I like the way it looks, and the technological advancements it marks, but AI art is bad. I'm an artist and one day I aspire to be an artist and musician, but that's being put in jeopardy because people can just spend a dollar to type a prompt and get a million songs or pictures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
You could’ve said the camera puts landscape artists in danger but it hasn’t. I think ai is going to be like that, some people prefer ai, some people prefer real people. Both have their limits.
The difference is that it costs little to nothing to use ai, but for a good camera to get a good picture you need lots of money and skill, you need no skill to use ai
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
You need some skill to use AI because you need to make the prompts for what you want it to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
If you want something complicated it's not that easy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
and it allows people who don't have artistic skills or if something has happened to their hands to make art, like me, for example, I love drawing and I don't think that I'm bad at it but after I cut off my thumb I have had trouble drawing so I use Ai to make my art now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
and it allows people who don't have artistic skills or if something has happened to their hands to make art, like me, for example, I love drawing and I don't think that I'm bad at it but after I cut off my thumb I have had trouble drawing so I use Ai to make my art now.
That's true, I don't think it should be removed, but it will have negative effects. I will recommend practicing for you specifically. One of my best friends was born with a lot of deformities, as such she is unable to make a fist, move her body in most ways, and she can barely walk, but she plays piano, they're's just different ways to do things, hopefully you can persevere, but I also get it'll still be hard to draw and do things normally. I don't dislike people who use AI art and using it is in many cases justified.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hello, I’m The mighty Dragon bard!
Music nerd, bookworm, dragon lover and avid shoe wearer. I also like drawing and playing guitar.
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
yes, but AI can now learn from art and improve its own art, so how is that different from a person and yes if the AI is directly stealing artwork from someone I agree that that is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
yes, but AI can now learn from art and improve its own art, so how is that different from a person and yes if the AI is directly stealing artwork from someone I agree that that is wrong.
AI art cannot learn from itself and cannot learn from other AI art--it can only really work by stealing content from human sources. Why? That is how it functions--it dredges huge data sets to look for similar elements and themes and combines those into a "new" work. But those new works have flaws in them--imperfections due to the mechanized process and inability to truly understand what it is looking at. You'll see blurred elements. Eyes that do not look human. Other errors compounding the AI's inability to really feel what it is doing. If AI feeds on its own images, it compounds these issues--it sees the errors as part of the process and replicates them, creating more errors in the data set, only to replicate them again. The safer option is to dredge from human sources--and dredge from so many human sources you cannot really get permission for use--as then you are using data full of sterile, normal human error instead of compounded error-upon-error from the AI.
"But," AI's defenders might say, "is that not what human artists have been doing for centuries? Copying other artists to develop their own works?"
No, it is not. A flesh and blood artist does more than just copy the art--they have to understand it. They do not look at a dozen different pictures, possibly from different styles, and try to hack together a work by mixing an impressionist with a realist with other styles. A human is capable of discerning data in a way beyond numbers and synthesizing it in a way AI cannot. A human is capable of appreciating the art they are looking at--imitation is the highest form of flattery after all, while an AI is incapable of feeling the need to flatter.
There also is the matter of innovation. AI cannot, and will not, ever truly innovate. It might appear to have a mind of its own, but it does not--and we are a long, long, long way from AI exhibiting true sapience, with some experts thinking it may never happen.
The artist, regardless of medium, can change with the times. They can challenge us. They can show us things we have never seen before or hold a mirror up to our world and cause us to question that which we see reflected therein. They can produce a time capsule of the era, capturing not only the look but the feel of a generation. The artist can innovate. Change. Can reject the classical ideals and paint with geometric shapes. Can reject the idea of a subject and create using the complex physics of paint splatters.
AI cannot do that. It can only copy from that which exists and synthesize something based thereon. It is, at its core, dead--and thus it is destined to fail one of the primary functions of art. Which, of course, goes back to a fundamental question asked about many human artists as well--if something has no soul, no real meaning, can it truly be called Art?
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
yes, but AI can now learn from art and improve its own art, so how is that different from a person and yes if the AI is directly stealing artwork from someone I agree that that is wrong.
