Yes, I am getting tired of it.
The first misconception that I am getting tired of is that diffusion models are stealing, mixing, mashing or collaging art together. They do not, diffusion models create art from noise, and models that train on images learn where the lines and curves go, and what follows which line and which curve. They also learn which words equate to what lines and curves. It is no different than a real artist learning or taking inspiration from someone else's art, just on a bigger scale. The art that is generated is 99.9% unique. It is not some copy-bashing. If you enable previews while using a diffusion model, you can see the process of how AI draws.
The second misconception is that AI art takes no effort or time. I mean yeah sure, it doesn't take the same amount of effort and time compared to traditional art. BUT it does take effort and time. You are never going to get a piece that looks good on your first try. I usually have to generate hundreds of images to get a good one, by changing variables and changing the prompt I gave slightly every time I generate one. It takes effort and time.
The third misconception, AI "art" is not art. If I take a shit on the floor and call it art. It is art. Albeit a shitty art but nonetheless art. Art is subjective and no one can tell someone what is art or not. And to people that say they are not copyrightable, so what? Copyright doesn't decide what is art or not.
The fourth misconception, now that we established that anyone calls whatever shit they want art. Anyone can call themselves an artist. If they decide what they created is art.
Now that I got that out of my system and calmed down. We can say that art is an expression of self. Doesn't matter how that art has been created.
If someone lost their hands or someone that did not born with hands used AI and created art to express themselves. Do you have the gall to call what they created not art and that they are not an artist? That they do not have a right to express themselves as they wish?
Does it change when they have hands but not the time to learn how to draw? Why shouldn't they have a right to express themselves?
You are free to dislike what they are creating, but hating on people that enjoy a newfound way to express themselves is shameful.
We come a long way since the times when photographers were treated as not artists. We don't need to tread back.
I’m on the fence on this one. I sort of understand where you’re coming from but at the same time, we have to have boundaries around this computer generated stuff and what can be considered art and other things. I think at the end of the day I would not consider this art because that’s a human characteristic and we need to retain our ability to be human. We have been outsourcing our humanity to machines and computers for too long and this goes too far for me. At what point will we stop being human? That’s what I don’t like about the AI art and chat bots. That’s the line in the sand for me and will choose human every time, flaws and all.
Telling an artist, a real human one, a few words about what you want in a painting is a lot different in the results because it takes actual time and effort on the part of the human to produce it. If you prompt the computer and don’t like it, it takes a few seconds of brain power on your end and minimal resources on the AI side to generate a new version. I don’t think that’s artistic at all because it lacks the humanity entirely.
You are free to choose human-made art, no one is taking that away from you. You are free to not consider AI-made art as not real art. But if someone considers them as art then they are art. That is the subjectivity of art, no one has the authority to decide what is art or not.
We had these discussions when photography started, there was a time when physical artists did not consider digital art 'art' and thought that people who used Photoshop were not artists. But today we know that they are artists.
And let me ask you a question is art really a human-only characteristic? Or do we ascribe art as a human-only characteristic because we humans see ourselves as a superior species? Would you not consider art made by an animal, not art?
How does an animal consider art? A design for a species of fish in their mating mound is not something to be considered as art. You are ascribing human characteristics to animals and I don’t think that’s a path I agree with. Yes it has a design and purpose but we call it art because we are human and have the concept of art. They only ascribe it to a way to reproduce.
I’m not being dismissive but I also think art, being the human concept by our creation in some form, to be uniquely human. Giving a program a few prompts to give you an image that it creates is not my definition of art. If you hand drew it on a computer with a stylus pen that’s one thing but giving it a few words isn’t.
By painting on a canvas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congo_(chimpanzee) is just a brief summary, but as you can see animals have the ability to produce art and be considered artists.
As I said you ascribe art to be a thing that could only be done by humans because you think humans are a superior species.
Once again as I said earlier, no one has the ability to decide what is art. Not you, not me. If someone thinks something is art. Then it is art. You are free to dislike it, you are free to call it 'not art'. But trying to punish and hate people that do not follow your interpretation of what is art is a line gone too far. This is what this post was about because the current trend on Hive is exactly that.
Well clearly no one can beat you in a discussion so congrats.
I and many others will definitely reduce rewards or eliminate them for things we disagree with on the AI front. It's a new era we are living in but these are our choices. We are free to do what we see fit and I see AI material as a threat to the future of humanity and will act accordingly. You can post what ever you want, just don't get upset if people disagree with the value of it. Just the same as you disagreeing with the value of what others put out. That's the benefit of this experiment called hive.
I never said you are not allowed to adjust rewards, that is the right of every stakeholder of Hive. And in time people even might value AI art in different ways.
What this post was about, is dispelling the arguments against AI art that people use to hate people that want to make use of this tool. I am not advocating for rewarding AI art.
There is hate against people using AI image-generation tools, but there is no hate for people using machine translations. Translation is an art in itself. But we don't go around adjusting rewards on those posts that make use of MTLs, do we? This to me seems a little bit hypocritical. You can be hypocritical as much as you wish. But I would prefer that you are made aware of this hypocrisy.
We are having a discussion, there are no winners or losers in a discussion. It is about challenging ideas, exchanging ideas and maybe cause to new ideas to flourish.