In a post-scarcity solarpunk future, I could imagine some reasonable uses, but that’s not the world we’re living in yet.

AI art has already poisoned the creative environment. I commissioned an artist for my latest solarpunk novel, and they used AI without telling me. I had to scrap that illustration. Then the next person I tried to hire claimed they could do the work without AI but in fact they could not.

All that is to say, fuck generative AI and fuck capitalism!

  • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    People are still confusing art with output… Even if llms could generate a 1:1 replica of the Mona Lisa, do people think it’s going to have the same value and be held in the same regard?

    Generated output is a gimmick that will be used by people who have no intention of making art.

    Edited: typos

    • stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Generated output is a gimmick that will be used by people who have no intention of making art.

      Without getting into the definition of “art”, yes, people will use generated output for purposes other than “art”. And that’s not a gimmick. That’s a valuable tool.

      Rally organizers can use AI to create pamphlets and notices for protests. Community organizers can illustrate broadsheets and zines. People can add imagery and interest to all sorts of written material that they wouldn’t have the time or money to illustrate with traditional graphic design. AI can make an ad for a yard sale or bake sale look as slick and professional as any big name company’s ads.

      AI tools will make the world a more artistic place, they will let people put graphic art in all sorts of places they wouldn’t have the time or money or skill to do so before, and that’s a good thing.

      • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Sure, my auntie will use a generator instead of paint for her yard sale poster. But we’re assuming Llms are going stay free and accessible to all at zero cost. That’s just not a reality we live in.

        But comparing the current garbage that comes out of llms with “big name company’s ads” is purposeful misinformation from a person, who is likely never done graphics design professionally.

        “AI” tools will not make the world a more artistic place. Art has never been limited by tools.

        I could agree that the generated stuff could make the world slightly more pleasing visually, at the cost of environment.

        But easily accessible graphics weren’t even the limiting factor. There are many tools online that can help you mock things up in seconds without “AI”. Canva, mockups, simple websites that generate decent templates.

        It’s people’s willingness to put in the effort, and comprehension of aesthetics, and IT literacy that are the limiting factors.

        • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Art has always been limited by access. Either to the tools, or to the ability to learn and practice. AI, at least in its current form, with open source models readily available, is only allowing more people to create who never could before. Getting into any art is expensive, both in money and time. Anyone with a half decent rig can get something set up and add a touch of art to their world, and begin to express themselves in SOME way.

          • Prandom_returns@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Art has always been limited by access. Either to the tools, or to the ability to learn and practice.

            Hard disagree.

            AI, at least in its current form, with open source models readily available, is only allowing more people to create who never could before.

            So are poeple are doing the creating or the machine? Because even the techbros are saying that it’s the machine.

            Getting into any art is expensive, both in money and time.

            Tell that to the poeple who did cave-paintings

            Anyone with a half decent rig can get something set up and add a touch of art to their world, and begin to express themselves in SOME way.

            Google “Mona Lisa” and print it out. That’s about the same amount of art as entering a prompt and receiving an output.

            • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              AI generated art is fundamentally different from printing a reproduction of something that exists 1:1. I’m not interested in going on depth on a technical discussion on AI, anyway. I’d rather discuss the philosophy.

              As far as the role of man versus machine, using AI as a tool is more like being a director or composer. You determine the composition. The setting. The subject. The style. Let the machine do the labor of simply outputting, and then you tell it what you don’t like about this output.back and forth, until you arrive at whatever finished is. It’s as much art as a conductor in a symphony, or a director on a set, simply giving direction to a machine.

              The issue that people have, or should have, with AI isn’t with AI art, it’s with it being shoe horned into everything that can make a buck. Open source generative AI running on my own machine has allowed me to express myself in ways I never could before. The point of art is expression, and regardless of the tools used to create, that output is still an expression of me. More people should have access to tools to express themselves, in whatever way they can.

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

                As far as the role of man versus machine, using AI as a tool is more like being a director or composer. You determine the composition. The setting. The subject. The style. Let the machine do the labor of simply outputting, and then you tell it what you don’t like about this output.back and forth, until you arrive at whatever finished is. It’s as much art as a conductor in a symphony, or a director on a set, simply giving direction to a machine.

                Now replace “AI” with an artist, and yourself with any mouth-breathing supervisor, that micro-manages artists.

                You are employing something to do the art for you.

                Amd my fucking god, comparing entering a prompt to a conductor. Techbros really are high on their own farts.

                • Ookami38@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The fact that you think the only thing you’re doing is entering a prompt says enough. There’s faaaaaaaar more to the process than simply prompting. You clearly don’t want to engage with anything other than the strawman you have in your head, so you have fun with that.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      will be used by people who have no intention of making art.

      I think you mean ‘people who have no intention of paying for art.’

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

      If AI tools were more advanced, they would free up resources from small artists that want to make multidisciplinary works, like movies and games. The issue is with capitalism requiring artists to sell their art to put food on their table instead of making art for the craft itself. Point your pitchforks and torches at people supporting capitalism, not the people developing tools that make creation easier.

      • probableprotogen@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Great! Can’t wait for all the directionless cashgrabs on steam and AAA Hollywood brainrot to come out faster at the cost of people’s jobs!

        • ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Game engines were a mistake because they allow people to make content faster. Back in the 90s people would have had to learn assembly to make a game. Think of all the programmers that lost their jobs.

          Big, fat /s