I think the vast majority of the anti-AI bullshit being spouted by the people in this comment section and the people in !fuck_ai@lemmy.world is just straight up trolling or copyright and capitalist friendly bootlicking.
The fact is that without capitalism the AI venture capitalist projects by tech bros wouldn’t exist, but AI still would, open source, self-hostable, maybe even decentralized AI, but AI nonetheless. Also without capitalism copyright loses all it’s meaning and desire and inevitably becomes problematic as a barrier hampering human creativity and knowledge. Asking for permission to make art is a courtesy, it shouldn’t be required (especially for dead artists who can’t give permission).
I don’t think people will stop spamming lazy AI art if capitalism goes away.
People have always spammed lazy art, and we probably always will. Ancient runes boil down to “So-and-so was here,” and we post countless images with text slapped on them every day. Most books are lazy, most TV shows are lazy, most songs are lazy. We mostly pay attention to the good ones, and the rest is background noise.
In support of your comment; do you know how tired I am of “loss”?
Used to see Kilroy everywhere, too.
The “lazy” artists of human history, none of which are as lazy as AI prompters too lazy to even touch a brush, were never able to create art meaningfully quicker than the “quality” artists. And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam. I know when I say art you just see dollar signs, but art actually means something to passionate people.
Not to mention how insanely lazy it is that AI doesn’t even generate original art, it has to steal from artists in its training data.
And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not prevented from seeing genuine human art.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam.
I don’t think that will be the case. We have machines that make us clothing and such, but hand-crafted goods are admired for their artistry, and those who can afford them will happily pay a premium.
Over 50 games were released daily on Steam in 2024, but we still found the great titles by word of mouth, reviews, and awards.
Maybe a lot of “art” will be generated, but I think not being able to copyright AI works will make corporations prefer human-made art so that they’ll have a monopoly over the rights. I think it’s more the case that generated assets will replace/broaden stock assets.
I know when I say art you just see dollar signs
What makes you say that?
it has to steal from artists in its training data
One of the reasons I don’t have a burning hated for AI art is because I can’t see a difference between what it generates and what I generate. I also steal from artists in my training data, be it watching a tutorial or using references. A seemingly original idea like a cat drinking tea on the moon is really just combining every Victorian tea party painting I’ve ever seen, every cat I’ve ever seen, real or drawn, and every depiction of the moon I’ve ever seen. Anything I can imagine comes from stimuli previously consumed and techniques taught by others.
If you’re making art to show it off to other people, then you’re just trying to make profit, not make art.
Nobody can take art away from you. It’s a manifestation of your emotions. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to manifest those emotions, art made with AI isn’t somehow lesser than art made with a brush. And nobody, including you, gets to say otherwise.
The most soulless socities have all been socialist so I have no idea what you’re talking about.
how do you ensure the next best thing which is socialism, does not turn into a different form of fascism?
Probably by doing anarchism instead
This is useful shorthand but is too oversimplified to believe in full
So without capitalism, AI would not be obfuscating the sources of ideas, mischaracterizing the content of works, polluting communication channels with vapid slop, enticing emotionally-vulnerable people to self-destructive behavior, accelerating disinformation, enabling scams, profiling thought-crime, producing nonconsensual pornography…?
There’s no denying that capitalism is steering AI (and everything) in a dark direction, but AI is also just hazardous by its very nature. Moving beyond capitalism won’t automatically make humans more careful than we’ve ever been.
AI is also just hazardous by its very nature
I think the point is that there’s nothing hazardous inherent in its nature, and pointing to the problematic uses under capitalism isn’t any more a description of ‘its nature’ than is pointing to an ass a description of a chair’s nature.
AI is a tool, just like any other, and the harm caused by that tool is largely defined by how it’s used and by who.
There’s no doubt that LLM’s and other generative models are disruptive, but suggesting that they are inherently harmful assumes that the things and systems they are disrupting aren’t themselves harmful.
Most of what you’re pointing to as harm caused by AI is far more attributable to the systems it exists in (including and especially capitalism) and not the models themselves. The only issue that I can see with AI inherently is its energy demand - but if we’re looking at energy consumption broadly then we’d be forced to look at the energy consumption of capitalism and consumerism under capitalism, too.
I imagine the sentiment here would be wildly different if we were scrutinizing the energy demand of gaming on a modern GPU.
Sure, but Abigail wasn’t really advocating against transhumanism or technology generally… The critique of that video is that technology isn’t really the focus of the disagreement between transhuminism and anti-transhumanism, but rather the ‘dressing’ around a deeper phenomenological belief (for transhumanists it’s the belief that technology will save us from the inequity and suffering created under capitalism, and for anti-transhumanists it’s the belief that technology and progress will subvert the ‘natural’ order of things and we must reject it in favor of tradition). Both arguments distract from what is arguably the more pressing issue - namely that technology does nothing to correct the contradictions of capital and it may even work to accelerate its collapse.
I would really enjoy a discussion about how AI might shape our experience as humans - and how that might be good or bad depending - but instead we’re stuck in this other conversation about how AI might save us from the toils of labor (despite centuries of technological progress having never brought us any closer to liberation) vs how it might be a Trojan horse and we need to return to a pre-AI existence.
It might be more productive for you to argue the case for why the effects or harm you’re pointing to are somehow ‘inherent’ to AI itself and not symptoms of capitalism exacerbated by AI.
AI would not be obfuscating the sources of ideas
Who would care? Why would it be important?
mischaracterizing the content of works
Huh?
polluting communication channels with vapid slop
That can already be dealt with moderation tools. If you don’t like GenAI slop, just ban the people doing it.
enticing emotionally-vulnerable people to self-destructive behavior,
If people do this (big “if” here), then the cause is again in Capitalism (alienation) giving an incentive to do so.
accelerating disinformation
Root cause: capitalism
enabling scams,
Capitalism
profiling thought-crime
Huh?
producing nonconsensual pornography…?
