of power and cooling used between editing/creation software and gen ai is in entirely different realms.
If you like GEN ai because it's convenient and building the skill to do it yourself is too much, say that. Don't hide behind excuses.
"I like it because it gives me results I'm happy with easily and I don't care about the impact it has." I can respect that stance even if I disagree with it
If you want to show that you're actually defending a reasonable stance, how exactly are programs like GIMP stealing from artists, or are you just echoing the same argument back as if that makes it valid?
GEN AI tools are stealing from artists by taking their works without consent or compensation, and using them to build a tool intended to directly compete with them and be sold for profit. |
|
|
awambawamb
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 21:18 |
|
and you fail to see ai for what is it: a tool.
one could say the same thing you said, but replace ai with computers and computers woth pen and paper: if you use the computer because it's convenient and you lack the skill to do it yourself, say that. don't hide behind the excuses.
see?
what most people fail to see is that we're witnessing a nice advancement in technology, and that is never a bad thing. we do things faster than the people 100 years ago did, and we don't have to work 14 hours in a mill. we changed.
"directly compete with artists" is a giant pindaric flight: we are NOT going to see a fake Mitazaki movie generated by the ai in theaters. we are witnessing a fad, a novelty that has no value if not their frustration.
the frustration is understandable because they took time to get to that level, to develop their distinctive style; the next generation might find in this technology a faster way to achieve a result; not that result, but a result we can't foresee. Exactly like we don't have to gather wood and start a fire to heat some water, but we use just a finger. and we don't go around saying "if you can't get your own firewood you should warm yourself". |
_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"
|
|
WaffleIron
Joined: Oct 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 21:54 |
|
Cool, just ignore what I said I guess. Really shows how solid your stance is.
You can just say "I don't care, I like it."
Give it a try, noting will really change and we can stop pretending to have a debate around it |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 22:45 |
|
|
WaffleIron
Joined: Oct 11, 2023
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 23:41 |
|
Don't forget the long term impact on new works.
Normalising it means people who may have created art themselves instead use GEN AI to do make images for them and so never develop their own style and quirks, nothing they make ever goes on to inspire others who may develop their own style. Everyone just uses THE MACHINE to make the same thing everyone else makes. Eventually the machine has nothing to learn from except its own output and that'll hardly go well |
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 23:43 |
|
|
Zelmor
Joined: Sep 29, 2022
|
| Posted:
Mar 29, 2025 - 23:59 |
|
| WaffleIron wrote: | Don't forget the long term impact on new works.
Normalising it means people who may have created art themselves instead use GEN AI to do make images for them and so never develop their own style and quirks, nothing they make ever goes on to inspire others who may develop their own style. Everyone just uses THE MACHINE to make the same thing everyone else makes. Eventually the machine has nothing to learn from except its own output and that'll hardly go well |
I like you. You get it. Some people chose the path of the Small-Souled Bugmen, always consuming, never striving, never learning, never growing. They submit their own humanity willingly to the machine spirit in exchange for convenience and entertainment.
They should be ridiculed without mercy, mocked in the online town squares of public and private forums, and especially in the Albert Heijn when you see them buying groceries. |
Last edited by Zelmor on Mar 30, 2025; edited 1 time in total |
|
awambawamb
Joined: Feb 17, 2008
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2025 - 10:04 |
|
cool. I would like you to say the same exact things to people with an early stage of cancer, where AI image processing can tell the medics where to look better since it has scanned thousands, millions of images. because that's where the research is now - and of course, being able to read images means it can read art too. and exactly like that means that it can recognize patterns and styles.
but go on, go tell the doctors they've chosen the Small-Souled Bugmen, always consuming, never striving, never learning, never growing. They submit their own humanity willingly to the machine spirit in exchange for convenience and entertainment.
what I see here is the direct reflection of what's happening globally, in politics, which I'm not going to debate. |
_________________
"la virtù sta nel cielo e nella terra, ma anche nelle nuvole e nelle stelle"
|
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2025 - 10:53 |
|
We're talking about generative AI, though
Computer vision is potentially very useful, but is a seperate technology |
|
|
PurpleChest
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
|
| The_Murker wrote: |
A professional artist should be 1 in a million. Truly. No one should pay you a dime for your crappy music, homemade bracelets, or digital comic book art. Not a dime. |
For there to be a one in a million, you need a million to try, and without an eco system supporting struggling and less successful artists being artists, you will have none. |
_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum, quia non intelligor illis -Ovid
I am a barbarian here because i am not understood by anyone |
|
Sp00keh
Joined: Dec 06, 2011
|
| Posted:
Mar 30, 2025 - 12:56 |
|
A friend of mine makes a living playing gigs in local bars, birthday parties, weddings etc
Near my parents there's a pub in a village by the sea, on the walls they have paintings for sale by a local artist
There's a small theatre nearby that puts on am-dram productions, charges for entry tickets
But these are not 1 in a million professionals. So truly they should not be paid a dime? Not a dime?
This is an unhinged thing to say
I'm not a fan of Ed Sheeran but he famously started out as a busker, doing pub gigs etc, and wasn't 1 in a million then |
|
|
|
|
| |
Structure of FUMBBL ...
Search
