#if you think AI that steals art from actual artists is a valid form of craft please unfollow and don't interact with me

[stormcallart]

AI "Artists" (derogatory)

[fx1600]

Okay I’ve seen a lot of ai art debates happening and no one asked but I want to rant about some of the arguments made for it because they just really bug me. 1) yes it is 100% unethical to unwillingly use other peoples art, photography, and likeness without any consent whatsoever. No this is NOT THE SAME THING as people trying to recreate or taking inspiration from the masters before them because while yes it is using someone elses art as reference it is to develop their own skills. The resulting art is still something they made with their own hands to further their own development. And to this day we still know who a lot of masters took inspiration from. Who they credit for their work. Ai work taking inspiration from other peoples styles to fit commands you are giving it IS NOT DEVELOPING YOUR SKILLS. This is NOT for development, it’s actively used to AVOID development and people openly say they do this because they don’t have the skill and don’t want to develop the skill. 2) Seeing people say it’s such a “boomer take” to be genuinely upset about these ai “artists” calling themselves artists is not the hot come back you think it is. Because people being upset is valid! Because this isn’t a group of people trying to make some new “revolutionary” art form and their own community around it. No these are people trying to align themselves with digital artists who spend so much time and effort developing their own skills. To equate pieces they prompted a machine to make and claiming it as their own because the machine cannot argue for its own effort. To the pieces people made after spending years developing their own skills to be able to make their art. If anything ai artists could be classified as some sort of writing group but that’s not what they’re aiming for. They hide their prompts to avoid “stealing” and pointedly don’t want acknowledgment for the one part they actually did themselves, they want credit for the results. 3) “Well people said the same thing about photography” do not and I mean DO NOT try to sit here and say these two mediums are the same! Because if you think they’re equal you clearly do not see the value or understand photography at all.  There are REASONS why companies still higher photographers to do product shots, poster shots, and event shots even though “everyone can do it with a phone”. Companies look for every corner they can cut to save a buck so it should SAY SOMETHINGS that they refuse to go the route of sending an intern with a phone camera to get photos of their products. Why they’re given full production teams and spaces to work. Because it takes skills, knowledge, dedication, and effort that only the photographer has. 4) “But it can sometimes take people HOURS to make!” Why are they willing to spend hours slightly editing prompts into an AI generator if it’s clear they know exactly what they want when they could just pick up some supplies and start trying to for it with their own hands? OR BETTER YET COMMISSION AN ARTIST!? 5) “It’s an accessibility tool, not everyone has the time, money, or skill to make what they want” Two of those three things are exactly WHAT MAKE ARTISTS ARTISTS the fact that they have the skills, they TOOK the time to develop. Money? Mspaint is free, a lowlevel tablet it surprisingly cheep you can get one for around 20 bucks. You can pick up cheep art supplies at the nearest Walmart, Target, or dollar store and get to work. You don’t need expensive equipment to make art, just a pencil and some scratch paper. Accessibility tools are tools made for people with disabilities that can hinder them from having access to the same opportunities or to ease pains and discomforts the disabilities can cause when trying to do every day tasks. There are definitely disabilities that can make it harder to make art But something that removes the need to develop the skill you’re trying to claim you have AT ALL is NOT THE SAME THING

Who knows, at the end of the day maybe there is something to be done with these generators, art is hard to define and it is hard to make lines about what is and isn’t art as a whole. Maybe eventually it will develop into something new and something respectable with it’s own community. But for RIGHT NOW the way it’s being used and the way these artists are trying to treat it and themselves is not it. Right now they’re a community trying to align themselves with one built on the skills they’re specifically trying to avoid and call it the same. Right now their art is dependent solely on the use of unwilling participants. Right now they are trying to pass off this art as the type that they have no understanding or basic skills for. Right now they are actively trying to hurt the respect of digital artists by saying they are outdated and unnecessary for people who want art made but don’t have the skills to do it themselves

[tempesttz]

unnecessary rant about an

unnecessary (but very odd) debate

i know this is not my usual post but tumblr just suggested me another account (as it does), so i went to check them out. openly endogenic, wonderful. inclusive, check. "if i block you, you're probably not inclusive enough." sure? then i scrolled down a bit more, and... tw: mentions of discourse, nazis, the holocaust, and ai art. i'm also just not very nice, so tw for that too.

".....ai art is still art and arguing otherwise is spreading nazi bullshit regardless of if you personally like it or not...." ....what? at this point i'm thinking okay, op has no clue what a nazi is or something. right? right??? there was a link, so i, an unwitting fool looking for more elaboration on this take, clicked it.

"blocked a long time follower because they were being reactionary. here is your reminder that regardless of your stance on copyright, as soon as you start regurgitating that ai art isn't art, you are spreding the rhetoric authoritarianism. you are being reactionary and conservative. in fact, you are literally spreading nazi shit. read up if you have the spoons for it: link here. the focus should be on mitigating harm to those more directly impacted, not on trying to erase the art now exist.s not on ai arts legitimacy as art." i'm not going to just sit here and say "oh wow weird take, point and laugh guys." that would be weird and frankly no better than places like r/fdc and r/systemscringe. so instead, we're gonna break this down: first off: what is degenerate art? well, let's check their wikipedia link.