We were doing that since photoshop.
Just because you can spam a bunch of scary concepts, doesn’t mean they stand up well
Another thing about AI slop is that it’s usually motivated by some sort of get rich quick thinking or plain old labor replacement. Both motivations disappear without capitalism.
Well, for myself, I just like generating pretty images for myself and my blogposts and to speed up my coding.
deleted by creator
You can’t dismiss the legitimate harm enabled by these things by pointing to another thing that enables harm…
I think you could make reasonable points here, but you’re not engaging in discussion if you just dismiss them. These are legitimately serious issues and it’s worth taking them seriously especially if you actually believe the things you say and want other people to understand your point of view. I’m not going to lie, it’s gross to basically just say “well people get sexually abused anyway so it’s not a concern.”
Capitalism enables a lot of terrible stuff, but the world doesn’t immediately become sunshine and rainbows if it’s gone. There’s still a lot of work to be done after the fact
You can’t dismiss the legitimate harm enabled
Lol watch them
Simping for these auto complete bots requires reciting mantras while blocking out reality.
Ffs, are you really this fucking dense, or is this an act you’re putting on?
Maybe if you stopped simping for capitalism, you could start addressing that harm you like to whine about.
Of course, if liberals addressed the root causes of harm, then they wouldn’t have any causes to appropriate to fundraise with.
AI image generation is theft.
The pictures stolen to train it that it then uses as refrence to shit out Frankensteins of other people’s art were stolen without the consent of the original artists.
It’s theft, that’s been proven.
It’s not creative, it should be illegal.
Hey look, it’s one of those pro-copyright trolls I was describing in my original comment about how the anti-AI trolls here are hypocrites for coming to an anarchist, leftist community that doesn’t support or prop up the false notion of copyright and intellectual property gatekeeping coming here to argue that a thing is bad because of copyright infringement.
You can’t expect people here to not think you are a troll coming to a community in dbzer0, AKA the piracy instance, and trying to argue pro-copyright talking points, that’s what you’re doing here when you come and whine about art theft. Copyright is a capitalist construct, you sitting here arguing for it, or putting down violations of it is laughable petty trolling at best, and at worst it’s Anarcho-Capitalist, or just straight up pro-capitalist trolling.
Lern to draw lazy baby troll
It’s not hard
I’m sorry you don’t respect the work of real artists, but that’s not an excuse to steal.
I don’t accept the idea of copyright in the first place. The very idea of intellectual property is absurd. Once you release an idea to the world, turning around and claiming to own that idea is akin to slavery. You’re really going to sit here and tell me if you create art, you own the neurons that formed in my head to remember it? That’s barbaric and inhumane.
Once you make art and release it to the public, it’s as much mine as yours, and I’ll do with it whatever I want because it belongs to everyone. Ideas are a part of people, and people should be free. Anyone who claims to own another person is evil.
People who don’t want copyright to exist have never created art people want to buy.
I agree it sucks that money is required for everything. But as long as we perpetuate this system it’s better to not allow theft.
We should change copyright laws, but we do need copyright laws still.
It absolutely would be. But this is not about logic. It’s about making sure everyone knows that capitalism is re root of everything bad that has ever happened.
Even the things that happened before capitalism!
Are you like… lost? You’re literally in a leftist anarchist community and you’re surprised that people here, in this leftist anarchist community are against capitalism?
They aren’t lost, but they are an idiot. They have consistently horrible takes that they enjoy sharing with the world by puking on their keyboard.
Oh for sure, they’re absolutely not lost, more like a troll.
No actually. I have multiple concerns with “AI” that would continue to be concerns in a completely non-capitalism based system.
It would take several hours to type out some of them, but some that are very simple are: the resources required to have these “AI” systems are extensive and would be better used elsewhere, there are things that should not be copied (especially without consent of the creator) and used in a LLM or any image generator, and these systems only exist because of capitalism, without being able to extract and steal value from others, there is really no use for them
The government guarantees copyright and patents, not capitalism.
Mainly the US government, who forces other countries to adopt it via the reserve currency which is required to purchase energy, in mob boss style fashion. They are entirely artificial constructs that are designed to create monopolies in order to fund RND.
Even the BS laws like software patents are foisted upon other countries, for things like rounded corners on windows.
You can run inference on desktop gpus. Copyrights are a state enforced monopoly, not a law of nature. I don’t recognise any control of culture by anyone, including the author. The technology can just as well exist outside of Capitalism
I write software collectively. Sometimes code needs to be fixed. Let’s say Fred wrote some code that needs to be fixed. I fix it and create a merge request. My reviewer, Mark, looks over my merge request and allows it into the collective repository. Fred, being too attached to her code, comes over yelling. Fred has not learned that software is a collective experience.
We collectively own the technology and creative works. Under capitalism, we must individually own that work to make money.
I’m sorry are you new here? We on dbzer0 don’t believe in legally or state sponsored gatekeeping, which is what the concept of intellectual property by in large is. Have you ever seen media campaigns to spread awareness of copyleft, shareware, and GPL licensing, or have you seen campaigns meant to demonize people who violate the will of megacorps and try to scare people out of pirating content, you know, like these?
Also the companies who choose to prop up and lobby for laws to protect Intellectual Property, simultaneously don’t give any shit about the collaboration you speak of, many of them have either been proven to, or are suspected of violating those GPL licenses. So to say that IP laws are about collaboration is just straight up shitting in our mouths and calling it a sundae.
Cool story bro?
db0 woke up today and chose violence again.
