#AI in Art

[skyeward-otp]

Tell me why it seemed like my Professional Practices & Portfolios teacher was encouraging us to utilize ChatGPT for aspects of our upcoming assignments/projects?

I’ll be honest, I kinda zoned out when he was talking about it, because I really, really don’t like AI when it comes to art. If you can’t do it yourself, then don’t do it.

I genuinely don’t believe he was telling us to use it to do the entire assignment because I’m pretty sure we could fail the class if we do so…but again, I zoned out so I don’t really know the extent to which he told us to it.

[the-cookie-monster-tm]

i once saw someone complaining about haiku bot because they were saying that haiku bot is apart of the ai in human artistic fields, taking the soul out of haikus, but i dont think that’s true. haiku bot is repeating other peoples words (with credit given), not stealing bits and pieces. it isnt trying to create its own meaning, its just parroting us, and in that repetition we find our own meaning, giving it that soul that ai misses

[lilyevansenthuisast]

i genuinely do think im better than people who use AI for education or art. I don’t care if that sounds pretentious. I am better than people who use AI because I actively use my brain and imagination. Unlike you, who gets a computer to do everything for you.

[r0semultiverse]

I’m of the mindset that if you defend AI covers of songs that you should just instead say you hate voice actors.

Say you hate us and never want us to be able to make money with our voices.

Say you hate the sex workers who do phone stuff for a living.

Say you hate people making money from their own voices and you want us to be homeless among other things.

[incurable-bookkl3pt0]

Artists imply that they went out of their way to create something, which they didn't. The term "AI Artist" is an oxymoron in itself. Really, they're just the newest breed of con-artists; which is to say they're not actual artists. And yes, these AI con-artists must perish.

Sonic approves

[jasmineandpepper]

Appreciation post for all the beginner artists who work hard despite the AI ​​looming over us. You are fabulous. You are precious. Keep up the hard work, you are needed.

[cellspex]

Normalize this response

[olsonshroom]

Lots of thoughts recently. Everything feels plastic.

I could go on and on about why all that AI "art" is bad. I could mention theft, lack of creativity, it's impact on the work field and environment, but countless people have already said all that. I wanted to touch on something that to me is the most utterly wrong about all of it.

Art is more than just something pretty to look at or listen to. It's therapeutic. It's a form of communication. A tool for human connection. It's a pure, human need.

Support real artists ☀️

[salmonella-destroyer-of-worlds]

We all making grandpa cry btw

[arson-jellyfish69]

AI disturbance overlays for those who don't have Ibis paint premium. found them on tiktok

[bixels]

As gen-AI becomes more normalized (Chappell Roan encouraging it, grifters on the rise, young artists using it), I wanna express how I will never turn to it because it fundamentally bores me to my core. There is no reason for me to want to use gen-AI because I will never want to give up my autonomy in creating art. I never want to become reliant on an inhuman object for expression, least of all if that object is created and controlled by tech companies. I draw not because I want a drawing but because I love the process of drawing. So even in a future where everyone’s accepted it, I’m never gonna sway on this.

[dicklessthewonderclown]

no matter what your most embarrassing moment in life is, at least it’s not having fucking chat gpt write fanfic for you bc you’re too lazy to do it yourself

[r0semultiverse]

Hey! 1. you dont have to answer this if it is too laborious, i absolutely get it, but if you do feel like answering I would love your take.

This is a genuine question about ai and voice acting: so, I use a text to speech app to help get through my readings for college. I cant actually afford the AI voices, but from my brief trial period they sound so easy to understand, and I do sort of wish i could afford them over the more robotic voices for my study. Where do you stand on that?

