I just want to make funny Pictures.

  • Armand1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Hey, as long as you don’t try to

    • Sell it
    • Claim it’s yours
    • Use it instead of hiring professionals if you’re a business

    not too fussed.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Use it instead of hiring professionals if you’re a business

      Why wouldn’t you though?

      • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Remember when corporations tried to claim that money you didn’t spend on their product was theft ? This way of thinking has been recycled by the anti-AI bros.

        Turns out all the money you don’t spend on struggling artists is not only theft, but also class warfare. You stinking bougie you.

      • saltesc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Because then artists aren’t getting paid but you’re still using their art. The AI isn’t making art for you just because you typed a prompt in. It got everything it needs to do that from artists.

        • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          So it’s more of an ethical “someone somewhere is probably being plagiarized and that’s bad” thing and not really a business or pragmatic decision. I guess I can get that but can’t see many people following through with that.

          Some people got mad at a podcast I follow because they use AI generated episode covers. Which is funny because they absolutely wouldn’t be paying an artist for that work, it’d just be the same cover, so not like they switched from paying someone to not paying them.

          • saltesc@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The issue is similar to using other people’s data for profit. It’s easy to not feel that’s the case because “it’s the AI that does that, not me.”

            There’s a lot of concerns around it. Mine is that we have longer periods of style with minimal variety because of artist stagnation due to lack of financial backing. Though, this is for all gen AI as it depends on humans for progression, else it stagnates. People are already getting AI art fatigue because it feels like that old 2005–2015 Adobe Illustrato vector art everyone was doing, because it is. It was an incredibly popular and overused style back then, so itt’ brimming with it in comparison to other art styles it got from the internet. It already looks dated, but acceptable because it’s familiar to most. It depends on more artists progressing our art to be able to do the same. But it won’t do that as fast if art culture is slowed due to lack of support.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.

      Why not claim it’s yours? You wrote the prompt. See Pet Rocks above.

      Not use it and instead hire a professional? That argument died with photography. Don’t take a photo, hire a painter!

      So what if AI art is low quality. Not every product needs to be art.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why not sell it? Pet Rocks were sold.

        Why not claim it’s yours? You wrote the prompt. See Pet Rocks above.

        Because, unlike pet rocks, AI generated art is often based on the work of real people without attribution or permission, let alone compensation.

        Not use it and instead hire a professional? That argument died with photography. Don’t take a photo, hire a painter!

        So what if AI art is low quality. Not every product needs to be art.

        Do you know what solidarity is? Any clue at all?

        Seems like the concept is completely alien to you, so here you go:

        • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Do you know what solidarity is?

          Do you know what a luddite is?

          The simplest argument, supported by many painters and a section of the public, was that since photography was a mechanical device that involved physical and chemical procedures instead of human hand and spirit, it shouldn’t be considered an art form;

          https://en.m.wikiversity.org/wiki/History_of_Photography_as_Fine_Art#:~:text=The simplest argument%2C supported by,in common with fabrics produced

          That a particular AI could have used copywrited work is a completely different argument than what was first stated.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Do you know what a false equivalence is? If not, just reread your own comment for a fucking perfect example.

            I’m not wasting any more time and effort trying to explain the blindingly obvious to your willfully obtuse ass. Have the day you deserve.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          Copyright and intellectual property is a lie cooked up by capitalists to edge indie creators out of the market.

          True solidarity is making AI tools and freely sharing them with the world. Not all AIs are locked down by corporations.

          • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Those capitalists support AI because it would allow them to further cut out all creators from the market. If you want solidarity, support artists against the AI being used to replace them.

            • Pennomi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              Please explain to me how open source AI allows a corporation to cut creators out of the market.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Yeah, nothing is more bougie than independent artists, most of whom are struggling to make ends meet even WITH a day job… 🙄

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Boo-fucking-hoo they have a “day” job? Wow so do I! It’s called having a job and being working class. Newsflash - you don’t get paid for hobbies, be they drawing or lounging on a couch.

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              When have I ever defended corporations, capitalism, or replacing human artwork?

              You motherfuckers are as delusional as the great replacement people.

              • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Frankly I don’t know who the fuck you support, you just seem like an asshole for the sake of making people not like you

      • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        Why not sell it? Because chances are the things it was trained off of were stolen in the first place and you have no right to claim them

        Why not claim it’s yours? Because it is not, it is using the work of others, primarily without permission, to generate derivative work.

        Not use it and hire a professional? If you use AI instead of an artist, you will never make anything new or compelling, AI cannot generate images without a stream of information to train off of. If we don’t have artists and replace them with AI, like dumbass investors and CEOs want, they will reach a point where it is AI training off AI and the well will be poisoned. Ai should be used simply as a tool to help with the creation of art if anything, using it to generate “new” artwork is a fundamentally doomed concept.

        • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF, and this one by Cory Doctorow. Your comment is off base enough to veer into the territory of misinformation.

          • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            These articles feel like they aren’t really tied to my feelings about AI, frankly. I’m not really concerned about who is getting credited for the art that the AI creates, copyright laws just work to keep the companies trying to push for AI in power already. I am concerned that AI will be used to replace those who create the art and make it even harder for artists to succeed.