I keep screaming it and all the fucking liberals come out of the woodwork to shit on AI- they can virtue signal all they want but I survived on selling my art for years and me and all the other artists I know can’t say it loud enough:
If you aren’t paying for art now then why the fuck are you mad about AI “stealing jobs”? And if you don’t make art for a living I promise you, no one is mad at not having to draw somebody’s Sonic OC or latex fetish to live! Uncouple the need to sell art to live and people don’t stop making art, they make more of what they want to make!!
AI gives the power to make things to people who can’t. It doesn’t take away my ability at all. Stop the capitalist system that enslaves artists, and we will make more, and better!
If you aren’t paying for art now then why the fuck are you mad about AI “stealing jobs”? And if you don’t make art for a living I promise you, no one is mad at not having to draw somebody’s Sonic OC or latex fetish to live! Uncouple the need to sell art to live and people don’t stop making art, they make more of what they want to make!!
I kinda wanna make a few spaces I help manage have a rule for April Fools day:
If you did not personally create the image, or pay for someone to create it from scratch, you are forbidden from sharing and viewing it. It is in violation of the copyright of the owner, and they did not give consent to the use of their Intellectual Property to be used and displayed in this manner. Copyright is automatically assumed to the creator, and unless consent was given to the exact person with demands, it is null and void unless stated.
99.99% of all media online weren’t given consent to be shared or modified by the owners of the media. Everyone will say it’s stupid for a company to try to expand its reach to the millions of faceless users. Yet will simp for them the moment they are briefly against AI. They will vouch for extensions to copyright, and say companies should purposefully creep their money and influence on the internet, because a bad AI model did something weird 5 years ago.
Eh, I don’t really buy it. You’ve still got an issue of plagiarism (notably not the same thing as copyright), soulless slop flooding creative spaces, the fact that LLMs just kinda lie all the time and then there’s the abuse enabled by image models, icky stuff and it’s absolutely not driven by capitalism.
Neural networks have a place in many fields, but when it comes to replacing human creativity, I’m not sold. I’ve certainly got no respect for anyone claiming to be an artist because they ran a program and stole the hardwork of potentially thousands of people. You can take away the profit motive, but you can’t take out the social motives. People are dicks and capitalism isn’t why they are, it’s a symptom and a tool.
Maybe there’s some use cases for that kind of thing, but I personally don’t see it and think we’d be just fine leaving that sort of thing out of daily life. I don’t see what we get beyond like making shitty graphics quickly or something, is that worth the harm?
You can’t steal art. Art is a manifestation of emotion, an idea immortalized. You don’t get to own ideas once they pass from your mind to another.
Every bit of art out there in the public is as much mine as anyone’s. Copyright and “intellectual property” are ridiculous concepts with no bearing whatsoever in reality. The very idea you could own part of another person’s intellect is absurd.
“Oh look, you just read this, that means I own the neurons you formed to remember it. Better not use my comment to craft a reply, that would be wrong of you.”
That’s how stupid you sound.
That’s your solution for everything.
A good solution fixes multiple problems, young grasshopper.
A good solution must be anchored in Reality, however.
The fact is that capitalism is not going anywhere, regardless of how many delusional commies post about it on niche social media systems.
But what if more people learn about anti-capitalist sentiment, and it begins to become more popular? I’m sure people thought the monarchy wasn’t going anywhere.
Sometimes a proposed solution has to go too far to find a happy medium.
You don’t have to be a communist to be anti-capitalist. Hell, some pillars of capitalism use definition-accurate practices of all this “commie shit” Americans love to rave about. Look no further than insurance and banks, both examples of large groupings of money from individuals to be allocated where needed and keeping currency as a more nebulous entity since it’s not tangible to any one person. No matter the system, one will become unsustainable when pushed to the extremes like capitalism is right now, teetering on the brink of yet another collapse.
deleted by creator
The AI haters here are just flat out hypocrites, I mean why are you on this instance? Be honest, it was probably for !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com, the largest community here (and one of the largest on Lemmy), maybe you didn’t and in that case maybe you just don’t understand the main mission of dbzer0 and the fact that copyright isn’t something we care about, but for those who do it is hypocritical if not downright asinine to support and participate in piracy but also say that “It’s important to respect intellectual property” when people discuss AI projects and training of AIs. I mean if you pirate movies or games you certainly aren’t respecting copyrights yourself. Maybe you think it’s different but those companies feel just as offended, and it’s evident from their sleazy efforts to fight against piracy.
There are so many arguments that can be made against AI and might even apply in certain situations (Corporate monster AIs like OpenAI) but this one is just fucking stupid, and you all make yourselves sound like trolls when you come here whining about the importance of copyright and intellectual property.
thats certainly not my argument agsinst it. there are a lot of arguments against Grnerative AI that have nothimg to do with copyrigth especcially on the left.
Like the envoiremental inpact, the amoint of energy and water wasted for large datacenters. how rich ceos see it as a way to cut down cost and replace workers (which doesnt even work but they dont care), The amount of exploitation that goes on in the global south where people are being exploited by comoanies that work for ai companies where they have to sit through ours of generatet content of gore and child porn to work on filtering said content out, whithout any psychological care aswell as abismal money they get for it.
the deals AI companies have woth fossilfuel companies. etc. there also some arguments on AI art nlt being actual art and how just content scraping indie and also big artist do a computer can turn out an pretty mediocre average artstyle because you (strawman you not actual you) are to lazy actually learning and apreciating an art style of an artist whos style you may like.
And also lastly the closed source nature of AI we currently have
Also there are different degrees of piracy when it comes to big corps and indi creators but thats another subject
So basically all things that, pretty much exclusively do not apply to the open source, self-hosted, and decentralized AI promoted and used by this community of anarchists and tech enthusiasts? And you wonder why people here think you are trolls? Like, everything you described here is a problem with capitalism and the capitalistic system, you realize that your arguments are just proving what @db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com is saying?
