91–100 of 207 posts
'Properly compensated'... determined by the market, right? That's being driven close to $0, just like with software (and was headed that direction before the recent AI craze).
"Artists would much rather... focus more on fulfilling creative tasks."
Like the two penis jokes shown on that site? Incredible.
> 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.
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 )
On the other hand, doing your taxes wrong is a thing. You can enumerate the possible mistakes. They're codified in law[0]. And these mistake have big stakes.
Generative AI is "safer" than an AI to do a specific task that has consequences.
[0] Yes, yes, I know, there's wiggle room here too and that's why we have courts
> 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.
> 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.
Limited edition source code print on archival quality acid free parchment, signed by the developer
This feels like back in the day when photo editing and publishing software started getting big. "True artists" would shun anyone using those tools as amateurs. And for the most part they were right. It was mostly used by amateurs to create stuff that didn't look very good. That is where we are with AI art right now. Most of it is garbage created by people who don't know what good art is. But just like back in the day…
The difference is that everyone thinks they're an artist now, skipping pesky things like talent or effort. GenAI is the ultimate tool for people who have the creativity of a potato.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect most artists (and I used to be one, at one time[0 - 1]), would take advantage of AI tools. I suspect that the posting was really just exhibitionism, on the part of the site owners (I really wouldn't bother with that kind of thing, myself). But I think that telling people to do a good job "on their own time," kinda sums up the zeitgeist of today's tech industry. [0] https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Cavalier.…
I like 'em, but visiting /art in search of more gave me a 403. Fantasy art forbidden!
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Cavalier.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Chat.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/DragonRider.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Dragonstar.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Elric.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Fugitive.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Gym.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Island.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Olympus.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Seer.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Sentinels.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Skeletor.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Tarsus.png
https://littlegreenviper.com/art/Tigress.png
> 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.
The counterargument is that AI lets those without the skills take part too. AI can help someone bring their musical ideas to fruition, draw pictures, or write stories. There is still creative direction from a human - and now, rather than having to be a highly skilled human, it can now be almost anyone. In a way, AI brings creativity to the masses who aren't lucky enough to have the time to hone skills that would take…
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 perspective. And unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) AI can't help anyone with that.
I’m the opposite end of an artist. But the generative AI is perfect for my use case. I wouldn’t be able to make “book” for my young without the help of genAI
> 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.
I'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…
