People that simp for AI art just don’t want to pay artists. Pricing for commissions can vary depending on the artist and what’s being asked. Then to make it worse, some of the more popular artists either don’t take commissions or they are always sold out almost immediately. So some people decide instead of paying or learning to draw themselves, they will just let the AI do it. They steal other people’s work and feed it to the AI so it can emulate the desired artist. Some even have the audacity to sell it.
And how many of those people you think would be willing to pay for some drawings if AI wouldn’t exist?
If artists can’t compete with AI, they’re bad artists or produce bad art, simple as that.
It’s actually pretty arrogant of all those “artists” to think that they somehow deserve to be paid and praised just because they call themselves artists. A DeviantArt account doesn’t entitle you to be paid for every drawing.
Artists can’t compete with an AI that can pump out thousands of images a day, regardless of how good they are.
Also, I have never known a single artist that expects to get paid or praised just for making something. We don’t feel entitled to anything, we just don’t want every attempt we make to be marginalized and our artworks constantly stolen.
“Sketch artists can’t compete with photography!” - 1850’s
“Painters can’t compete with colour photography!” - 1950’s
“Traditional artists cant compete with Photoshop!” - 2000’s
“Traditional/Digital artists can’t compete with AI!” - 2020’s
No one is taking art away, because it’s the expression that matters, not the medium. Mass production will always go the way of maximum efficiency, and even then experts in the appropriate skills rise to the top.
Source: Digital artist for 25 years now using FOSS AIgen tools.
We don’t feel entitled to anything, we just don’t want every attempt we make to be marginalized and our artworks constantly stolen.
is contradictory. You believe that you are entitled to publish and distribute your work while retaining some control over how it is used. Again, I don’t disagree with that take, but you either feel as though you deserve something (be it payment, credit, control, or something else) for the art you disseminate, or you don’t.
Its not really a contradiction, just poor wording on my part.
By “we don’t feel entitled” I meant that we don’t generally go around making art and expecting everyone to give us a thumbs up and a bunch of money for it. With the marginalized part I was talking about when we do share our artwork, there needs to safe places to do so without having our work taken without consent and used for something we didn’t agree to. The vast majority of the time artists post online, not to make money or even get recognized, but to share something they are proud of with their community and get invaluable feedback from them. Its kinda building a box fort as a kid, you don’t expect everyone to praise or pay you for making it, but your still proud of it and want to show it off to your friends. It sure feels like shit when the adults come, take it all down, and tell you to grow up. And it feels even worse when the bullies take credit and everyone praises them for the amazing box fort they “made”.
When it comes to retaining control, that shouldn’t be something that we deserve or feel entitled to like its a box of Lego in the toy store. Control of their creation should be an automatic right and expectation for anyone that makes something, regardless of whether or not they are an artist.
Here’s my take as an artist. Sometimes the things we hold most dear are too delicate to share. Either make art for the public, or make art for private consumption. If you do the former accept that anything you release to the public is owned by the public, consider it advertising, and when you do the latter make sure you keep what is private out of the access of the public. If someone likes what you can do they’ll come to you for commissions, if they then release those commissions to the public then that’s their choice to socialise that artwork, consider it advertising.
But the only way for art to be great is if it shared, and the Internet is the single greatest invention for doing just that. There are rules and laws already in place meant to protect artists and let them share safely. We just need the laws to catch up with the modern world and AI. There has to be a happy medium where artists can create and share their art openly while AI can advance safely and be used as the powerful tool that it is.
I agree, but you don’t share a faberge egg with a child, nor a nude with an enemy. Understanding that anything you put into the public sphere is prone to be poked, grabbed, smeared, and stolen is just a natural part of sharing. Even laws can only protect so much and only in retrospect.
Your precious little AI would not exist without those “obsolete” artist making the art that AI is trained on, and if they ever stop making art then you will never an original, creative work of art again.
And your artists wouldn’t exist without generations of artists before them and a bunch of scientists developing the computers that run all the tools modern artists use.
What exactly is your point here? Are we morally obliged to safeguard current artists, simply because their predecessors once made significant contributions to the field?