I think there is a misunderstanding. To clear things up, I was not talking about lemmy.dbzer0.com and I wasent talking about selfhosted AI models. Also yes The main Problems with AI are due to capitslism. Which applies to how we use and implement technology in general. for example the internet. Not shure to what group you are putting me into but I hope I can provide some context. I am an anarchist.
now onto what I was arguing about I was replying to your comment because, missing the context of this comunity and how it uses AI, I thougth you where definding the technology by arguing that the main point of criticism that people have is the Copyrigth aspect of it. Which is not true.
Now again I was talking about things like chatgpt Claude gemini etc. Not someome selfhosting their own AI model in their own homeserver.
And well specificly AI bros going aroumd generating AI images and calling it art etc.
Which im not saying you are or this comunity is.
So it seems like from what you’re saying that you aren’t one of the people me or db0 are talking about. Me and db0 are specifically talking about the hypocritical people who come here and complain that we use Horde generative AI and use all the talking points against OpenAI and Google, against Horde and even db0.
Take it from the Godfather of AI, Geoffrey Hinton, a computer scientist, cognitive scientist, cognitive psychologist, and Nobel laureate in physics.
I don’t like that you linked to a direct download, but I love the cause
That’s odd. It opens in a new browser tab for me. That’s the only way I’ve used catbox. Is there a better way to host it so that doesn’t happen?
I honestly have no idea. I’m on Android and when I clicked it, it took me to my browser and automatically downloaded it. If it wasn’t intentional, I take back the first part of my comment you’re replying to. Does catbox have an integrated media player? If it does, maybe it just doesn’t work for mobile🤷♂️
Nah. Catbox is free hosting without a front end. Mine just opens in a Safari preview on my iPhone. Thanks for the heads up. I’ll look elsewhere for a hosting option.
Your link still has me download it in order to watch it, but this link will play in the browser. Maybe it has to do with the file type?
They both appear to be .mov container, but they may have been encoded with different codecs. I’ll have to compare them on my computer tomorrow. Thanks for the input!
How does this .mp4 work for you?
Works perfectly, no download!
Like this:
🤔 maybe it’s a Sync for Lemmy issue? This looks like and image, but when I clicked on it, I downloaded the video for a second time. This seems dangerous.
It doesn’t render it in a frame to be played? That is weird, and definitely not in-spec with Markdown standard.
This is what happens when I click
Whichever app you’re using you should probably file an issue request for that, that isn’t supposed to happen.
When I click my link, it plays instead of downloading. WTF
it is just a direct link to a file, if your browser / application defaults to downloading mov h264 videos that’s it’s quirk.
I’m not gonna lie, in a post-capitalist world, I would have absolutely no issue with AI that isn’t “AI art”. Art is the product of human creative decisions and human creative expressions. Removing the human source of said art (in my view) strips it of being art.
This is an interesting topic to me. If I paint a landscape, I think most people would say that’s art. What if I close my eyes and splash random paints at a canvas? What if I encourage my cat to track paint over the canvas with its paws? What if it’s a robotic toy instead of a cat? If I create a program like Minecraft to produce aesthetically-pleasing vistas, is that art? Is a swallow’s nest art? What if I physically do the painting, but I allow a random number generator to dictate my actions?
e: Elephants that paint recognizable objects were trained to do so by their handlers. When given access to paint and a canvas, elephants will happily smear the paint around with no apparent logic behind it. No non-human animal has been recorded reproducing an object visually of their own compulsion. Are the random paint smears of the elephant art? If I teach an elephant to paint a house, is that painting art? Who is the artist?
The viewpoint you’re responding to also disregards all the art made by elephants.
People are so desperate to hate on AI art that they will justify it a billion ways, but as an artist, let me tell you that art exists in nature. Art exists in a vacuum. Art can be found anywhere, made of anything, and it’s not just the creator who imbues it with meaning. Ultimately, the lens through which the consumer is engaging the art is the final measure of it’s meaning.
I wholly subscribe to the idea that it doesn’t matter if an artist or an author or a musician meant to evoke a feeling- whatever feeling invoked is valid.
It’s one thing for a bunch of people to say that AI art is meaningless because it’s same-y or because it elicits no feeling in them or whatever. To dismiss the entirety of it because it had no connection to something as ephemeral as a human soul during it’s creation is, at best, ignorant, and at worst, the kind of close-minded nonsense I’d expect from reactionaries who have no actual artistic experience.
To take it a step further- if a person has a reaction, any kind of reaction, to AI art, their feelings are not invalidated because of who or what generated that art.
That’s a view I haven’t heard before, that art is in the eye of the beholder in a very literal way, so that even an ordinary rock can itself be art if it causes someone to feel a certain way. That’s not in accordance with the current dictionary definition of art, but it’s certainly valid to argue that the definition should be broadened.
Elephant paintings are a perfect subject for the question of what art is, and I’ll edit my previous post to reflect that.
As an artist myself as well, I fully support the idea that the meaning of art is ultimately in the eye of the beholder. I simply think that a fundamental characteristic of art is its human source and the human expression imbedded into it, however that art is then interpreted. I may be mistaken, but you seem to view art as something that is defined by its experience, which is something that I disagree with. I would also love to hear your reasoning behind that.
It only becomes art once a mind observes it and appreciates it. If AI generates a picture but no one sees it, it’s not art. Generated images become art when observed, because that’s when it gains value. They don’t even have to like it, per se, but someone needs to experience it.
Value still comes from labor.
What if a blind person draws something to the best of their ability, but keeps the image in a private journal where no sighted person ever experiences it? (For the purposes of this hypothetical, they haven’t used a marking method that allows them to experience their creation via texture.)
They still experienced their creation as they drew it, though. Art is still art even if it is only experienced once by a single person.
