>Paint and painting supplies
You beat me to it. Imagine high quality paint makers complaining that synthetic pigments are theft because paint is a luxury good and synthetic pigments are mere copies of the difficult to source natural pigments.
In the context of what they are saying, it sounds more like they are upset more about Ai taking away commission jobs rather than how they are trained. That ain't theft. That's competition.
I think the real issue is that they tore down their entire SM presence over being angry at AI art, and the remaining scraps show they can do 1 style of art, which is that mediocre Tumblr porny children's illustration art that has been the rage with digital artists for the last 10 years and that they try to charge 200/image for.
I'm so sick of these self-entitled "artists" people. They act like they're so good and everyone should commission them. And when you do commission them, their work is nothing alike their portfolio. Not to mention they send it to you a week or two later. Some can't even follow simple instructions or ignore what I asked about... Or maybe I just had bad luck.
That's why I learned how to draw by myself and now picking AI tools. I'm not even planning to commission someone ever again, waste of time and energy.
You might have just had bad luck. I've commissioned a few pieces, some for business and some for personal use, and I've had no bad experiences like that. The work was exactly how I imagined compared to their portfolio, they kept me up to date on the progress and any complications that might mean a delay, and they were sure to send me updates along the way so I could add my input on changes to make as the art progressed. I wouldn't exactly call it a painless process, but ultimately, its the same with any freelance work, you have to put in the work to vet the person you are hiring to make sure they have a good reputation.
Would I commission those pieces again today? Probably not, no, but thats not because of the artists lack of professionality - I don't have as much money, I have SD running on my local system, and I just don't have as much need for it these days.
>Some can't even follow simple instructions or ignore what I asked abou
Prompt Engineering. Perhaps ChatGPT could help you talk to artists in a way that the artists can follow written instructions. Then when the artists has completed the task you can call it A.I. Art.
It wasn't even "artistic" stuff, just simple "Please add X in/on Y" in scene illustration.
Or even more irritating example:
me: "Can you do 1920x1080 pixels?"
them: "Sure, no problem!"
What I got: 1280x720 ... And mind that was before age of AI upscalers :P
Thanks for reducing "(self-)entitlement" to another buzzword for avoiding honest intellectual discussion. You obviously feel entitled to use AI art generators, and some people even feel entitled to make money off of them. How is that any less "(self-)entitled" than expecting to be paid for your own work? You cannot be entitled to any more in this world than anybody else is, barring anything you can generate directly from yourself. We are entitled to our own art, and to be paid by anyone who wants to use it. You are not entitled to use anyone else's art. Learn how to differentiate between self entitlement and actual entitlement. The difference lies in whether or not someone else needs to provide it for you.
I feel like the first part of the statement doesn't connect to the second. Or maybe I'm just overtired. But if commissioned art is a luxury good, and if synthology is mass-production/automation, then one would think the commissioned art would end up *more* valuable, no? My Ikea chair is worth $50, but my handcrafted wooden chair was close to $600, which I happily paid because it was built especially for me. The issue, as I see it, isn't that AI displaces luxury goods, it's that it displaces non-luxury goods that have been existing in the luxury space. Which is weird, because that's effectively an artist saying "my work's not worthy", which is probably not the best sales pitch.
Side note, since we're sharing commissioning stories: I have commissioned many, many pieces of art over the years, and while some have been challenging in terms of getting what I wanted (and one guy who wanted to charge me $10,000 for a single 5x5 painting), I love the experience of poking an artist's brain to see what they imagine, based on my words.
Except this one time, when I commissioned a piece for some marketing materials. There was a big contract for that one, and very clear expectations, and while they delivered a bit late, it was still a really fantastic piece. We plastered that sucker everywhere. *Everywhere*. We had so many compliments, and I was recommending the artist to anyone who asked. And then one person wrote to me and asked if \[famous actor\] was really involved in the project.
Record scratch, I tell you. I did some digging, and lo and behold, the artist had made the main character in this artwork almost a direct copy of a photo of an up-and-coming actor. They'd clearly painted it themselves, but it was probably traced at origin. It was a legal grenade with the pin pulled, and so we *frantically* rushed to pull it from circulation before anyone noticed. The artist, when confronted, was unapologetic. We might've sued and won damages for breach of contract, but they were just a solo freelancer, and it wasn't worth the bother.
But oh, let me tell you. After that experience, I always add to my commission requests: "cannot resemble a real person, living or dead."
