Chessa wrote:And this reads to me and probably many others as well as being part of what I was getting at earlier -- that you wouldn't really accept AI even if it were fixed -- Unfortunately even if AI was reformed, lots of artists will oppose it for no other reason except that it threatens their profits -- So even if we did solve this complaint, it wouldn't really fix the problem of artists despising AI, sadly the AI hate in artist circles existed before AI art was even a thing.
fixated1 wrote:Nobody is going to enthusiastically cheer on having their job taken from them, especially artists who are ridiculed and underpaid even while people try to figure out how to get more from them because they really want their product. But yes, if the ethics problems were solved I wouldn't have an argument to stand on. I think it will be sad when human creativity dies. I don't find typing prompts to be a form of artistic expression. But at least it wouldn't be done off the backs of unappreciated labor
These statements definitely have a theme, it is a theme that AI is absolute. They absolutely are not. Nothing is.
As artists, we are responsible to react to what is happening to the world. It would be nice if the world will just stop for us to catch up at whatever pace we want, but every profession involves competitiveness. It is unavoidable. We should learn and understand and take advantage of it.
AI is absolute
not just about trying out prompts. We should make an attempt and hold back any distrust and hesitation and try it for ourselves, like everything else. To some, it is just a new tool.
Chessa wrote:The entire issue lies in that 95%+ of the people who use it and will use it, simply wish to shortcut their way to finished art by using art stolen from other artists. This is not and will not be okay.
I am personally against this mindset. Mostly because we don't have a say. We never did. If somehow, current creativity is automated, we will just have to find a new way to create.
And I really doubt it is going to happen in this absolute way. Even if AI replaced 95% of the artist workflow, it doesn't mean the last 5% isn't important. If anything, it might become more valuable. Think back thru the history of art. Imagine having to source a piece of marble and go through the grind to polish it into a status. Imagine traveling for days to get the right paint... Did we truly lose any value not having to do those now?
And it cannot be controlled. The AIs have already been polluted with immeasurable amounts of stolen art. And they aren't going to magically go back to step one. People, especially artists, can and will fight what AI art has already become in the hands of lazy, entitled people. There is no going back. And I still don't believe creativity should be automated
And I don't think this is true, either. It is easy to verifies whether a model has stolen art. What we are seeing right now is accidental. Stable Diffusion is an accident. It wasn't meant to do what it is doing. They stumble upon the finding, and they are taking steps to adjust. An ethical model can be made. And will be.
I doubt you would be in favor of replacing judges, or governmental decision makers with an AI.
I would. For anything important, I most certainly do not trust humans to be impartial. The only reason we do now is that we have no choice. What matters are the results. Actual justice is what matter. When the choice became viable, show me the statistic, proves to me AI makes a better judge and I will flip like you wouldn't believe. In the end, my wish is to give people justice, we want to protect the innocent and deter the guilty. How we get there is really not as important as the innocent's life.
I for one would never want decisions like that made by a program, a human element must be retained.
Saying "never" is a classic human flaw. I hope one day we stop repeating that mistake.