That’s very interesting, thank you. Do you include non-human minds? I assume a Roomba detecting an obstacle doesn’t count because it doesn’t have a meaningful internal reaction, right? I’m thinking about a future iteration of AI experiencing art, either via creation or observation. If nature has programmed my mindless cells to feel things, it stands to reason that we should be able to program mindless rocks to feel things.
AI could experience art, but nothing we have right now is AI. Roombas can’t experience art and ChatGPT can’t experience art. They aren’t even close tbh
AI art is purely derivative. People want to consume what’s already been done. I think there will always be a demand for true novelty but that market is already extremely small.
Edit: maybe the argument isn’t actually about art, instead it’s about robots taking human jobs. If AI could actually replace you then yes, you should be very worried.
It can be used to create art (though that involves manual editing, most of the time), like any other medium, most of it is not. Just typing a prompt into a machine does not make someone an artist
We’re definitely not getting out of Capitalism, especially when:
-
The loudest anti-capitalists don’t even know what capitalism is exactly (why read and study it when you can go for vibe based approach) or are outright pro-capitalist but instead pushing for a more “humane” version of it and sometimes fighting actual anti-capitalists.
-
Most people are content with accepting the worldview they were born into (the liberal/Capitalist one) instead of actually attempting to examine reality for what it truly is, seek answers and do a double take on who they should be supporting, especially nowadays.
-
You all keep saying that but i don’t see capitalism being overturned any time soon.
Also art made by a computer just sounds like shit.
art made by a computer just sounds like shit.
This is a common but reductive statement and I’m tired of hearing it. People have been drawing crude boobs on rocks since the first man picked up a stick but I don’t hear you complaining about childrens drawing. ‘AI’, especially the current iteration of it, is being used for all kinds of shit that would’ve taken conventional computing a million real-hours to do. There is no reason that real artists can’t or shouldn’t incorporate AI into their workflow in any capacaity if it helps them realize the idea they have. Denoising is a simple use case that you’ve used if you ever took a photo on your phone but, again, I don’t hear you bitching about that one.
The only thing you could possibly be upset about is that the barrier of entry to making passable art with no thought put into it has been lowered so much that a child can do it. That’s a problem of you looking in places that allow that to be posted, though. You could just not. I, for example, don’t care for stable diffusion spam; I don’t see a lot of it because I don’t go where that kind of art is.
I’m sorry if this comes off as rude but I’m really tired of hearing uh buh AI art bad with no expansion or introspection.
There are a few reasons not to use AI, without even getting into the philosophical considerations like whether a generative model can have the intentionality necessary to turn its images into art.
- Current models are utterly dependent on using others’ work without permission or compensation, and in fact the people behind AI companies are now advocating for the abolishing of IP law so they can exploit artists even more. I’m sure that will definitely apply to their products too.
- For all our concern about the energy and environmental cost of crypto mining no one seems to have noticed that AI is using the same hardware at the same rates as mining bitcoin, and for the same reason: to make rich people even richer.
- As with every other product of the large tech companies it will be free and easily accessible now but will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification that has driven us from facebook, reddit, etc.
deleted by creator
As with every other product of the large tech companies it will be free and easily accessible now but will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification that has driven us from facebook, reddit, etc.
This is why I built the AI Horde
I think it’s wild that people here choose to compare open-source AI models that run on a single GPU to the behemoths at OpenAI and use the exact same arguments against both despite both not being the same.
Huh, that’s interesting, I would not have expected something like that to work. Neat!
-
humans do the same thing, we constantly intake others output and our output is absolutely going to be based on what we have experienced to some extent, the important part is if it is transformational right? (in regards to IP/copyright laws and such)
-
With crypto at least there was an argument to be made for comparing the electrical requirements for all alternative banking solutions as a comparison, which I never once saw. For AI it depends entirely on the generation mechanism, not to mention you can self host locally and ensure the type of energy in use.
-
self host… Again
- There is a difference between seeing and being influenced by a work and consuming it and regurgitating the pieces for commercial benefit. Also humans can consciously choose a set of influences or a particular style to work in, excluding the others, as they see fit. Influence is not replication; if you as a human are replicating copyrighted works then that’s a different matter.
- Seeing how fast the planet is burning is not particularly helpful in putting out the fire, so such comparison mitigates none of the harm caused by crypto mining. It was mined (after the early-adopter idealist phase anyway) pretty much exclusively for the purpose of financial speculation. Either way, whether AI consumes more or less, it is consuming for often questionable benefit to its users and significant benefit to its corporate owners. Also you can ‘self-host’ crypto mining too, just not very effectively.
- I have only recently learned about this possibility, but I can’t imagine it’s anywhere near as effective as one hosted on OpenAI’s servers or w/e.
There is, but that distinction also applies to AI creations, you can clearly see (or maybe you haven’t yet?) it’s not simply regurgitating, it can fundamentally transform its dataset with what it outputs. Just like humans, we can just straight copy someone else and claim it as our own but that’s obviously just copying right? I don’t understand why AntiAI people can’t see the difference.
Yeah, I hate the direction crypto has gone, been following BTC since 2011 and the intent has been distorted beyond recognition. I’m not sure of the landscape these days for mining, but it absolutely was a majority individuals rather then corporations, it was literally all self host. Even ASICs are still intended to be ran at home, people aren’t paying other people to mine for them.
Look into it further, while yes gigantic megacorp server farms are obviously going to be generally better performance wise, that’s not really an argument against self host open source alternatives for things that do not require that amount of processing power. Plus there’s a lot of potential use cases for smaller localLLMs running directly on relatively low power devices (like our smartphones)
I mean… I suppose that’s fair. I have not messed a ton with AI image generation, I’ve just tinkered a bit here and there, but I’ve seen some interesting stuff. The thing is though, and I realize we’re getting a bit into the weeds here, but I don’t think AI art is art because it lacks intentionality. Art, whether visual or otherwise, is fundamentally about communication. It’s about trying to evoke something in the viewer and making some kind of connection with them on the emotional level. AI isn’t trying to convey or evoke anything, so I don’t believe that it’s art, but I’m not saying there are no good arguments to the contrary or anything.
