Comradeship // Freechat

2168 readers

114 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

felipeforte@lemmygrad.ml

What are your thoughts on AI Art? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 2 years ago by Bl00dyH3ll@lemmygrad.ml to c/comradeship@lemmygrad.ml

18 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As an artist, I think it is a net negative for us. Disregarding the copyright issue, I think it's also consolidating power into large corporations, going to kill learning fundamental skills (rip next generation of artists), and turn the profession into a low skill minimum wage job. Artists that spent years learning and perfecting their skills will be worth nothing and I think it's a pretty depressing future for us. Anways thoughts?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I don't see AI art as being fundamentally different from other forms of art. In particular, I would liken it to photography where the artists guides the AI to produce scenes that they find to be aesthetically pleasing or to convey some idea they want to share. If we consider photography to be art, then I don't see why AI generated art would be any different.

AI assistance can also save artists a lot of time. For example, you can already make a rough sketch of something and have the AI fill in the details for you. I see this as evolution of tools like Photoshop which save a lot of time producing different effects that were labour intensive to create previously.

I would argue that art predominantly lies in what the artist is trying to convey, as opposed to the technical skill itself. From that perspective, I think that AI assisted art lowers the barrier for people to convey their ideas. I see that as a net positive.

Regarding the question of jobs, I think that's entirely a problem with the capitalist system. A lot of artists toil to produce things like advertisements, which are completely soulless and I generally would not consider to be actual art.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I was leaning towards being opposed to AI art, but you've convinced me the other way.

I imagine the same debates that happened twenty years ago will come round again, on whether digital art is really art. I'd say so. It seems much more obviously art than something AI generated, but there will be fine art buffs who reject it.

And before then, there would have been a debate on natural or artificial pigments or the virtues of rabbit skin glue over a synthetic alternative, and so on.

The employment thing is the problem, rather than the technology. But that's not new. It's even a meme to be a starving artist.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish this cave drawing.

PS There's a good podcast episode on art history. RevLeftRadio,I think. Could be Proles of the Roundtable. Spoiler to hide sensitive description:

spoiler

The episode talks about a pigment made by crushing Egyptian mummies. The damn Europeans had no fucking respect.

[–] mmhhkk@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 years ago

I think the problematic AI tool here isn't AI that helps artists finish artwork or automate menial tasks, but AI that has been fed with every copyrighted artwork on the internet and is sold as an artist-replacement tool.