I ask because i feel a little tangled up because 1. I hate AI, and i would rather listen to nails on a chalkboard than listen to an ai voice read an audiobook (also like, i am a writer and chatgpt breaks my heart) BUT 2. It's not like an academic article is going to be properly recorded for accessibility.

i genuinely dont know where I stand on this, and I suppose it starts getting a little murky when we talk about ai and accessibility. Is this one area where ai is ethical, because it is for accessibility? Or does that leave room for 'but i cant draw so midjourney is accessibility for me'? Or can we draw that line more firmly because there are neurological/psychological/developmental reasons someone might need to listen to their academic readings in order to learn rather than read them? Or do we need to push publishers to hire people to read their journals?

again, no pressure to respond. I feel like this is a murky, convoluted question, and ethics can be not super fun to dig into. BUT if it is cut-and-dry for you, i would love to hear your reasoning. I dont want to feel so murky about it.

To make a generalized statement before getting into some specifics; I think that personal private use of AI for stuff like that where you aren't going around sharing a voice actor's voice without their consent is fine. You need it to be able to better read things. You aren't sharing this with others or posting it up for views & clicks & YouTube clout only to (hopefully) later get sued or fined (or a YouTube strike) for the questionable legality of it. If we ever get laws protecting us voice actors (here's to hoping).

Let me clarify as well that consent should have to be given for peoples voices to be used however which ways they are currently. Yes, even for accessibility programs, the maker should be getting consent from and/or paying the voice actors for their voice. Ideally much like how big name companies get a share of movie ticket money & streaming revenue, that currently does not go to the actors/voice actors in a lot of instances. Voice actors & such should not just be getting that single payout for their work, but also payouts over time based on sales with products they helped make & streaming money too.

There's a very fine line between doing something privately & sharing it around publicly. I'm completely against stolen art, commission someone or keep those AI art pieces private to yourself.

I don't think it's on the publishers to have to have an audio version readily available. Book authors/writers & such are screwed over currently enough as is. Having said that, I think people online should be able to read any book out loud/create an audio book & publish it for accessibility & reading along purposes. I can't go reading certain books or literary works on stream due to fear of being copyright stricken. Book copyrights & things aren't my area of expertise though & I'm no professional writer trying to make a living off my work.

There's better educated people on the topics of books & accessibility out there. If you do make a book audio cover on YouTube, you shouldn't be able to monetize it without consent from the author(s). Authors & writers aren't treated great either. I think a lot more groups of people should be striking than are currently.

If it's a bougie publishing company (if those exist), then I think they should absolutely commission someone to have an audio book version of it. The voice actor should also get paid royalties or whatever you call that even after the initial payout though! Again, I don't know jack shit about how books & publishing work, this is just how I think at this current moment in time.

Also if people are going to post AI for clout anyway, they should legally have to disclose they're using AI in whatever they're publishing like how some countries have laws about disclosing when your content is sponsored or an advertisement.

Also as far as paying someone to voice act anything, no company or business gets to own our voices permanently. This is in addition to the things said above. Pay us to voice over a new book, pay us to say those lines, and every other possible instance this can apply to. Our voice isn’t anyone’s to permanently own and do what they want with regardless of context! Pay us for our voice over!

[ghostieking]

me and my homies support real artists who put their passion into their pieces instead of a machine who rips off the hard work of talented peeps

[sailorsally]

Unpopular opinion but if you don't enjoy the process you should find a different thing to do.

And I think this is true in general but now I'm talking about it in the context of AI.

If you don't enjoy making art and only care about the end piece and how it'll look and how much traction it"lol get online then making art is not something for you, find something you enjoy from start to finish.

Same goes for writing: if you do not enjoy writing and rewriting and then some more and instead want AI to write for you, being a writer is not something you should pursue.

Sure, not every part of creative process is going to be equally enjoyable but you should get satisfaction from solving the problems along the way and you should get a sense of accomplishment on your way of "making the piece yours" and you should have a sense of ownership once you are done.

None of these things will come from typing in a prompt into chatGPT. And I am sad to see so many people are missing on the opportunity to experience the joy of making something with their own hands and brains.

Just give it a try and if you don't like it don't do it again.

But also don't let the expectations of it coming out perfect ruin the fun you are having while making the thing. Because what if I told you this: having fun while creating is the actual purpose of the creative process, not whatever comes out of it.