Honestly while crypto might’ve started out as a noble idea it was not a great solution to the problem it presented, and the technology has since been a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile the crypto itself pretty quickly fell to rampant speculation and has effectively turned into a giant pump-and-dump. People aren’t paying other people to mine for them, what they’re doing is buying huge power- and water-hungry data centers to mine crypto for them. I live in Texas and we have several big ones here (in a mostly dry hot state with frequent power and water shortages in the summers, so that was a brilliant decision, lol, but I guess power is cheap here), so we’re long past the days where an individual could accomplish much of anything in that arena.
Someone posted a reply about AI Horde which I’ve been looking into, it’s pretty interesting. Also I’m looking at maybe trying to self-host something like ChatGPT (I’ve been working on a writing project and it’s been invaluable to help me brainstorm, work out structure, etc, so I don’t want to lose access when it gets enshittified) but I’m still very much at the ‘seeing what my options are’ stage.
I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again
Current models are utterly dependent on using others’ work without permission or compensation,
They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.
the people behind AI companies are now advocating for the abolishing of IP law so they can exploit artists even more
I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright, IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.
will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification
It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs. I don’t say that like a ‘lmao ur not as smart as me’ but open source AI development, especially stable diffusion and chat LLMs, has caught up to corporate AIs in every way but training data, because unlike the corporations, they walk a thin legal line. I’ve been following it closely since GPT2. It was open source that first came up with the idea of using smaller models to do specific things instead of trying to train one huge model to do everything.
I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again
You also replied to the wrong comment, but I got you. ;)
They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.
Tell that to OpenAI. They’re not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.
I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright
I am generally anti-IP law myself, so I only point it out because the likes of OpenAI and Elon Musk trying to undermine it shows just how desperately dependent they are upon unlicensed content to train their models, and how that makes an interesting contrast to the fact that they hire teams of lawyers to go after people who violate their IP.
IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.
Yeah, I’m a pinko commie who also thinks human society should exist for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of all of its members too, but that’s a conversation for another time.
It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs.
I honestly didn’t even know it was a thing until recently, so nope, I really have not. I have read about it some though. I use ChatGPT to help me structure writing, worldbuild, etc, and - like most people who use corporate AI - find it easier (for the moment) then installing a bunch of shit and fiddling with it for hours (so basically it has the same barriers to entry as widespread adoption of linux - if it doesn’t just work out of the box, most people don’t give a shit how much better it is) only to thrash my GPU into an early grave, and so do millions of other people. I am also skeptical about open source AI’s ability to compete long-term on practically any grounds (accessibility, volume of training data, responsiveness, advanced model features, integration with existing software, etc), but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that count.
Tell that to OpenAI. They’re not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.
This is one of those cases where two groups seem like they are united on a subject but aren’t really. OpenAI claims they want to abolish copyright for the good of themselves and AI, but that isn’t really true. They just want immunity from it, complete death of copyright doesn’t benefit them or any of the companies, since they’d lose their moral high horse against civilians using their material without paying them, as well as their ability to legally retaliate.
Really their claimed stance against copyright doesn’t undermine any of the anarchist and pirate arguments against IP law as it is today and as a concept, it doesn’t even align with it. It’s no different than right wingers saying there’s a war on science or that they want to protect women and children from groomers. It’s just obfuscating or lying about their intentions. OpenAI is just claiming their against copyright because it’s easier to swallow than saying they wish to be immune from copyright, maybe even be able to usurp individual people’s copyrights outright.
This was not an argument about how everyone who has talked about avoiding or abolishing IP law is the same or has the same intentions, this was an argument about how AI is utterly dependent upon unlicensed content, and as evidence goes, them saying ‘gosh we really need to be able to skirt/get rid of/whatever this to keep going’ is, regardless of the complexities of the situation, in itself evidence of that fact.
The specifics of their particular flavor of opposition to being bound by IP law, while interesting, don’t particularly matter to that argument. But thanks for the added context.
Replying to wrong comment :p
I did see this reply already in the thread though.
o fuq whatever I’m just gonna leave it lmao
-
Arts have some of the lowest barriers of entry imaginable. Anyone can pick up a pencil and do “art”
Your comment tells me you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products. Your idea of Generative tools giving children a voice is grotesque. Any child can grab a pencil and make a drawing. It is easier than ever for a child to learn visual art as a language or writing as a voice or music as a passion.
But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art. The children of the next generations could be holding the next Shakespeare or the next Miyazaki or the next Steven Spielberg. The children that hobble themselves with machine induced Dunning-krueger have been stolen of that opportunity.
A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act. You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.
There are so many living Artists out there and I love to see hear and read their aesthetic obsessions. I love the musician that mastered the violin as much as I love the urban noise artist that rubs his balls to a contact microphone. I love the novelist that took care to research for his novel by moving and living to the little town they are writing about as much as I love The crude horror short story writer that wanted to exorcise a visceral feeling by adding automatic writing to their new story. I love Tarkovsky and Neil Breen. I love The Russian Arc and saving Captain Alex, especially when watched together in a 2 movie marathon. There was a wide array of outside art that incorporated people with diverse abilities. People who paint without limbs, people whose styles are wildly different from the mainstream. The disabled and incarcerated. You won’t see this art being sold in capitalism because neoliberal capitalism is inherently ableist. so instead capitalist logic suggests that they should wear someone else’s mask. Thus erasing their voices.