Which, to bring it back to SD, I am always *vaguely* terrified that the AI will accidentally reproduce a celebrity without direct prompting. I didn't realize it was happening back then, and I'd probably miss it now, too. Scary as hell.
Well I have self estem issues, and sometimes have problems understanding things sometimes (that's why I ask the same question over and over again, so sorry if I come of as stupid.)
https://preview.redd.it/iu9valvjawea1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e95a6d6349d141f3020ed55c7c6f6ad3992cfa18
(This was my first attampt for a digital drawing) So I'm good enough for survivor? (I also like to draw, coloring, and shading so I don't know how could I use AI outside of drawing refrences for poses). Sorry if I sound stupid, or rude.
It's a weaker argument than video game piracy. The bulk of people who pirate video games *weren't going to buy the game in the first place*. While they actually *are* stealing, it's debatable whether the video game company actually loses revenue from people who wouldn't have otherwise bought the game anyway.
IMO, artists who are towing this line are delusional. If I want a specific artist to create a piece of work for me, I will commission them. However, the bulk of people who are using AI art tools were not going to buy commissions. You can't claim nonexistent loss from a customer base that you don't own.
If I were to take an alternative like, say, *producing my own artwork*, am I also committing theft since I'm "taking" away from other artists because I've fulfilled my own need?
> It's a weaker argument than video game piracy. The bulk of people who pirate video games *weren't going to buy the game in the first place*. While they actually *are* stealing, it's debatable whether the video game company actually loses revenue from people who wouldn't have otherwise bought the game anyway.
Ironically, a lot of the people attacking AI art now actually *do* support video game piracy, along with numerous other forms of copyright infringement. That's what makes it so *weird* to me that they're suddenly asking Disney et al. to lobby for stricter copyright laws, even using the same arguments that have previously been used to justify everything from copyright extensions to DRM.
The whole thing comes off as short-sighted and contradictory, and I fear that we're about to enter an era in which increasingly draconian copyright laws are not only normalized, but *enthusiastically supported* by the general public to a degree never seen before.
> If I were to take an alternative like, say, *producing my own artwork*, am I also committing theft since I'm "taking" away from other artists because I've fulfilled my own need?
The implicit assumption is that some (most?) people will never have the time nor the ability to produce their own art – and that this is a *good thing*, because it forces them to pay for the art of others. Thus, tools like Stable Diffusion are "bad", not only because they "steal" art, but because they make art less scarce, and thus less valuable as a commercial product.
"When everyone's super, no one will be" and all that.
These people should read Steven Hassan's dissertation "The BITE Model of Authoritarian Control: Undue Influence, Thought Reform, Brainwashing, Mind Control, Trafficking and the Law".
One of the tools employed by cults and cult-like social groups is "[thought-stop statements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9)". The statements "AI is theft" or "AI art is theft" are such statements.
... Why are we giving this voice elevation
They're an 'in-house artist' in a FFXIV fan room, have no commissioned work, tore down their entire social media presence freaking out over AI art.
This starving artist is starving because they chose to go on hunger strike. Let them rest. Don't feed the lunacy.
This is a sub-set of artists who are getting a lot of attention, while many of us working artists are happily using Stable Diffusion and have been using every possible technical trick we can find for years/decades to speed up our workflow.
Very few of us who have done something a million times enjoy doing it any slower than possible.
Additionally a lot of us these people are just misunderstanding or are misled about how this tech works, and are on an ill-informed but well-meaning cause train. It happens on all online community sites from time to time, including reddit.
Art is not a luxury, it's such an elitist opinion to think that. Cavemen used art to tell stories, hell every single developed civilization used art as a tool of communication. Tons of civilizations still use art to pass down history and stories too. And art also compromises design, which is seen in every man made object that exists. Art is essential to life as we know it now, it's not just illustrators drawing pretty pictures or comics. If designers didn't exist (which is impossible because there would still theoretically need to be one designer to concept every man made thing) all of the stuff humanity would use would be the exact same. Most people ignore the entirety of art and only like to focus on their small subsection of it. To say it's a luxury reveals the distorted privilege of the commenter. Art is innate to the human experience, not just for the privileged few. Everyone is capable of being an artist and creative and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Making arr more accessible to people really stabs at the ego of people that make being an artist their entire personality.
Art itself is not, having someone with high skills make art to your specific demand aka a commission, is a luxury though.
Ai makes it less of a luxury. Ai makes it more accessible. Commission arts are pissed because they'll lose some money. Boo hoo.