AI art cannot learn from itself and cannot learn from other AI art--it can only really work by stealing content from human sources. Why? That is how it functions--it dredges huge data sets to look for similar elements and themes and combines those into a "new" work. But those new works have flaws in them--imperfections due to the mechanized process and inability to truly understand what it is looking at. You'll see blurred elements. Eyes that do not look human. Other errors compounding the AI's inability to really feel what it is doing. If AI feeds on its own images, it compounds these issues--it sees the errors as part of the process and replicates them, creating more errors in the data set, only to replicate them again. The safer option is to dredge from human sources--and dredge from so many human sources you cannot really get permission for use--as then you are using data full of sterile, normal human error instead of compounded error-upon-error from the AI.
"But," AI's defenders might say, "is that not what human artists have been doing for centuries? Copying other artists to develop their own works?"
No, it is not. A flesh and blood artist does more than just copy the art--they have to understand it. They do not look at a dozen different pictures, possibly from different styles, and try to hack together a work by mixing an impressionist with a realist with other styles. A human is capable of discerning data in a way beyond numbers and synthesizing it in a way AI cannot. A human is capable of appreciating the art they are looking at--imitation is the highest form of flattery after all, while an AI is incapable of feeling the need to flatter.
There also is the matter of innovation. AI cannot, and will not, ever truly innovate. It might appear to have a mind of its own, but it does not--and we are a long, long, long way from AI exhibiting true sapience, with some experts thinking it may never happen.
The artist, regardless of medium, can change with the times. They can challenge us. They can show us things we have never seen before or hold a mirror up to our world and cause us to question that which we see reflected therein. They can produce a time capsule of the era, capturing not only the look but the feel of a generation. The artist can innovate. Change. Can reject the classical ideals and paint with geometric shapes. Can reject the idea of a subject and create using the complex physics of paint splatters.
AI cannot do that. It can only copy from that which exists and synthesize something based thereon. It is, at its core, dead--and thus it is destined to fail one of the primary functions of art. Which, of course, goes back to a fundamental question asked about many human artists as well--if something has no soul, no real meaning, can it truly be called Art?
I was just thinking that, this may be cliche, but art comes from within, comes from emotion, creativity and innovations, things AI will never have
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
yes, but AI can now learn from art and improve its own art, so how is that different from a person and yes if the AI is directly stealing artwork from someone I agree that that is wrong.
AI art cannot learn from itself and cannot learn from other AI art--it can only really work by stealing content from human sources. Why? That is how it functions--it dredges huge data sets to look for similar elements and themes and combines those into a "new" work. But those new works have flaws in them--imperfections due to the mechanized process and inability to truly understand what it is looking at. You'll see blurred elements. Eyes that do not look human. Other errors compounding the AI's inability to really feel what it is doing. If AI feeds on its own images, it compounds these issues--it sees the errors as part of the process and replicates them, creating more errors in the data set, only to replicate them again. The safer option is to dredge from human sources--and dredge from so many human sources you cannot really get permission for use--as then you are using data full of sterile, normal human error instead of compounded error-upon-error from the AI.
"But," AI's defenders might say, "is that not what human artists have been doing for centuries? Copying other artists to develop their own works?"
No, it is not. A flesh and blood artist does more than just copy the art--they have to understand it. They do not look at a dozen different pictures, possibly from different styles, and try to hack together a work by mixing an impressionist with a realist with other styles. A human is capable of discerning data in a way beyond numbers and synthesizing it in a way AI cannot. A human is capable of appreciating the art they are looking at--imitation is the highest form of flattery after all, while an AI is incapable of feeling the need to flatter.
There also is the matter of innovation. AI cannot, and will not, ever truly innovate. It might appear to have a mind of its own, but it does not--and we are a long, long, long way from AI exhibiting true sapience, with some experts thinking it may never happen.
The artist, regardless of medium, can change with the times. They can challenge us. They can show us things we have never seen before or hold a mirror up to our world and cause us to question that which we see reflected therein. They can produce a time capsule of the era, capturing not only the look but the feel of a generation. The artist can innovate. Change. Can reject the classical ideals and paint with geometric shapes. Can reject the idea of a subject and create using the complex physics of paint splatters.
