In my opinion, AI just feels like the logical next step for capitalist exploitation and destruction of culture. Generative AI is (in most cases) just a fancy way for cooperations to steal art on a scale, that hasn’t been possible before. And then they use AI to fill the internet with slop and misinformation and actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art. Because of these reasons and some others, it just feels wrong to me, to be using AI in such a manner, when this community should be about inclusion and kindness. Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner or find a nice existing artwork (where the licence fits, of course)? I would love to hear your thoughts!

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
    41·
    2 days ago

    It honestly just seems like you want AI to be a stand in for creative thinking and intention rather than it actually enabling creative processes.

    I think was pretty clear in what I actually said. I think AI is a tool that automates the mechanical aspect of producing art. In fact, I repeatedly stated that I think the intention and creative thinking comes from the human user of the tool. I even specifically said that the tool does not replace the need for artistic ability.

    Everyone has ideas. I have ideas of being a master painter creating incredible paintings, I can visually imagine them in my head, AI can shit out something that somewhat resembles that I want.

    This is just gatekeeping. You’re basically saying that only people who have the technical skills should be allowed to turn ideas in their heads into content that can be shared with others, and tough luck for everyone else.

    But I am always at the mercy of the output of that tool. It would not be a problem if it were a normal tool like a camera or paintbrush.

    That’s completely false, you’re either misunderstanding how these tools work currently or intentionally misrepresenting how they work. I urge you to actually spend the time to learn how a tool like ComfyUI works and what it is capable of.

    It is always going to be chained to the whatever that particular AI has trained on.

    What it’s trained on is literally millions of images in every style imaginable, and what it is able to do is to blend these styles. The person using the tool can absolutely create a unique style. Furthermore, as I’ve already noted, and you’ve ignored, the artist can train the tool on their own style.

    AI cannot evolve, yet an artist’s style does just through repetition of creation.

    Yes, AI can evolve the same way artist evolves by being trained on more styles. Take a look at LoRA approach as one example of how easily new styles can be adapted to existing models.

    I think the biggest thing here is that AI is a limited tool from the ground up rather than enabling creativity.

    With all due respect, I think that you simply haven’t spent the time how the tool actually works and what it is capable of.

    It’s that human intangibility that’s yet to be achieved via AI and until sentience is achieved you’re never going to get that from a limited tool like AI

    Replace AI in that sentence with paint brush and it will make just as much sense.

    If sentience is achieved, you’d have to recognize its humanity and at that point prompts are no longer needed, it can create its own work.

    You’re once again ignoring my core point which is that AI is a tool and it is not meant to replace the human. It is meant to be used by people who have sentience and a critical eye for the specific imagery they’re aiming to produce.