Link

AI have no rights. Your AI creations are right-less. They belong in the public domain. If not, they are properties of the peoples whose art you stole to make the AI.

  • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I have almost complete aphantasia and dysgraphia. I can describe a picture but I could never draw it even on a computer. Despite the technology to overcome my Neuro divergency being at my fingertips I shouldn’t own my creations because you don’t like the tools I used?

    Ableist Classist Luddite. “Art is only for the few who can dedicate years of study to perfect their technique and fuck any technology that makes art more accessible. oh and digitally made music isn’t music.”

    • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Ableist Classist Luddite

      Wait just one sec comrade. Noone said you can’t use it, but you really think you should be entitled to make money as an artist? You can literally get a job as an AI prompt writer/engineer. But what you want is to be recognized as an artist.

      Fine, then create a bunch of AI art, frame it, and take it to a gallery or to a market. Put it in a portfolio and display it on a website. Go network with other artists in your area and promote your work as art, see where it gets you. I’m genuinely curious.

      AI has the ability to write code, but very few software engineers have lost their jobs because of it. Why? Is it because AI code, like AI art, sucks ass?

      A lot of people here struggle with MH and some have overcome and found success. Maybe don’t be so quick to label others as chauvinistic for pointing out that your idea is a priori nonsense that has little to no basis in reality. The fact remains that your struggles don’t prevent you from picking up a paintbrush or a pencil or a mouse or whatever. Quadrapalegics still paint landscapes, Chuck Close is a world famous portrait artist who is face blind.

      AI art is trained on the art of others, full stop. Noone says you can’t use it to create images for your own enjoyment. Maybe there is some value for creators in using AI? But the value is created for capitalists to suppress wages of creatives and force people into unemployment. Hollywood writers went on strike over this shit. People don’t fucking like it and regardless of how you feel about that, art is subjective. So best of luck, get over yourself

      • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        Noone said you can’t use it, but you really think you should be entitled to make money as an artist? You can literally get a job as an AI prompt writer/engineer. But what you want is to be recognized as an artist.

        Fine, then create a bunch of AI art, frame it, and take it to a gallery or to a market. Put it in a portfolio and display it on a website. Go network with other artists in your area and promote your work as art, see where it gets you. I’m genuinely curious.

        Upholding the petty bourgeois artist’s gatekeeping, requiring “real” artists to go the right school, know the right people, drink the right wine, attend the right parties and hate the right things. Classist ✔

        A lot of people here struggle with MH and some have overcome and found success. Maybe don’t be so quick to label others as chauvinistic for pointing out that your idea is a priori nonsense that has little to no basis in reality. The fact remains that your struggles don’t prevent you from picking up a paintbrush or a pencil or a mouse or whatever. Quadrapalegics still paint landscapes, Chuck Close is a world famous portrait artist who is face blind.

        Calling neurodivergence a mental health issue, “pick yourself up by the boot straps, Everyone can overcome their limitations because a few people did.” Ableist ✔

        But the value is created for capitalists to suppress wages of creatives and force people into unemployment.

        Blaming tools for the crimes of capitalism. Ludditry ✔

        • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Come on, all three of these are a massive stretch. This is exactly what im talking about, youre just belligerent. Believe what you want, die on whatever hills you want. Enjoy life, shoot your shot playa. Life is all about playing around with stuff, if playing with AI makes you happy or a little money, or not, that’s the road you’re on. I hope its a cool ride

          Edit: its irritating AF that you quoted me and then right below that said things I didn’t even say in order to check your boxes. Self crit

    • usa_suxxx [they/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Ableist Classist Luddite. “Art is only for the few who can dedicate years of study to perfect their technique and fuck any technology that makes art more accessible. oh and digitally made music isn’t music.”

      Even in the most generous terms, Marxism isn’t a promise that you will have every desire fulfilled. So I don’t really know why you said that.

      AI isn’t a promise to make anything more accessible. Its a cash grab by giant corporations…accumulating the data of all art, text, sound, pictures into massively expensive computation frameworks for their own purpose. The Corporations are creating frameworks whose inputs they control and output is essentially copy and paste. Like saying classism on your inability to have SKILLZ when there are actual problems with AI being incredibly racist and controlled by misogynists like Larry Summers is like ughhh…just so self centered and myopic.

    • Mokey [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      You shouldnt be able to make money and steal from artists who made the AI art possible in the first place though, youre taking for granted that the art is free in the first place and more of these people online should be paid

      • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        8 months ago

        nobody stole anything. they got a copy of the data of an image. That data is publicly available and anyone looking at that image on their computer has a copy of that data.

        I’m not against artists being paid. I’m saying that AI is nothing without an operator and that means AI art is made by artist who should be afforded all rights of any other artist.

        • Mokey [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Youre again taking for granted that a lot of the art is free, when it shouldnt be. The people who make that art should be making a living doing something that takes so much work and study to be able to do.

        • blakeus12 [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          because you didn’t write the code for the algorithm, you didn’t make any of the training data pictures, and you didn’t do anything that could be considered ‘creative’ or ‘talented’ to make it. Real fucking artists that put hours of time, effort, and creativity into their work deserve to have it protective. By plugging in “looking at a sunset from a mountain” or some shit into stable diffusion doesn’t make you entitled to the shit it puts out. terrible take.

          downbear