JCC AI creates art for you

Personally speaking, as an artist, the fun part is actually in creating the art. It's not just about the end image, it's the journey to get there. Its about discovery. Self-expression. Learning. Observing life and nature and figuring out how things work. It's about growing and getting better with every image. Or sometimes making crap artwork, with setbacks, with failed experiments, with journeys gone nowhere.

A few assumptions on my part, which might be false, but this is what I'm currently thinking about AI prompters:
I feel as though AI prompters aren't interested in the above part of making art. It seems to me, that they want the instant gratification of an end image. Type in some words and presto, AmazeArt. The end image is all that matters. And that end image is good enough because some people can't tell its not AI. Or that humans don't have 14 fingers. Or 22 abs.

What I've experienced is that art is seen as magic to many non-artists. I've been told so many times in my life that my talents are God Given, which credits god for my hard work and not I, or that I have special DNA that others don't have, which is untrue and almost funny, and therefore 'they' could never do what I do. So I can see how that line of thinking might lead to someone into thinking they can't make art, and might even rely on using AI to finally make it. The truth is that everyone can make art. Like everything else in life done well, it just takes passion, drive, learning, time, effort, repetition, and desire. However, some people don't want to put in the days/weeks/years/decades to get better at creating art or at self expression. Again, because it's supposed to be magic. They're not interested in learning how things work, about our world, about nature, anatomy, color, etc. While the programs might be learning to some degree, based on stolen images and datasets, I fail to see how the prompters are. Prompters at best are like art directors. They had over a brief and someone else makes it. Then they accept it or not. This is why I - any many of the artists I know - would never use AI just to make art. Art-making is fun. The struggle is exciting and rewarding. The hard work is worth it. As I said, AI can have uses. It can help with research and discovery, with composition, maybe color. But you need to have foundational art knowledge to make it work and to know how to build from that research to the next step. A step where the artist is creating their own work.

 

Guys I thought this was the place to post the sludge I created by inputting words into an algorithm. I didn't want my new toy to be criticized.

Sincerely,
David Zaslav

 

Well, there’s different levels to everything too, like say cooking, since that’s a skill that I do enjoy and put time into improving. Let’s say I’m making Fettuccine, I make my own white sauce, I take a lot of pride in that, but I don’t make my own pasta (yet.). Some people don’t care about the creative process and just want to eat something tasty, and some people go to Olive Garden. I don’t have and issue with whatever somebody wants to do.

In the case of AI though it’s like if Olive Garden was breaking into people s houses, stealing their pasta, and selling it as their own after mixing all together and crappily reheating it.

 

I'll put my thoughts to the first post in blue below. Though it still seems like you're not really trying to listen to me or understand what I'm saying, at least in this first post.

I agree here. And the existence of AI Art doesn't change this.

Yes. They aren't artists. And they aren't trying to be artists. And that's ok too.

 

All art unless it’s fanart which is in a legal grey area is copyrighted even if you don’t apply for copyright it’s automatically applied.

the only time you need to actually register copyright is if you want to file suit against something.

so literally everything is copyrighted. Even if that wasn’t how copyright law worked in America it would still be the right thing to do to not use an underpaid artists work to train your AI.

straight from the government

When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”




https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html

 

@Ghost @DarkGingerJedi I think this is an interesting discussion. And you're both very right. Just from different points of view.

 

All artwork is automatically copyrighted the instant the artwork is created. Some artists file a trademark with the Library of Congress or Copyright Offices if they plan on commercially selling their art - like say a character, or comic book, etc for further legal projection should they ever need it. But the artwork created is still automatically copyrighted. Just because artwork is on the internet, doesn't it make it fair game to steal. The artwork is still protected under copyright. And you are ignorant of this if you think otherwise. Sorry, It's not meant as an insult. Just a fact. It's okay. Everyone is ignorant about somethings. I am too.

Further, yes. AI learns based on stolen artwork, or artwork without consent. Even when the art in the dataset is of one's own art, the program itself has learned based on millions of stolen images/artwork.