AI cannot do that. It can only copy from that which exists and synthesize something based thereon. It is, at its core, dead--and thus it is destined to fail one of the primary functions of art. Which, of course, goes back to a fundamental question asked about many human artists as well--if something has no soul, no real meaning, can it truly be called Art?
I was just thinking that, this may be cliche, but art comes from within, comes from emotion, creativity and innovations, things AI will never have
yet, dun dun dun!!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time. -Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
yes, but AI can now learn from art and improve its own art, so how is that different from a person and yes if the AI is directly stealing artwork from someone I agree that that is wrong.
AI art cannot learn from itself and cannot learn from other AI art--it can only really work by stealing content from human sources. Why? That is how it functions--it dredges huge data sets to look for similar elements and themes and combines those into a "new" work. But those new works have flaws in them--imperfections due to the mechanized process and inability to truly understand what it is looking at. You'll see blurred elements. Eyes that do not look human. Other errors compounding the AI's inability to really feel what it is doing. If AI feeds on its own images, it compounds these issues--it sees the errors as part of the process and replicates them, creating more errors in the data set, only to replicate them again. The safer option is to dredge from human sources--and dredge from so many human sources you cannot really get permission for use--as then you are using data full of sterile, normal human error instead of compounded error-upon-error from the AI.
"But," AI's defenders might say, "is that not what human artists have been doing for centuries? Copying other artists to develop their own works?"
No, it is not. A flesh and blood artist does more than just copy the art--they have to understand it. They do not look at a dozen different pictures, possibly from different styles, and try to hack together a work by mixing an impressionist with a realist with other styles. A human is capable of discerning data in a way beyond numbers and synthesizing it in a way AI cannot. A human is capable of appreciating the art they are looking at--imitation is the highest form of flattery after all, while an AI is incapable of feeling the need to flatter.
There also is the matter of innovation. AI cannot, and will not, ever truly innovate. It might appear to have a mind of its own, but it does not--and we are a long, long, long way from AI exhibiting true sapience, with some experts thinking it may never happen.
The artist, regardless of medium, can change with the times. They can challenge us. They can show us things we have never seen before or hold a mirror up to our world and cause us to question that which we see reflected therein. They can produce a time capsule of the era, capturing not only the look but the feel of a generation. The artist can innovate. Change. Can reject the classical ideals and paint with geometric shapes. Can reject the idea of a subject and create using the complex physics of paint splatters.
AI cannot do that. It can only copy from that which exists and synthesize something based thereon. It is, at its core, dead--and thus it is destined to fail one of the primary functions of art. Which, of course, goes back to a fundamental question asked about many human artists as well--if something has no soul, no real meaning, can it truly be called Art?
I was just thinking that, this may be cliche, but art comes from within, comes from emotion, creativity and innovations, things AI will never have
yet, dun dun dun!!!
???
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So, this is a thread to debate the ethics of ai art, please be respectful.
Personally I think ai art is a horrible thing that not only steals from artists but puts them in danger.
Hello, I’m The mighty Dragon bard!
Music nerd, bookworm, dragon lover and avid shoe wearer. I also like drawing and playing guitar.
· · ─────── ·𖥸· ─────── · ·
Extended Signature
I like the way it looks, and the technological advancements it marks, but AI art is bad. I'm an artist and one day I aspire to be an artist and musician, but that's being put in jeopardy because people can just spend a dollar to type a prompt and get a million songs or pictures.
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
Despite that my pfp is AI art because DOMINATOR2022 sent it to me, and I like it.
Edit: Was AI art
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
You could’ve said the camera puts landscape artists in danger but it hasn’t. I think ai is going to be like that, some people prefer ai, some people prefer real people. Both have their limits.
no more time for dnd
The difference is that it costs little to nothing to use ai, but for a good camera to get a good picture you need lots of money and skill, you need no skill to use ai
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
You need some skill to use AI because you need to make the prompts for what you want it to make.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
That's true, but that's like 4th grade level stuff
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
If you want something complicated it's not that easy.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
It's much simpler and quick than actually drawing something, or taking a nice photo (Editing, angles, perfect timing matters, equipment)
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
and it allows people who don't have artistic skills or if something has happened to their hands to make art, like me, for example, I love drawing and I don't think that I'm bad at it but after I cut off my thumb I have had trouble drawing so I use Ai to make my art now.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
True.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
That's true, I don't think it should be removed, but it will have negative effects. I will recommend practicing for you specifically. One of my best friends was born with a lot of deformities, as such she is unable to make a fist, move her body in most ways, and she can barely walk, but she plays piano, they're's just different ways to do things, hopefully you can persevere, but I also get it'll still be hard to draw and do things normally. I don't dislike people who use AI art and using it is in many cases justified.