              • TrousersMcPants@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Could you please explain the point you’re making rather than expecting me to come to a conclusion reading the articles you linked?

                I see nothing in them even after a re-read that would address the idea of AI being used to replace artists. If anything these articles are just confirming that those fears are well founded by reporting on examples such as corporations trying to get voice actors to sign away the rights to their own voices.

  • Alk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    Another big argument is the large resource and environmental cost of AI. I’d rather laugh at a shitty photoshop or ms paint meme (like this one) than a funny image created in some water-hogging energy-guzzling server warehouse.

    • ClamDrinker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      You’re confusing LLMs with other AI models, as LLMs are magnitudes more energy demanding than other AI. It’s easy to see why if you’ve ever looked at self hosting AI, you need a cluster of top line business GPUs to run modern LLMs while an image generator can be run on most consumer 3000, 4000 series Nvidia GPUs at home. Generating images is about as costly as playing a modern video game, and only when it’s generating.

  • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    Since Gen art became a thing i’ve been using it episodically to create images of a civilization of space-faring boars, representing the future of my glorious South-Western France civilization. They raise ducks and grow wine in space, and the lore is getting a lot deeper than i first thought. It’s so fucking fun man.

      • Lobreeze@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It bothers me more than it should that his snout is sticking out through his helmet glass

      • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I … I don’t know man !

        I think some time around the year 10000 humanity solved most of their problem and the only remaining scarcity was “good living”. Like, cultures that had a sophisticated way of enjoying life through good food, good drink and good companionship suddenly came at a high premium. The people from SW France became insanely wealthy very quick, and a sort of federation was struck between the Gascony people, the Basque and the Brittons. It was really the only possible counter-power to the more colonialist and military minded Italians.

        Boar religion could be described as Albigensian catharism, except in space. Their freedom-loving ways are despised by the Italian catholic church but the galaxy is so vast that religion wars never really break out, it’s just local skirmishes.

        I haven’t yet determined what animal the italians have morphed into, really glad to hear any suggestion.

        Oh and here’s a picture of the Assembly of the Perfecti, held annually at Baiona Station :

    • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The problem with Generative Neural Networks is not generally the people using them so much as the people who are creating them for profit using unethical methods.

      As far as I’m concerned, if you’re using AI it’s no worse than grabbing a random image from the internet, which is a common and accepted practice for many situations that don’t involve a profit motive.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        The “profit motive” is just the tip of the iceberg.

        I’ve seen people stopping looking for random images from the web to grab them, and instead going full AI. With reverse image searches, it even doubled as an advertisement, nowadays you’re getting even less of that.

        • Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’ve seen people stopping looking for random images from the web to grab them, and instead going full AI.

          Okay. What’s your point?

  • Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve gotten arguments that it’s theft, because technically the AI is utilizing other artist’s work as resources for the images it produces. I’ve pointed out that that’s more like copying another artist’s style than theft, which real artists do all the time, but it’s apparently different when a computer algorithm does it?

    Look, I understand people’s fears that AI image generation is going to put regular artists out of work, I just don’t agree with them. Did photography put painters out of work? Did the printing press stop the use of writing utensils? Did cinema cause theatre to go extinct?

    No. People need to calm down and stop freaking out about technology moving forward. You’re not going to stop it; so you might as well learn to live with it. If history is a reliable teacher, it really won’t be that bad.

    • Monstrosity@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Well said.

      I’d like to add that the biggest problem, imo, is the closed source nature of the models. Corporations who used our collective knowledge, without permission, to create AI to sell back to us is unethical at best. All AI models should be open source for public access, sort of like libraries. Corpos are thrilled we’re fighting about copyright pennies instead, I’m sure.

  • JackLSauce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    We talk about freedom the same way we talk about art,” she said, to whoever was listening. “Like it is a statement of quality rather than a description. Art doesn’t mean good or bad. Art only means art. It can be terrible and still be art. Freedom can be good or bad too. There can be terrible freedom.

    Joseph Fink, Alice Isn’t Dead

    • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      But does Art don’t need the intention to create it, or at least to declare it as Art? For example, the Meme I made, would it be considered Art even if it was not my intention to create art?

      ( Okay this is less about AI, more about philosophy at this point)

      • Postmortal_Pop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think art is as much in the eye of the viewer as it is the maker. You’ll never convince me that Jackson Pollock was an artist, I simply don’t see the art in his work, but you may have a life changing emotional experience viewing it. My opinion doesn’t devalue your experience any more than your experience devalues mine.

      • Zos_Kia@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If there’s one thing artists don’t do, it’s try and build a picket fence around Art to separate it from Not Art. Duchamp was 100 years ago i think the point that “Art can be anything and everything” has been abundantly made during the 20th century.

  • essell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    I agree.

    I have all these images in my head and zero artistic skills to create them.

    Thanks AI, if indeed that is your real name, for helping me with Visual aids for my teaching work!

  • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    what’s the point of a piece of (visual) media if the same thing can be expressed more concisely with words?

  • nl4real@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Using it for stupid shit is fine, especially if it fucks with the AI by making it turn out even more weird shit.