Again, I'm not an art snob. Being educated and skilled doesn't make one a snob. Protecting artists from exploitation is not snobbery either. What does stereotypical art snob even mean? Sounds like you have a gripe against artists. I want people expressing themselves and making art. I wish more people made art. It would probably make the world a better place if people got introspective and studied nature and did some self expression from time to time. I'm not gatekeeping or keeping anyone from doing making art. AI actually does though. You fail to realize why.

Your fantasies about an industrial revolution for artwork make no sense. The art world has been industrialized for a very long time. Go to an art store sometime. But I know you don't mean it that way. You mean producing fast cheap images at the press of a button (ie: not actually making art) and stealing from artists because you can't create art yourself, or because you have grievances against pro-artists (snobs as you call them) or don't want to invest the time to express yourself artistically, or don't even want to hire an artist to create artwork for you.

And as far as your quiz. I got all but 1 right. And it's not my hill to die on. You're the one who said no one can tell the difference between Ai and actual art, you're the one who didn't believe me and pressed it. And I'm merely informing you that many can in fact tell the difference. Just because you can't do something, doesn't mean everyone else can't as well. Which is probably why you're in favor of using AI to mass-produce images.

 

Yes, I have learned something new about copyright law (my own feelings on it aside - and I really don't understand how that works with contracts and commissions, or when multiple artists contributed to a single product, but that's a separate tangent). But my other points still stand.

Not all AI learns from stolen artwork, unless you define any use of art as stolen - and then that word ceases to have any meaning.

"Sounds like you have a gripe against artists." Really? That's what you're taking away from this? No. I'm not a self-hating artist.

No, AI does not stop people from making art.

I don't have "fantasies about an industrial revolution for artwork." I very clearly said how nervous I am about it coming to art now too, but also that you can't re-lock Pandora's box. Accepting reality is not the same as fantasizing, come on.

And no - I did not say that no one can tell the difference. You said that everyone can tell the difference, and I disagreed. I made that point very clearly, several times. It's nested in quotes in this very post.

Where did I say I'm in favor of using AI to mass-produce images?

And please, don't start with this "just because you can't do something, doesn't mean everyone else can't as well." That right there is the condescending snobbery. Don't do that. First, as we've now cleared up, what you're referencing wasn't what I was saying. Second, it's super patronizing.

 

yall only ever want to talk about the technology and not about the predatory capitalistic conditions on which they operate, which is the actual problem.

 

Well that's what I meant that commercial artists are already exploited and taken advantage in our society. Many freelancers don't even make minimum wage. They don't have healthcare unless they purchase it themselves. And in many many cases simply aren't paid what they are owed. (I was once contracted to make illustrations for a fantasy card game. When the job was done, the art director skipped town and didn't pay me and 7 others artists. He stopped all contact with us, and the game company later told us that they paid him, and he just refused keeping the money for himself) And companies constantly simply don't pay up, knowing that going to small claims court is a losing venture as well, and unaffordable to most freelancers.

So this is just another tool to further that exploitation. And some studios and companies and biting at the bit to do so already. Certainly employing an art director to type out prompts all day long and pump out 'just barely good enough' art instead of paying a studio of artists is going to save costs. And that's what they have to care about.

 

Capitalism is a problem, but even totally independent of that, AI would be a plague worth destroying.

Delete this whole thread. Long live John Henry.

 

In the far or near future i will give gladly credit to the AI/Computers for making their own 'art', based on the lifetime of experiences that the AI/Computer has "lived", and how it wants to express itself, which will probably be much longer than a human life, before the Prompters get credited for the Ai's artwork.

But we're not there yet.

 

We’re not going to get there because AI will kill us all.





Not in a cool way but because every would-be AI developer is going to require massive energy and resource expenditures that will accelerate the climate crisis over and above the already troubling rates required for databases.

 

Ah well. Too bad.

 

Man I was hoping robots would be able to make the conscious decision that humanity needs to be destroyed so I can look them right in the the optical receptor and tell them that the decision was “harsh but fair.”

 

Thread needs more @vin

 

In the future an advanced AI tasked with saving humanity will send people's consciousnesses back in time to prevent humans from developing AI.

I miss Travelers.

 

The YouTube channel Monochrome Still Alive has put out a few nice trailers recently.



Also, Super Metroid and CYBERPUNK 1950

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/@MonochromeStillAlive

 

Ah Chat GPT your great at creating copy writed images in the easiest way possible