BTW, don’t argue ad hominem. I’m not pro AI, I’m just against unjustified entitlement.
Take away the photoshop and the drawing tablet and those artists will still know how to draw using pencils and paper. Take away the AI and those that use it won’t know what to do.
I wouldn’t call them bad artists for being outpaced by AI. No human can produce content by hand as fast as a computer. AI is just another tool in an extremely long list of tools that have changed how art is made.
If you go back far enough, I bet cavemen had arguments when someone invented the first brush and could paint all day long without bloodying their fingers scraping them against cave walls. Half joking there, but new and better tools are always being developed. Cameras are a great example of a new tool for art that made art a lot more accessible and affordable and we now accept as a normal artistic tool and not a threat. This attitude against AI will also pass over time.
You’re mad at the wrong thing. AI, when used ethically and responsibly, can increase a human’s output in many tasks. This is a good thing and is how we advance as a society. AI does not hurt people. We’re not talking about Skynet.
What does hurt people is when unethical companies exploit their workforce by capturing their increased output without also compensating them for producing that additional output. That’s theft, and it has always happened whenever new tools are invented. But that theft isn’t perpetrated by the tool; it’s the employer that’s at fault. This is why unions are so important.
It’s tricky. Anyone can start playing with prompts to get exactly what they like.
I worry for what effects this will have even further down the line, art is so fundamental to us.
Yup. Thats actually it. And then some of those people decide they care enough to pay for it themselves and then possibly spend more than paying for it from the big guys funny enough. But i do understand wanting to own what you do and have rather than rent it.
But we really got to get back to paying for what we do, and decide with more care who and how. But like good luck getting everyone else to even consider less or slowing down for that.
People that simp for AI art just don’t want to pay artists. Pricing for commissions can vary depending on the artist and what’s being asked. Then to make it worse, some of the more popular artists either don’t take commissions or they are always sold out almost immediately. So some people decide instead of paying or learning to draw themselves, they will just let the AI do it. They steal other people’s work and feed it to the AI so it can emulate the desired artist. Some even have the audacity to sell it.
And how many of those people you think would be willing to pay for some drawings if AI wouldn’t exist?
If artists can’t compete with AI, they’re bad artists or produce bad art, simple as that.
It’s actually pretty arrogant of all those “artists” to think that they somehow deserve to be paid and praised just because they call themselves artists. A DeviantArt account doesn’t entitle you to be paid for every drawing.
Artists can’t compete with an AI that can pump out thousands of images a day, regardless of how good they are.
Also, I have never known a single artist that expects to get paid or praised just for making something. We don’t feel entitled to anything, we just don’t want every attempt we make to be marginalized and our artworks constantly stolen.
“Sketch artists can’t compete with photography!” - 1850’s
“Painters can’t compete with colour photography!” - 1950’s
“Traditional artists cant compete with Photoshop!” - 2000’s
“Traditional/Digital artists can’t compete with AI!” - 2020’s
No one is taking art away, because it’s the expression that matters, not the medium. Mass production will always go the way of maximum efficiency, and even then experts in the appropriate skills rise to the top.
Source: Digital artist for 25 years now using FOSS AIgen tools.
I don’t necessarily disagree with you here, but
is contradictory. You believe that you are entitled to publish and distribute your work while retaining some control over how it is used. Again, I don’t disagree with that take, but you either feel as though you deserve something (be it payment, credit, control, or something else) for the art you disseminate, or you don’t.
Its not really a contradiction, just poor wording on my part.
By “we don’t feel entitled” I meant that we don’t generally go around making art and expecting everyone to give us a thumbs up and a bunch of money for it. With the marginalized part I was talking about when we do share our artwork, there needs to safe places to do so without having our work taken without consent and used for something we didn’t agree to. The vast majority of the time artists post online, not to make money or even get recognized, but to share something they are proud of with their community and get invaluable feedback from them. Its kinda building a box fort as a kid, you don’t expect everyone to praise or pay you for making it, but your still proud of it and want to show it off to your friends. It sure feels like shit when the adults come, take it all down, and tell you to grow up. And it feels even worse when the bullies take credit and everyone praises them for the amazing box fort they “made”.