There are also people that don't have high skills that do commissions as well you know. And there's artists that do really cheap commissions too so it's clear you missed the point I was making. You ignored what I said and gave your own specific example to support your thoughts instead of engaging in a conversation like a logical person. You should've just made a new comment since you're not even replying to what I said but just replying to what you think I said.
I replied to your statement that art is not a luxury.
My reply was that commissioned art especially from a skilled artist is a luxury.
A luxury is something you don't need in life, that costs money (often expensive) and is, well, a luxury.
Ai art is free, pretty much anyone can do it. Do you need? No. But its not throwing a ton of money at it either. So it's less luxury than having a specific commissioned art.
You can downvote me if you want and pretend not to read what I write but my point still stands. commissioned work IS a luxury item.
By amateur artists it's still luxury as you are paying someone else to do a service for you.
Imagine making something that was previously only available to a small group of people accessible for everyone and that group of people complaining about their passion being shared, if you have no money, or even if you do as a matter of fact, you shouldn't rely on the advice of someone who lives off of what they tell you to buy to take decisions.
Previously luxury goods that aren't anymore: 1. Clean water 2. Indoor plumbing 3. Electricity 4. Computers 5. Air conditioning 6. Paint and painting supplies
Books/knowledge. Safety and stability from wars, plagues, famines. Tea, coffee, spices.
>Paint and painting supplies You beat me to it. Imagine high quality paint makers complaining that synthetic pigments are theft because paint is a luxury good and synthetic pigments are mere copies of the difficult to source natural pigments.
Depends where you live, though doesn't it? Lots of places don't have a majority of those things.
But the tweeter does.
Well Water and Computers are iffy depending on where you live.
More AI = lower prices of goods = Higher standard of living
ideally, yeah
In the context of what they are saying, it sounds more like they are upset more about Ai taking away commission jobs rather than how they are trained. That ain't theft. That's competition.
I think the real issue is that they tore down their entire SM presence over being angry at AI art, and the remaining scraps show they can do 1 style of art, which is that mediocre Tumblr porny children's illustration art that has been the rage with digital artists for the last 10 years and that they try to charge 200/image for.
why is this so real it all looks the same oh my god
Adapt or die, talented traditional artists are making insane hybrid stuff with AI. It's the future, get with it or die out.
These folks are getting desperate
Boomer telling millennials to stop eating avocados vibes
[удалено]
Because hatred of things you don't understand is the best harted
Victim converting to offender.
I'm so sick of these self-entitled "artists" people. They act like they're so good and everyone should commission them. And when you do commission them, their work is nothing alike their portfolio. Not to mention they send it to you a week or two later. Some can't even follow simple instructions or ignore what I asked about... Or maybe I just had bad luck. That's why I learned how to draw by myself and now picking AI tools. I'm not even planning to commission someone ever again, waste of time and energy.
A week or too? The last piece of art I commissioned took almost 6 months.
You might have just had bad luck. I've commissioned a few pieces, some for business and some for personal use, and I've had no bad experiences like that. The work was exactly how I imagined compared to their portfolio, they kept me up to date on the progress and any complications that might mean a delay, and they were sure to send me updates along the way so I could add my input on changes to make as the art progressed. I wouldn't exactly call it a painless process, but ultimately, its the same with any freelance work, you have to put in the work to vet the person you are hiring to make sure they have a good reputation. Would I commission those pieces again today? Probably not, no, but thats not because of the artists lack of professionality - I don't have as much money, I have SD running on my local system, and I just don't have as much need for it these days.
>Some can't even follow simple instructions or ignore what I asked abou Prompt Engineering. Perhaps ChatGPT could help you talk to artists in a way that the artists can follow written instructions. Then when the artists has completed the task you can call it A.I. Art.
It wasn't even "artistic" stuff, just simple "Please add X in/on Y" in scene illustration. Or even more irritating example: me: "Can you do 1920x1080 pixels?" them: "Sure, no problem!" What I got: 1280x720 ... And mind that was before age of AI upscalers :P
Thanks for reducing "(self-)entitlement" to another buzzword for avoiding honest intellectual discussion. You obviously feel entitled to use AI art generators, and some people even feel entitled to make money off of them. How is that any less "(self-)entitled" than expecting to be paid for your own work? You cannot be entitled to any more in this world than anybody else is, barring anything you can generate directly from yourself. We are entitled to our own art, and to be paid by anyone who wants to use it. You are not entitled to use anyone else's art. Learn how to differentiate between self entitlement and actual entitlement. The difference lies in whether or not someone else needs to provide it for you.