A love for art means that you can love and respect what someone else makes. It acknowledges that we are different, that our voices are different and that there are a myriad of forms of communication. Capitalist logic wants to make things uniform and standardized, centralized and dependent of large platforms. Current AI products follow this logic and being critical of it is as valid as criticizing the logic of every good and service that has been coopted and perverted by capitalism
It is hilarious watching people yearn for a communist utopia while trying to silence critics of current production methods. I feel it is only a rhetoric strategy adopted by AI apologists.
My issue with AI in creative fields is that the people that use it seem to hold a contempt towards art as a language. To them creative media that doesn’t follow a certain specification doesn’t exist and holds no value. So they want to jump immediately to the production line notion of a finished product. They don’t believe in the human action of creating a personal language or aesthetic by exploring the limits of language. Language is bypassed by the vending machine. you mix and match a few reductive options and you get your product. AI vending machines are very depending on this mechanistic labeling of art as well. millions of works ranked and scaled through a centralized reductive criteria.
Yes I think it is the AI defenders who are usually reductive in comments.
They reduce the logic of artistic production to capitalist logic: Hence AI art is better because it is “faster” to make and because it looks to a standard or specification to be sold.
They reduce living artists to materials for these vending machines. Always denigrating their work while at the meantime always hungry for the new lora or the virgin territory in training data. Artists are both valuable in bulk but dehumanized, imitated and anonymized.
They don’t believe in human voice or their own voices even. They have infinite hopes for the AI. A big chunk of AI defenders are doomers in a way. Their idea of progress is turning themselves into machines instead of making the system more humane. They always talk about efficiency and judge everything in value scales. Mathematical thinking has no place in art. Especially art made beyond capitalism. The beauty of art is that it transcends value. That it connects us to people with different viewpoints. It expands cultural horizons and subjectivity. Art is useless in the best sense of the word. It is potential beauty looking for a beholder. But that is also a trait that Ai defenders seem eager to bypass. Because art made by centralized models has the tendency to IMPOSE values and solidify subjectivity.
In this respect the generative products we have are a self defeating practice for it’s enthusiasts because it also has the potential to anonymize those who use it. I feel that is the end goal of the consolidation of generative AI models. This is the reason why CEO’s are so obsessed with alignment, censorship and control. It’s not “Skynet as a threat” but rather “Who gets to be Skynet?” Who floods the media with dribble? What AI model creates and sings and speaks for everyone? It’s part of the pitch for large investors.
You could have picked up a pencil a music instrument or a quill, but you choose someone else’s hype cycle. And I feel sorry for the voice we lost.
I’m happy you took a writing class but why do I have to be your exam topic?
you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products.
I’ll be honest and say I debated even reading the rest of your comment because right off the bat you’ve just said some bullshit that anyone who even looks at my posts would know is false. I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.
However, in the spirit of good faith, I did read it and I must say I feel like you’re shadowboxing someone who isn’t me.
But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art.
I did not say this. I don’t know why you’re putting it here.
A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act.
This is what I said and where the misunderstanding seems to begin, because:
You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.
is the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.
I think you’re trying to argue with me as if I’m pro-AI and have made the usual pro-AI arguments when I am not and have not. AI in all of its iterations are to me what algorithms of the bygone era are: tools. You can use a hammer to crudely slam nails into a 2x4 but you’re not an artist until you build something more than the sum of its parts, whatever tools you use. I don’t use AI. I don’t pay for any AI services. I’ve followed the development of LLMs, stable diffusion, and adjacent technology. I have experimented with it and found it to not be useful in my usual workflow and I don’t see what else I could do with it that hasn’t been done a million times over. I don’t hate the hammer because it’s not immediately useful to me, I just don’t use it and won’t be upset if someone else does. If someone else makes something beautiful with the hammer then I will appreciate it as I do art made with any other tools.
The rest of your essay is more like a generic rant aimed at nobody in particular so I won’t dissect it. The above point applies.
I didn’t take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.
“I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all.”
It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”. Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:
“the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.”
But then you are doing this strange double speak: “Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well” “AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.” So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.
If you really don’t use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don’t use? It’s because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?
I repeat the part you didn’t read from a small comment you call “essay”: Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.
We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.
what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism
because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.
You’re either deeply confused about what I said or you’re deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn’t.You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”.
I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.
“because the criticism is nearly always just “I don’t like it”; see the original comment.”
It is odd for you to say that that criticism for generative AI amounts to arguments of taste after openly admitting that you disregarded a good amount of the criticism I just wrote. You want a good faith discussion but you haven’t touched my questions:
Is it valid for people to criticize the use of a specific technology that affects their lives and their work?
I current applications of AI have a capitalistic tendencies then is it safe to say that it won’t exist in a post capitalist society?
Isn’t it true that art is available to anyone but all that Gen AI offers is centralization control and cooption of creative resources?
GenAI does have a place in art. Computer generated art gives people a chance to express themselves in a way they otherwise never could. Some people lack the ability to imagine shapes in their minds. This would obviously hamper their ability to draw but with a Image generator they could just write something and have the computer imagine it for them. They then could take a part of that image and add something to it, generate something else that fit with it. This is art. A human using a tool to create something, something that would not have been created otherwise. Or “AI gives a voice to those that don’t have time, dedication or ability to learn a medium”
A practical example. The primary form of art I interact with is music and so when I hear this: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=RYJAUfCkIaQ I think “Wow this is good”, and it wouldn’t have existed without AI.
But there is always a place for human created art and as long we have enough computing power to use AI there will be a place for AI Art. They are both important because they are both different.
Having a computer “imagine” for them is already hampering their expression. Again you are forcing your capitalist logic to someone else. I have Aphantasia. I cannot formulate images in my head and I cannot remember faces. I think exclusively in verbal or written concepts. I studied drawing in college and I developed a method where I would lay down masses of value on paper with charcoal and the cut them down with an eraser and formulate a concept from that. My approach to drawing is explorative, I would have never developed this system if I hampered my artistic exploration by letting a machine imagine for me. I know artists that have Daltonism and they developed an unusual way to represent color because of that.