When it comes to retaining control, that shouldn’t be something that we deserve or feel entitled to like its a box of Lego in the toy store. Control of their creation should be an automatic right and expectation for anyone that makes something, regardless of whether or not they are an artist.
Here’s my take as an artist. Sometimes the things we hold most dear are too delicate to share. Either make art for the public, or make art for private consumption. If you do the former accept that anything you release to the public is owned by the public, consider it advertising, and when you do the latter make sure you keep what is private out of the access of the public. If someone likes what you can do they’ll come to you for commissions, if they then release those commissions to the public then that’s their choice to socialise that artwork, consider it advertising.
But the only way for art to be great is if it shared, and the Internet is the single greatest invention for doing just that. There are rules and laws already in place meant to protect artists and let them share safely. We just need the laws to catch up with the modern world and AI. There has to be a happy medium where artists can create and share their art openly while AI can advance safely and be used as the powerful tool that it is.
I agree, but you don’t share a faberge egg with a child, nor a nude with an enemy. Understanding that anything you put into the public sphere is prone to be poked, grabbed, smeared, and stolen is just a natural part of sharing. Even laws can only protect so much and only in retrospect.
Yeah, that’s a lie.
Ok, so they are obsolete. Simple as that.
Your precious little AI would not exist without those “obsolete” artist making the art that AI is trained on, and if they ever stop making art then you will never an original, creative work of art again.
And your artists wouldn’t exist without generations of artists before them and a bunch of scientists developing the computers that run all the tools modern artists use.
What exactly is your point here? Are we morally obliged to safeguard current artists, simply because their predecessors once made significant contributions to the field?
BTW, don’t argue ad hominem. I’m not pro AI, I’m just against unjustified entitlement.
Take away the photoshop and the drawing tablet and those artists will still know how to draw using pencils and paper. Take away the AI and those that use it won’t know what to do.
Take away the supermarket around the corner and both of us, and most artists, will starve.
BTW: can you make paint from whatever nature provides you? Can you make paper and pencils?
I wouldn’t call them bad artists for being outpaced by AI. No human can produce content by hand as fast as a computer. AI is just another tool in an extremely long list of tools that have changed how art is made.
If you go back far enough, I bet cavemen had arguments when someone invented the first brush and could paint all day long without bloodying their fingers scraping them against cave walls. Half joking there, but new and better tools are always being developed. Cameras are a great example of a new tool for art that made art a lot more accessible and affordable and we now accept as a normal artistic tool and not a threat. This attitude against AI will also pass over time.
if ai stops hurting real people
You’re mad at the wrong thing. AI, when used ethically and responsibly, can increase a human’s output in many tasks. This is a good thing and is how we advance as a society. AI does not hurt people. We’re not talking about Skynet.
What does hurt people is when unethical companies exploit their workforce by capturing their increased output without also compensating them for producing that additional output. That’s theft, and it has always happened whenever new tools are invented. But that theft isn’t perpetrated by the tool; it’s the employer that’s at fault. This is why unions are so important.
People kill people… with guns. So we regulate people’s use of guns instead of putting guns in jail.
Like I said. Unions are important. So is labor regulation.
do you regulate ai
deleted by creator
were household system products outcompeted because they were bad
Is that a statement? A question?
is question
Then the answer is yes. Or do you still use a washboard?
washing machine work isn’t lower quality
I don’t think you know yourself want thought you want to express.
It’s tricky. Anyone can start playing with prompts to get exactly what they like.
I worry for what effects this will have even further down the line, art is so fundamental to us.
Most people here don’t want to pay for "anything*
Yup. Thats actually it. And then some of those people decide they care enough to pay for it themselves and then possibly spend more than paying for it from the big guys funny enough. But i do understand wanting to own what you do and have rather than rent it.
But we really got to get back to paying for what we do, and decide with more care who and how. But like good luck getting everyone else to even consider less or slowing down for that.
So learning to draw like a particular artist is okay, but developing a computer system to do the same thing is not okay? Why?
I mean, yeah I wouldn’t wanna pay someone if I can get an art of the same quality for free. Love me my automated hentai!