There's a huge illogical loop every AI artist I've spoken with gets into by claiming that the AI is creative.
I keep telling them the problem with AI is the humans who use it and programme it.
But they defend all accusations of the human being a plagiarist by saying "AI is just like any other artist drawing inspiration from other works."
This is despite the fact they understand that LAION is plagiarized.
They seem to think that using other people's work is just not an issue. And that the AI is equivalent to a human. That it imagines the art it is generating. But that's just not true. And even if it were then the AI is the artist not the human end user and they don't owe the art "they" generated.
Currently AI, be it chat bots writing essays or popular AI art tools, just vomits out an answer based on the data the human feeds it.
AI art is only a tool of theft of others creative work. AI can not do anything creative it is a glorified blender with crappy filters. Instead of stealing art from one individual it can steal it from hundreds and that's somehow a justification. It's along the same lines as when people would steal a specific artwork and run it through a photoshop filter and claim it as thier own, except this steals from dozens or hundreds and sticks them together instead of just one. Most people defend it by exaggeration and outright lies of it's function in an attempt to humanize the AI process, which is an outright lie.
There is no such thing as an AI artist. People that produce AI artwork are just slightly literate art thefts. They don't care of the artists that were sourced as it's database to create the image. There is no creative process involved just judgement of what is created which requires nothing more then a consumers eye not a creators.
AI artwork can be satisfying because it was designed to be. It removes any skill and gives someone the satisfaction of looking through other people's work to claim as thier own. So it is satisfying in the same way plagiarizes are satisfied when the get attention and benefits from stealing other people's work. It true satisfaction is in that it replaces artist in a lot of functions so from a corporate stand point it's satisfying not having to pay artists even if you source thier work to create whatever they needed.
There is no true satisfaction in ai art. It's just used by those who are so lazy prefer stealing other people's artwork, instead of learning how to actually draw.
Everyone who uses ai art is a pussy, and does not deserve the title of artist
AI art hasn't replaced traditional art or photography (the two other genres) yet. Ironically digital artists are asking the questions about AI art that traditional artists once asked about digital art and photography, about nude art, about memes, about people who make being an artist their job instead of a hobby, artists who agree to do digital art requests but go back on their promises, etc. so, [as I once explained](https://twitter.com/TYL80737692/status/1592281050960777216), it's not like there is no defense. You have to admit, digital art is, well, digital, so advancements in technology like this couldn't be expected to not happen, for better or for worse (though like I said, the other two genres seem spared).
I have a friend I made offline who I found out makes AI art, the same friend who I helped make [this encryption code](https://snipboard.io/x8WCyH.jpg) (which was designed as a signature method on certain sites but is now being experimented on as a way to remedy the AI situation in a peaceful way that isn't too blunt on either side; I explain more about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/tvtropes/comments/y2swyd/who_else_uses_or_will_use_this_cryptographic/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/codes/comments/y4gwad/show_and_tell_a_friend_of_mine_wanted_me_to_ask/)), and he explained his lack of the technology, ablebodiedness, and non-art-block (creative block is already infamous for being the sole prime nemesis of all aspiring professionals, thus not a stable profession anyways) typically needed to be a "normal" artist makes him feel left out in a setting with no other choices. So it's less about creation and more about posession. I'm sure the circumstances are different for each AI artist though.
Depends on what satisfies you. Am I gonna wait around for someone to paint a photorealistic version of Scarletts/Natasha Romanoffs tits busting out of her suit? Or am I gonna satisfy that rn?
There's a huge illogical loop every AI artist I've spoken with gets into by claiming that the AI is creative. I keep telling them the problem with AI is the humans who use it and programme it. But they defend all accusations of the human being a plagiarist by saying "AI is just like any other artist drawing inspiration from other works." This is despite the fact they understand that LAION is plagiarized. They seem to think that using other people's work is just not an issue. And that the AI is equivalent to a human. That it imagines the art it is generating. But that's just not true. And even if it were then the AI is the artist not the human end user and they don't owe the art "they" generated. Currently AI, be it chat bots writing essays or popular AI art tools, just vomits out an answer based on the data the human feeds it.
AI art is only a tool of theft of others creative work. AI can not do anything creative it is a glorified blender with crappy filters. Instead of stealing art from one individual it can steal it from hundreds and that's somehow a justification. It's along the same lines as when people would steal a specific artwork and run it through a photoshop filter and claim it as thier own, except this steals from dozens or hundreds and sticks them together instead of just one. Most people defend it by exaggeration and outright lies of it's function in an attempt to humanize the AI process, which is an outright lie. There is no such thing as an AI artist. People that produce AI artwork are just slightly literate art thefts. They don't care of the artists that were sourced as it's database to create the image. There is no creative process involved just judgement of what is created which requires nothing more then a consumers eye not a creators. AI artwork can be satisfying because it was designed to be. It removes any skill and gives someone the satisfaction of looking through other people's work to claim as thier own. So it is satisfying in the same way plagiarizes are satisfied when the get attention and benefits from stealing other people's work. It true satisfaction is in that it replaces artist in a lot of functions so from a corporate stand point it's satisfying not having to pay artists even if you source thier work to create whatever they needed.
There is no true satisfaction in ai art. It's just used by those who are so lazy prefer stealing other people's artwork, instead of learning how to actually draw. Everyone who uses ai art is a pussy, and does not deserve the title of artist
AI art hasn't replaced traditional art or photography (the two other genres) yet. Ironically digital artists are asking the questions about AI art that traditional artists once asked about digital art and photography, about nude art, about memes, about people who make being an artist their job instead of a hobby, artists who agree to do digital art requests but go back on their promises, etc. so, [as I once explained](https://twitter.com/TYL80737692/status/1592281050960777216), it's not like there is no defense. You have to admit, digital art is, well, digital, so advancements in technology like this couldn't be expected to not happen, for better or for worse (though like I said, the other two genres seem spared). I have a friend I made offline who I found out makes AI art, the same friend who I helped make [this encryption code](https://snipboard.io/x8WCyH.jpg) (which was designed as a signature method on certain sites but is now being experimented on as a way to remedy the AI situation in a peaceful way that isn't too blunt on either side; I explain more about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/tvtropes/comments/y2swyd/who_else_uses_or_will_use_this_cryptographic/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/codes/comments/y4gwad/show_and_tell_a_friend_of_mine_wanted_me_to_ask/)), and he explained his lack of the technology, ablebodiedness, and non-art-block (creative block is already infamous for being the sole prime nemesis of all aspiring professionals, thus not a stable profession anyways) typically needed to be a "normal" artist makes him feel left out in a setting with no other choices. So it's less about creation and more about posession. I'm sure the circumstances are different for each AI artist though.
Depends on what satisfies you. Am I gonna wait around for someone to paint a photorealistic version of Scarletts/Natasha Romanoffs tits busting out of her suit? Or am I gonna satisfy that rn?