The crutch of generative AI erases the expressive potential of outsider art because it’s capitalist logic dictates that “good” is a specific standard imposed by the ethos of tech industry shareholders. It is an insult for someone to tell me that I can’t make art, that I need a generative crutch. It is an insult that someone might dare to take away my voice because it is not a standardized product!
Also I am not gonna tough the music, nope, I’m opening my Spotify playlist right now.
Finally the point is not if there is a place for human art. Ai generated dribble is not art because it bypasses the visceral search for human connection through the development of language; AI generative models under capitalist logic, flatten standardize and patronize human communication. There might be other more useful ways to use that technology , even for creative purposes. But at the moment it is valid and necessary to criticize and denounce the tools we have as a reflection of the neoliberal logic that created them.
All this to say maybe it’s time to stop coopting Anti Capitalist rhetoric to defend a system that feeds off capitalist logic.
Your technique is so cool (/sincere), but a lot of people do not have the time, persistence or passion do develop skills like these. If they get a good idea for something I want them to be able to express it, to enrich the world with the chaos of their mind, and sometimes GenAI is the only tool they have for that.
Everyone has the potential to create something cool, and I don’t want to take away what might be their only tool.
The core of my opinion on the topic isn’t based on anti capitalist rhetoric, it’s a lot simpler than that. I like the things GenAI makes so I like GenAI. If you don’t consider that art I’m fine with that. I still like it and think it has value.
You seem very earnest on your approach and I appreciate that. The point of me making these comments were not to police who should use AI or not, and I apologize if I gave that vibe.
It’s clear we don’t agree in a lot of things: I don’t believe in artistic disability. I like art when it embraces imperfection, when it’s visceral and vulnerable. I even like art when it’s “uncool” So I don’t think an artist needs time money or passion. They just need to pull some of their humanity and put it out there. And someone at least one or two people in 8 billion will see it.
I could go on. I could tell you I don’t like how AI platforms devalue artists while devouring their life’s work. I even think these platforms could have a damaging effect on our culture. And I don’t like how tech corporations want to monopolize everything.
But like you said that is not your interest in that and you are not a corporation, you are an individual that uses their platforms and it would be a mistake to berate you for that. But you seem really interested in expressing yourself. So I just want to end on the idea that someday somewhere you could grab a musical instrument or a brush or a pen and just enjoy the process without self judgement. I’m not saying you are going to find magic or fulfillment, but just that act of unloading emotion, of giving yourself to the act.
It might not warrant tons of engagement in social media, but you might find something truly yours and personal there.
The reason I actually responded to you’re comment is because it was long and interesting so I thought I could get a nice discussion out of it. I’m glad to have been correct.
I didn’t come across as you trying to police AI. You were just being very critical of a tool that I think has a lot of uses. I was trying to bring an alternate point of view to the discussion.
I also don’t believe in artistic disability, my example wasn’t about being unable to make art, it was about making art being just difficult enough for someone that they don’t want to try. Perfection only exists in tightly defined systems, art most certainly cannot be perfect. But I do think some people have who are capable of art don’t wish to learn how do make it to the degree that they can express what they want. I’m not saying they don’t have ability. I’m saying they don’t have the desire.
And even then you can use GenAI do only to small parts of your piece. An artist I follow used GenAI to create videos for their music. The creator of this meme uses it to create small intro pictures for their blog. GenAI has uses in the hands of creative people as well.
I’m an anarchist. As soon as you talk about corporations and value I point to the meme this discussion is under.
Also I don’t use GenAI. I made a couple of pictures and did try to touch them up in order to actually be presentable but in the end it just didn’t work out. I do have a drawing tablet and use it to make drawings. I’ve posted them in my community lemm.ee/c/anaval. I also know the basics of playing a bass guitar. I’m not defending GenAI out of my own need, but because I see potential in it for others.
and like I said previously It’s made some stuff that I really love.
Fucking BEAUTIFULLY put man! I wish I could upvote this more!
Is that a confession of vote manipulation? Maybe the admins should check your voting history and for alt accounts…
There is no such thing as AI art.
so you are saying there are only some mediums that can be art?
No, I am not. AI art is “art” made by AI, and I would say nothing more. The point of it is to minimise the necessity for humans to make creative decisions, but that is what art is, essentially, so I can hardly call it art.
There is no medium that tries to eliminate itself as a medium like AI. Whatever medium you pick, it is accepted that it will be reflected in the finished product, that is the point of a medium. But AI “works” only have a distinct look by accident, as AI is a program that imitates already existing things, insofar as the product is distinct from actual art, it fails, so the idea of AI as a medium is paradoxical.
For that reason, I believe it ultimately to be a waste of time. If your end goal is to make something indistinguishable from what already exists, you will only produce an inferior version.
But to answer your question, no, AI can be used as a medium for art, but only in a meta sense in which both it, and what it produces, are part of the picture. Otherwise, I would say, AI art is not art.
Thank you for the your incredible insight and immense contribution to the discussion.
I did provide some insight, by responding to someone that replied to my comment. Feel free to read it.
I read it. Why didn’t you say that to begin with? We can’t infer what you mean when all you present is a simple, generic statement. Your follow-up is much more clarifying.
I usually do elaborate on my points, but you said you were tired of reductive statements, so I thought it would be funny if I made one.
That’s actually funny, it just went over my head
Found the AI “artist.”
Also… are you seriously trying to compare a child’s drawing skills against AI?
wtf man?
Found the AI “artist.”
wat? where?
Also… are you seriously trying to compare a child’s drawing skills against AI?
No. You should read that sentence again.
That person is 100% a troll, the amount of shit he’s said in this thread proves it. I’m willing to bet he’ll come right back after his ban lifts and start saying the exact same things.
It looks like shit also.