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
It might have some effects but if they will be good or bad I don't quite know at the moment. yes, it did take from artists but almost all artists take from other artists for inspiration and ideas.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
Agreed, all ideas had been used a million times over even before AI
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
Yes, but artists taking inspiration from others artists is nothing like ai stealing. The artist can look at another person art, and examine it, they can see the technique and skills that went into it. All that ai sees is a collection of pixels, it does not think about all the small details. The ai can copy, the artist can learn. And even though there is people that directly steal from other artists, but that is frowned upon, and most people will agree that it’s a bad thing to do.
Hello, I’m The mighty Dragon bard!
Music nerd, bookworm, dragon lover and avid shoe wearer. I also like drawing and playing guitar.
· · ─────── ·𖥸· ─────── · ·
Extended Signature
yes, but AI can now learn from art and improve its own art, so how is that different from a person and yes if the AI is directly stealing artwork from someone I agree that that is wrong.
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
AI art cannot learn from itself and cannot learn from other AI art--it can only really work by stealing content from human sources. Why? That is how it functions--it dredges huge data sets to look for similar elements and themes and combines those into a "new" work. But those new works have flaws in them--imperfections due to the mechanized process and inability to truly understand what it is looking at. You'll see blurred elements. Eyes that do not look human. Other errors compounding the AI's inability to really feel what it is doing. If AI feeds on its own images, it compounds these issues--it sees the errors as part of the process and replicates them, creating more errors in the data set, only to replicate them again. The safer option is to dredge from human sources--and dredge from so many human sources you cannot really get permission for use--as then you are using data full of sterile, normal human error instead of compounded error-upon-error from the AI.
"But," AI's defenders might say, "is that not what human artists have been doing for centuries? Copying other artists to develop their own works?"
No, it is not. A flesh and blood artist does more than just copy the art--they have to understand it. They do not look at a dozen different pictures, possibly from different styles, and try to hack together a work by mixing an impressionist with a realist with other styles. A human is capable of discerning data in a way beyond numbers and synthesizing it in a way AI cannot. A human is capable of appreciating the art they are looking at--imitation is the highest form of flattery after all, while an AI is incapable of feeling the need to flatter.
There also is the matter of innovation. AI cannot, and will not, ever truly innovate. It might appear to have a mind of its own, but it does not--and we are a long, long, long way from AI exhibiting true sapience, with some experts thinking it may never happen.
The artist, regardless of medium, can change with the times. They can challenge us. They can show us things we have never seen before or hold a mirror up to our world and cause us to question that which we see reflected therein. They can produce a time capsule of the era, capturing not only the look but the feel of a generation. The artist can innovate. Change. Can reject the classical ideals and paint with geometric shapes. Can reject the idea of a subject and create using the complex physics of paint splatters.
AI cannot do that. It can only copy from that which exists and synthesize something based thereon. It is, at its core, dead--and thus it is destined to fail one of the primary functions of art. Which, of course, goes back to a fundamental question asked about many human artists as well--if something has no soul, no real meaning, can it truly be called Art?
I was just thinking that, this may be cliche, but art comes from within, comes from emotion, creativity and innovations, things AI will never have
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)
yet, dun dun dun!!!
Hi! Im Raven, im bi, trans and genderfae! I use she/her pronouns. I have ADHD, Dyslexia, PTSD and I've had complex PTSD since I was 1. I like making dice using Resin, i have a sub 20s 3x3 solve time.
-Extended sig-
Architect of Cosmic Tapestries! Title given by Drum.
???
Your friendly trans bard!
She/They pronouns
The Goddess of the Strings (thanks for the title Drummer!)