Yeah that’s my point. AI has a lot of problems that need to be addressed, put people are getting so mad about AI that conversation around it is getting more and more extreme to the point people are talking about all AI being bad.

No they are the same thing.

The core algorithm we built upon is practically the same one used by AI image generators, the main difference is that we have deeper convolutional layers and more of them and we don’t do any GAN stuff that the newer image generators use.

Cool, my work for my company with AI for medical scans has detected thousands upon thousands of tumors and respiratory diseases, long before even the most well trained doctor could have spotted them, and as a result saved many of those people’s lives. But it’s good to know we’re all just lazy pieces of shit because we use AI.

We already have.

Social media algorithms are already determined elections and have made Gen Z the first generation to get more conservative than the previous one.

Tangential, but this guys paid map subscription service doesn’t have a way to check if it has the map you need before you pay for it??

So it’s probably taken a specific image as input so it’s the user doing it intentionally, which is really no different to using illustrator or something to trace.

(Also when AI generation first hit mainstream people on tumblr were doing this a lot to “show” that AI was stealing art directly)

And even then, other than the composition it’s still a fairly different image.

Hold up, you think the definition of art is too broad if it includes Photography but not broad enough if it doesn’t include Generative AI?

That’s now what I said is it? I’m asking you to give a definition of art that upholds your position that AI art isn’t art, but all traditional forms of art are still included.

Because it believe such a definition does not exist.

For one you understand that way more libraries have computers than crochet classes?

If someone want high quality digital art, teaching them crochet doesn’t help them.

Can you give an actual concrete reason why AI art isn’t art? Because the only arguments people make for that case are either esoteric nonsense about “soul” or their argument is so broad it ends up also applying ti things like photography.

Punching a text string into a machine that vomits out stolen work is not art.

Can you give an actual reason why? Without using esoteric terms like “soul”

Well yeah.

I mean, no, even ignoring the whole licencing argument you can just generate you model from explicitly donated data, so it’s not “designed” to plagiarise.

Probably to find the small joys in life.

You can get a free library card and use their computers to access plenty of free AI image generators. So they do not have to pay for anything if they don’t want to.

Is your alternative that they should shun AI art and either go without it all together or work more to afford a commission?

But it’s both.

People should be free to create art however they want with whatever tools they want without people harassing them for it.

And it’s also made art objectively more accessible.

I volunteer once a month to teach a computer science class at an after school club for kids with disabilities. And when I showed them AI generation and let them play with it on their own, they are ecstatic and I’ve never seen them happier the whole time I’ve been going there. Some of those kids can barely hold a pencil and can’t even draw a stick man, then suddenly they’re making comic strips, or there own Marvel OCs in a high fidelity that they would be physically incapable of reaching on their own. Those kids have vast wells of creativity and this technology allows them to express that, and I will defend it against anyone for that reason alone.

I get the arguments against it. I hate the spam of AI slop too, but being staunchly against the technology itself is nothing but eleitsm.

No.

For one art is not a luxury. That is a capitalist myth that tried to keep culture and basic pleasure away from the working class.

For second I want working class people to be able to produce whatever art they want however they want, without houlier-than-thou elitists telling them they can’t.

If turning a a picture of you cat into studio ghibli style brings you even a brief modicum of joy, then you go do that and you shouldn’t have people harassing you for doing so.

Library cards are free.

Because art is a fundamental part of the human experience. No matter how you want to produce it.

And people that want to limit how you create things or what you’re allowed to create are just elitists.

The consent thing is pretty much a myth.

Most people don’t bother to think what licence they are publishing their art under when they upload it to the internet. It’s almost always a creative commons licence or something similar that allows anyone or at lead the company that owns the website you are uploading it to, to use that image for whatever purpose they fit. Which includes training AI models.

And I’m sure you’ll disagree with this point, but when a human uses an image as a reference or inspiration, or even just views an image and subconsciously recollect it when creating their own art, do they ask for permission to do so?

I don’t really like to engage in esoteric arguments like these because the “purpose” of art is entirely subjective. So to you that cycle might be the purpose of cresting, to others it won’t be.

I’m not trying to weave electric sheep or anything that effect. I’m using tools that are available to turn the product of my creativity and imagination into a material thing in the real world. Sometimes that’s with a pen and paper, sometimes it’s a camera and editing software, sometimes it’s cloth and stich and sometimes it’s with a bit of software and a mouse, and sometimes it’s with a more advanced piece of software and a keyboard.

Drawing a line in front of that last one and saying it’s not valid or immoral or not real art is very much arbitrary and I remember many years ago people making similar arguments to draw the line in front of using any computer program. AI is simply a tool that you can use to create art just like any other, it makes art widely more accessible and easier to produce than ever before, yes that means some people will use it to make slop, just like digital art and photoshop and cameras allowed more people to make slop and things that don’t have “use” beyond advertising or spam or whatever (frankly the idea of art needing a “use” is a bit antithetical to what I think the point of art is)

So basically I think there’s no real argument to why people are drawing a hard line in the sand here and decaying anyone and everyone that uses AI as inferior or lazy or something to that effect other than those people being scared of change and wanting see themselves and the thing they like as superior.

You can access chat GPT from a public library computer.

But the whole point is someone has an idea in their head that they want to actualise into reality. They can even spend years learning an artform to be able to produce it themselves, pay for someone else to do it, or they can get a computer to do it. No matter if that’s an anime girl or a Cubist landscape or surrealist self portrait. So if someone doesn’t have the time to spend learning or the money to pay someone, then either they use a computer or they can express their creativity at all.

I like how you characterize broke people who can make things as “elitists” against

No, you are purposefully misrepresenting what I’m saying. Artists are not elitists. It’s people who want to restrict what tools people are allowed to use to create art because they view it as not real or lesser are the elitists.

And no I’m not singing the praises of venture capitalists either, but I can see how imagining that would make it easier to dismiss what I’m saying.

works on plagiarism, and will be yanked from your hands once they stop pretending it can be profitable.

That’s the great thing about AI is once it’s trained you can just download a local copy of the model and run it yourself and then they can’t take it away from you. I have a deepseek model on a raspberry pi to work like an echo, but without giving Bezos all my information.

I’m not, believe me I’m a card carrying member of my countries communist party.

But unfortunately capitalism isn’t going away anytime soon (hence why artist ask to be paid comission instead of just producing art for arts sake) so we have to live with it and do the best we can with the situation we have. And part of that is not trying to make art less accessible because of kneejerk reactions to something new.