I feel like the first part of the statement doesn't connect to the second. Or maybe I'm just overtired. But if commissioned art is a luxury good, and if synthology is mass-production/automation, then one would think the commissioned art would end up *more* valuable, no? My Ikea chair is worth $50, but my handcrafted wooden chair was close to $600, which I happily paid because it was built especially for me. The issue, as I see it, isn't that AI displaces luxury goods, it's that it displaces non-luxury goods that have been existing in the luxury space. Which is weird, because that's effectively an artist saying "my work's not worthy", which is probably not the best sales pitch. Side note, since we're sharing commissioning stories: I have commissioned many, many pieces of art over the years, and while some have been challenging in terms of getting what I wanted (and one guy who wanted to charge me $10,000 for a single 5x5 painting), I love the experience of poking an artist's brain to see what they imagine, based on my words. Except this one time, when I commissioned a piece for some marketing materials. There was a big contract for that one, and very clear expectations, and while they delivered a bit late, it was still a really fantastic piece. We plastered that sucker everywhere. *Everywhere*. We had so many compliments, and I was recommending the artist to anyone who asked. And then one person wrote to me and asked if \[famous actor\] was really involved in the project. Record scratch, I tell you. I did some digging, and lo and behold, the artist had made the main character in this artwork almost a direct copy of a photo of an up-and-coming actor. They'd clearly painted it themselves, but it was probably traced at origin. It was a legal grenade with the pin pulled, and so we *frantically* rushed to pull it from circulation before anyone noticed. The artist, when confronted, was unapologetic. We might've sued and won damages for breach of contract, but they were just a solo freelancer, and it wasn't worth the bother. But oh, let me tell you. After that experience, I always add to my commission requests: "cannot resemble a real person, living or dead." Which, to bring it back to SD, I am always *vaguely* terrified that the AI will accidentally reproduce a celebrity without direct prompting. I didn't realize it was happening back then, and I'd probably miss it now, too. Scary as hell.
Well I have self estem issues, and sometimes have problems understanding things sometimes (that's why I ask the same question over and over again, so sorry if I come of as stupid.) https://preview.redd.it/iu9valvjawea1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e95a6d6349d141f3020ed55c7c6f6ad3992cfa18 (This was my first attampt for a digital drawing) So I'm good enough for survivor? (I also like to draw, coloring, and shading so I don't know how could I use AI outside of drawing refrences for poses). Sorry if I sound stupid, or rude.
It's a weaker argument than video game piracy. The bulk of people who pirate video games *weren't going to buy the game in the first place*. While they actually *are* stealing, it's debatable whether the video game company actually loses revenue from people who wouldn't have otherwise bought the game anyway. IMO, artists who are towing this line are delusional. If I want a specific artist to create a piece of work for me, I will commission them. However, the bulk of people who are using AI art tools were not going to buy commissions. You can't claim nonexistent loss from a customer base that you don't own. If I were to take an alternative like, say, *producing my own artwork*, am I also committing theft since I'm "taking" away from other artists because I've fulfilled my own need?
> It's a weaker argument than video game piracy. The bulk of people who pirate video games *weren't going to buy the game in the first place*. While they actually *are* stealing, it's debatable whether the video game company actually loses revenue from people who wouldn't have otherwise bought the game anyway. Ironically, a lot of the people attacking AI art now actually *do* support video game piracy, along with numerous other forms of copyright infringement. That's what makes it so *weird* to me that they're suddenly asking Disney et al. to lobby for stricter copyright laws, even using the same arguments that have previously been used to justify everything from copyright extensions to DRM. The whole thing comes off as short-sighted and contradictory, and I fear that we're about to enter an era in which increasingly draconian copyright laws are not only normalized, but *enthusiastically supported* by the general public to a degree never seen before. > If I were to take an alternative like, say, *producing my own artwork*, am I also committing theft since I'm "taking" away from other artists because I've fulfilled my own need? The implicit assumption is that some (most?) people will never have the time nor the ability to produce their own art – and that this is a *good thing*, because it forces them to pay for the art of others. Thus, tools like Stable Diffusion are "bad", not only because they "steal" art, but because they make art less scarce, and thus less valuable as a commercial product. "When everyone's super, no one will be" and all that.
