Earlier quoted context omitted.
"film and video game industries..." Oh I thought they were talking about silly web comics and random art on the internet that was 'stolen'. Film and game industries of course embrace all types of tech to make money (didn't Disney use generative AI for the opening sequence of a Marvel series last year?)
> Oh I thought they were talking about silly web comics and random art on the internet that was 'stolen'. It is extremely common for "silly web comics and random art on the internet" to be meaningfully monetized by their creators, whether or not they make a living that way. > Film and game industries of course embrace all types of tech to make money (didn't Disney use generative AI for the opening sequence of a Marve…
Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
161–170 of 207 posts
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
The artists complaining about this have built their careers and revenue streams on the backs of thousands of years of artistic creation. Where's the compensation for those earlier artists? Did you get their permission to use their content to train yourself? In almost every creative field, you learn by example. You watch what the Masters have done before you. You know their techniques, tools, and ways of expressing th…
Such bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#163I'm curious how developers' sentiment towards code generation tools like Copilot compares to artists' sentiment towards art generation tools like MJ/SD/DallE. As a developer myself, I want to see coding as a creative act and feel uneasy about the idea of relying on a tool that makes the code one tab away. But I also recognize most of the coding we do is in a commercial context where artistic expression is less releva…
---
As an artist I see stuff like Stable Diffusion to be very interesting, a fun toy or a potential tool to unclog your brain when needing ideas, and much faster than something like pinterest, specially with niche topics. Its ability to randomly combine concepts can be an starting point for inspiration as well.
I usually like to draw robots, which aren't a common thing in popular media anymore (at least not in the aesthetic I favor, think Armored Core) so having the AI generate a bunch of random robot slop is a good way to get my brain "in the zone", maybe stuff like "oh that pose is cool" or "I can try something with this type of joint". Or even "wow this is a hot mess but the way it placed that odd shape in the arm gives me an idea for a weapon" and let my brain juices flow and do the rest. If nothing else it can help you discard things that don't work.
However, I wouldn't let it replace my work, because the process of designing and drawing is what's fun to me. My favorite subject also requires a degree of consistency the poor thing just can't pull off even with assistance, specially when animating said robots with all the moving parts and stuff that splits and folds, so I'm on my own anyway.
Double however, the idealist in me also believes that anyone that can produce a fine piece, by whatever means, by putting effort and finesse with a tool IS an artist. I have seen some people intentionally working with the tools to do stuff and the results can be impressive. This however disqualifies most AI art you might be familiar with, because most stuff spammed in the internet is stuff that anyone (on the know) can tell is just default settings slop, done in batches with no soul, or even intent to deceive. The process I'm talking about involves multiple hand-made edits, knowing the quirks of the system and knowing what to do. I've seen it used, for example, by TTRPG nerds (not an insult) to generate images tailored for a scene in campaigns. Those people have imagination and a sense of aesthetics but no art skills, and the way they put together a full scene by editing, making multiple passes, repainting areas until it looks right, training the characters involved... is something I can respect because it's coming from a place of passion and is sincere.
I guess intent matters. Some people are just trying to do fun stuff, others are trying to scam you and putting out basic slop while asking you to subscribe to their Patreons like if they were real artists, or making deepfakes. I'll always side with the former out of principle, even if they are a minority overshadowed by the shenanigans of the later.
---
Now, as a programmer I see Copilot with utter disdain. I know for a fact that LLMs are extremely prone to mistakes, inconsistent, unreliable. Code is something that can easily have hidden gotchas that only an expert can notice. The consequences of people who have no idea what they are doing asking for code from a thing that has no idea what it's doing can have reaching effects that can, in the worst case scenarios, end up having consequences such as severe time, data or money loss. Or even death. I'd even question its use from seasoned programmers, because everyone can have a bad day and overlook a mistake.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.
Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
More people would be "lucky enough to have the time to hone skills" if investment in AI were directed towards solving actual problems. As a former professional musician, let me tell you: the skills are not the problem here. People don't not make art because they don't have the skills. They don't make art because they have nothing to say, nothing to express. The skills are a byproduct of having a worldview, a perspect…
I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, but sometimes the lack of a proper voice makes it impossible to identify that you have a perspective that can be expressed. Iterating to get the right output from a prompt- and waiting for the output to be generated - is not an instantaneous endeavor. How much improvement could someone see if they dedicated that time to drawing or writing practice instead?
Developing a "voice" is done, at least partially, via honing one's craft, as well as engaging with art made by other people and cultures. The former is antithetical to prompting, and the latter is actively being destroyed by AI.
I can't help but feel that this strange insistence by industry that AI be used to all but usurp art ultimately comes from a place of jealousy, and/or due to the fact that some intelligent-to-Americans-sounding British voice saying something like "we're operating at the intersection of art and technology..." at some TedX talk causes VCs to turn out their wallets.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.
Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another take on this point, the race to the bottoming of shirts has been a disaster ecologically and has fostered a throwaway culture where people don't take care or pride in an item of clothing. There's benefits on reducing the barrier to entry, but profound downsides to it as well.
That applies to everything, including food. Industrialization is fun isn’t it?
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since you apparently weren’t around for the rise of social media (ca. 2000-2020 C.E.), let me fill you in: user posts are content, too.
Ok, but the author referred specifically to "Creators", which usually means the minority of users who post things other than text. If you read more of the author's post: > We are a webcomic duo that has been creating original comics since 2011 and sharing them on various platforms on the web > Any business model that does not acknowledge this and does not seek proper compensation for artists is not of interest to us.…
Regardless, users posting only life update-style text posts are also uncompensated for their contributions to the network (and their works too are feeding AI.)
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mantra is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". - Joanna Maciejewska ( https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238 )
Laundry and dishes don't pay well. Art does, but only once in a great while, and AI gives you a ton of attempts for little cost. Since rapid iteration is the biggest strength of advanced computing, people just invented cultural pollution machines in the hope of striking it rich.
Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response
#170> most artists love their work and do not want to outsource their passion to a machine that does this for them. This was the money quote. I love what I do (which tends to be programming, but I approach it as a craft), and often do things by hand, that others automate, because I love my work, and also the people that use it.
Leaving us more time to focus on what matters : work.
Ha ha.