"Degenerate art (German: Entartete Kunst) was a term adopted in the 1920s by the Nazi Party in Germany to describe modern art. During the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler, German modernist art, including many works of internationally renowned artists, was removed from state-owned museums and banned in Nazi Germany on the grounds that such art was an "insult to German feeling", un-German, Freemasonic, Jewish, or Communist in nature. Those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions that included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or to sell their art, and in some cases being forbidden to produce art." okay, so op is claiming that dislike of ai art is comparable to the suppressing and banning of large amounts of art in nazi germany. which is a wild take. but why is it wild? 1. ai generators clearly do not experience much suppression or banning in places considering that they are an active threat to artists. 2. the main issue with ai image generation is that it is stealing from actual artists to create their images and putting people who have trained for years to hone their skills at risk of losing their jobs. this diminishes the amount of artists who will actually pursue a career in that field, thereby reducing the amount of actual artists and directly harming the art community. 3. a lot of people will lie about being ai "artists," attempting to claim the work as actual art. 4. the concept of comparing something like this to the holocaust in general is just... wildly insensitive, frankly. this should be common sense, but there seems to be a distinct lack of it here anyways. 5. people are allowed to have opinions? you can think ai art is a valid form of art. i'll think you're weird, but that's a valid opinion. some people don't think certain genres of music are art. some people don't think certain kinds of art should be considered art. for example, those pendulum paintings that were everywhere, and might still be everywhere. i saw a lot of discourse about those. some people did not consider them to be art, or at least not on par with things like large, dedicated paintings. does that make the people who have that opinion nazis? .....no????? there isn't a moral to this post. it probably shouldn't exist. i just saw this and needed to rant, and decided to make you all my unwitting victims, lol. if you agree with op, then... i don't know, have a nice day? maybe stop conflating something like ai art (which is basically inconsequential unless you are in a community it effects or witnessing a downgrade of media quality due to its usage in production) to the holocaust (one of if not the worst historical event to this day in history)? okay wait, i have a moral! you can dislike things or have an opinion without it having to be taken to the total extreme. for anyone who read through this entire thing, thank you for sticking around! have a cookie. 🍪

[torchickentacos]

ok this has actually been bothering me for a while. Note that everythign I say is my own opinion and while I do think what I have to say holds merit, I do not claim to be an expert in any field I am mentioning here and if you see innacuracies in my statement, feel free to kindly let me know in a reblog and I'll reblog the corrected version. When we discuss ai art, (usage of the word art being left to open ended interpretation and debate since that isn't my point at all), I wish we could kind of section off the areas of artificial intelliegence we're actually talking about and SAY ai ART or ai WRITING instead of ai as a whole (though I understand its shorthand usage, that leads to conflation of it as a whole). Because AI, while very questionable in its usages right now, is more than art and writing.

AI is the screen reader I use in classes to help me read. AI is eye trackers people use for computers when they're immobile. AI is google add-ons that block certain things for visually sensitive people like epileptics. AI is medical pattern collecting and identifying in at-risk populations (which does have implications which I will mention more later). AI is auto captioning services, though they kind of suck half the time and give you very funny but innacurate youtube subtitles (shoutout to 'palkia you son of a bitch', though I think it's edited). It's voice commands for devices for people with limited hand mobility.

I am NOT an AI bootlicker asskisser whatever. I have opinions on ai art and artist ownership, but here's the thing: we can't condemn the term ai in its entirety when it's been such a huge acessibility thing. We can't immediately see someone use the word ai and immediately put them down as a crypto finance nft ai art bro. because GOD i hate nft bro ai whatever nonsense, the people who steal artist's work to put through their algorithms and create copies of it, but ai is also used for so much more and I feel like the current climate around ai is very pinpointed negatively at one aspect of it, but brings down other helpful aspects of it in the process of pointing out the very valid flaws with it. So, if someone skims this and sees me saying 'hey, can we please use some nuance here', I'm just waiting for the 'why are you on their side, ai is terrible, it steals from artists' or 'why do you hate ai, stop being a sjw whateverthefuck' thing when my entire point here is that we need to be able to separate what we're actually talking about here in a meaningful way. You can condemn negative parts of ai that are genuinely concerning for creative folk everywhere WHICH I FUCKING AGREE WITH while also saying that we need to be mindful of the fact that AI also means screen readers, translators, epileptic flash blocker add-ons, and so many other things, and by condemning anyone who uses ai as a whole you are bringing down SO many people with that in the area of effect of your sweeping statements.

TLDR the internet is doing that 'you're either with us or against us' thing and as usual it's marginalized communities, disabled people this time, being used as talking points and what-ifs on both sides instead of our actual input being valued as people who do use other forms of ai.

And we can talk about aspects of accessibility and medical ai in a nuanced way, too. there's definite data collecting implications in medical use of ai and machine learning. There's definite demographic collection and pattern recognition that can be used by medical professionals to misattribute things with more of a focus on data and statistics rather than on how medical statistics are skewed by sociological factors. (for instance, are southern 'people of walmart' rednecks all fat, or is it more in line with impoverished rural communities and food deserts leading to a link in demographic and weight?) There's negativity and hesitation and issues in all branches of AI and this isn't saying medical use AI is perfect because honestly, I'd argue there's more to be worried about with that than creatively used ai. BUT my point stands: you cannot use the term AI as an immediate marker for who's a bad person for supporting it and who isn't, because they very well may support ai as accessibility and condemn ai as an art tool.