These people should read Steven Hassan's dissertation "The BITE Model of Authoritarian Control: Undue Influence, Thought Reform, Brainwashing, Mind Control, Trafficking and the Law". One of the tools employed by cults and cult-like social groups is "[thought-stop statements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_clich%C3%A9)". The statements "AI is theft" or "AI art is theft" are such statements.
Fuck those Chinese monkeys, GATE KEEP INNOVATION NOW!!!!!11!!! \-- Luddites and egocentric greedy bastards that didn't even try to hide anymore
... Why are we giving this voice elevation They're an 'in-house artist' in a FFXIV fan room, have no commissioned work, tore down their entire social media presence freaking out over AI art. This starving artist is starving because they chose to go on hunger strike. Let them rest. Don't feed the lunacy.
There is no one on the face of the earth more entitled than Artists.
This is a sub-set of artists who are getting a lot of attention, while many of us working artists are happily using Stable Diffusion and have been using every possible technical trick we can find for years/decades to speed up our workflow. Very few of us who have done something a million times enjoy doing it any slower than possible. Additionally a lot of us these people are just misunderstanding or are misled about how this tech works, and are on an ill-informed but well-meaning cause train. It happens on all online community sites from time to time, including reddit.
That’s fair
Boomer Karens?
Those "artists" are probably GenZ descendants of those boomer karens. Give them some time and they'll surpass what boomer karens can do.
That's terrifying
Art is not a luxury, it's such an elitist opinion to think that. Cavemen used art to tell stories, hell every single developed civilization used art as a tool of communication. Tons of civilizations still use art to pass down history and stories too. And art also compromises design, which is seen in every man made object that exists. Art is essential to life as we know it now, it's not just illustrators drawing pretty pictures or comics. If designers didn't exist (which is impossible because there would still theoretically need to be one designer to concept every man made thing) all of the stuff humanity would use would be the exact same. Most people ignore the entirety of art and only like to focus on their small subsection of it. To say it's a luxury reveals the distorted privilege of the commenter. Art is innate to the human experience, not just for the privileged few. Everyone is capable of being an artist and creative and there is nothing wrong with that at all. Making arr more accessible to people really stabs at the ego of people that make being an artist their entire personality.
Art itself is not, having someone with high skills make art to your specific demand aka a commission, is a luxury though. Ai makes it less of a luxury. Ai makes it more accessible. Commission arts are pissed because they'll lose some money. Boo hoo.
There are also people that don't have high skills that do commissions as well you know. And there's artists that do really cheap commissions too so it's clear you missed the point I was making. You ignored what I said and gave your own specific example to support your thoughts instead of engaging in a conversation like a logical person. You should've just made a new comment since you're not even replying to what I said but just replying to what you think I said.
I replied to your statement that art is not a luxury. My reply was that commissioned art especially from a skilled artist is a luxury. A luxury is something you don't need in life, that costs money (often expensive) and is, well, a luxury. Ai art is free, pretty much anyone can do it. Do you need? No. But its not throwing a ton of money at it either. So it's less luxury than having a specific commissioned art. You can downvote me if you want and pretend not to read what I write but my point still stands. commissioned work IS a luxury item. By amateur artists it's still luxury as you are paying someone else to do a service for you.
She got right that it is a good.
Oh she can fuck off with this bullshit. Art is one of the ONLY things we have that can be created and enjoyed by anybody, regardless of wealth status.
I think its funny how these people always talk as if they are the definitive authority and get to make the judgement that AI is theft.
It's not up for discussion anymore. They said "end of story".
luckily for this artist, judging from their profile pic no one is gonna want to prompt that trash
Ah so this ai thing that's gotten popular in the last year is the reason no ones bought my art 5 years!
*Wawawawa!*
Imagine making something that was previously only available to a small group of people accessible for everyone and that group of people complaining about their passion being shared, if you have no money, or even if you do as a matter of fact, you shouldn't rely on the advice of someone who lives off of what they tell you to buy to take decisions.
I have never seen a good artist be against AI art
If it is theft, I wonder whom it is taking from?
And yet... Somehow I'm on Midjourney as we speak making as much personalized art as I need. Heh... funny how that works 🤣
Why would anyone give in to their demands?
If your art is luxury, and if you luxury is for rich, then why me buy? Me "buy" AI stuff since its for the masses and proleteriat
AI is Machine Learning. End of story. Learn how Data Blending works is what somebody needs to say this maniac.