-21
Artists, please help me understand the issue with AI
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2025
-21 points (34.3% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27391 readers
1187 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
From an artists view, it basically makes them obsolete. Sucks. Also, legally trained AI has a lot less training data, therefore worse output and so illegal models will always be preferred.
From a tech view, AI does not create anything new. It remixes. If we remove artists, which will happen as AIs are simply cheaper, we won't have anything new. From there on, you can imagine it like that: An artist creates images that are 99-100% of what the goal was, dictated by clients or digitally identified by tags, due to logic, reason, creativity and communication. And they only get better. With AIs, they have like 90% accuracy, due to technical limitations. And once a generated image, which only has 90% accuracy, is used as training data for new images, it only gets worse.
For example, if there are enough images with 6 fingers, created by AI, in training data, that will become the norm.
Basically, authors, artists etc. will be obsolete for a few years, until the AI bubble mostly collapses and quality is so bad that companies and individuals hire professionals again. Then AIs will be used for low-requirement things only again, eg. private memes or roleplay.
So artists are probably angry because they are replaced by much inferior things, that leeched off of themselves and will be gone in a few years anyway. AI just does not make sense, in most cases.
Artists are not becoming obsolete, that is just wrong.
I haven't seen an AI make an convincing oil painting yet :-)
I think what most people think of as "artists" is actually the job they sometimes do, like layout and graphic design etc. That isn't going obsolete either, it's just new tools to help, and maybe the demand will be lowerbecause of it.
Physical artists won't, especially those doing plastic art. Most modern art is now digital though, contracted for various things, professionally and privately.
And for oil paintings, AI creators are going to find a way. This is capitalism after all.
And with new tools for design, either you'll be just replaced entirely or you'll get paid a lot less because "you just ask ChatGPT" or "I could do that with tool X for free".
Why would they be safe with 3D printers being a thing?
That's kind of its own category of art: designing 3D-Printed stuff.
I mean stuff like cutting wood or doing something out of bricks etc.
What difference does the medium make? The people who think AI pictures are good enough or even better than art made by humans will be perfectly fine with generating 3D models and printing them if they want any kind of sculpture.
I think he meant painting and the like when saying "plastic arts", not doing art with plastic.
Or so I guess.
Plastic arts is sculptures, three dimensional things like statues. Nothing to do with plastic, the material. It just so happens that 3D printing is a type of plastic art that uses types of plastic as its medium.
Not only 3D things, it englobes paintings too, some add photo & film even.
If that's the case, it's a language barrier thing. The equivalent to "plastic art" in my native language excludes paintings.
Fair enough!
English and french seems to include it.
What's the language? Maybe it's more literal and fr/en has some historical etymology...
In German, it's "plastische Kunst". The adjective "plastisch" basically means "three dimensional", as in "not flat".
Plastische Chirurgie is plastic surgery - it's not primarily putting "plastic" into bodies ;) but sculpting a three dimensional form.
Interesting, in french, latin, greek before that, it seems it's about plasticity, the possibility to modulate materials.
Stumbled onto wilipedia and Kant coining the modern expression, with, if I understood it correctly, painting in the definition. Guess it didn't stick in his homeland :-)
Maybe not for you, but search for oil painting prints on amazon and you'll find tons of AI generated stuff. The average Joe already can't tell the difference.
An oil painting print is lika a video of fireworks.
What if I use tens of thousands of light-up drones flying in the sky to create a virtual display, and then I use that display to create a 3D image of a fireworks show?
Believe it or not, straight to jail!
This response assumes an artist wants to be a professional artist, that wants to make a living from it. There are MANY artists, that have no interest of turning their source of joy, into a source of income, and all that comes with it.
Exactly. I have no intention of selling my art and I object strongly to it being used by some company for their own profit. That's mine, wtf makes them think they can use it, regardless of its current monetisation status?