It isn’t about that, not really. It’s about what art is and isn’t, and how the tools are made more than how they’re used.
To reframe it, the problem with the generative models isn’t really people using them, it’s how they were trained in the first place, and how we handle differentiating between ai output and human output.
All of the corporate ones stole the training data. And that includes works by living artists. It was, and is, entirely possible to train the software without shitting on people. It would be slower, but i don’t see that as a negative because it would also end up better in the long run because it would also be more selective.
I also don’t think that anyone will deprive themselves of any skill that they would have put the effort into to begin with. There is a big degree of laziness/unmotivation in humans. People that just want the end product and not the journey there. I don’t see a problem with that tbh.
Anyone that would use ai as a way to skip over years of practice to get a specific image/piece out of their head into visibility isn’t the sort to have done it to begin with. They’d give it a try, see that what they want isn’t going to be realized in what they think is a reasonable time frame and just quit
They never would pay someone else to do it either.
The ones that would, they would anyway, though they might use ai while they’re learning.
Lemme give an anecdote that might be interesting, though not as some kind of proof or whatever. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, I’m just babbling my thoughts.
Used to work for a guy. Quadriplegic, with limited arm/hand control. Details don’t matter much for this, but it all depends on where the spinal injury is.
He enjoyed working with wood. Had a lathe, saws, vises, all kinds of tools. He’d work for weeks on some things, getting it all just how he wanted. The same things, I could turn out in a day, they weren’t exactly complicated things.
But he would still go buy something like a chair. Why? Because his guests needed a seat, and it would take him a month to make.
Ai generation is pretty much the same use case. It fills gaps. Someone that’s driven to create is going to create because the process is part of that. Without a drive, a need to create, most people will just buy the chair. Divorced from a capitalist system where artists have to lose to ai products rather than just create for the sake of creation, the ai problem isn’t much of a problem. Remove that from the equation, and then artists can create only what drives their passion instead of having to worry about commissions and sales to pay the bills.
Slap a permanent kind of marker on ai output, and you’ve got a swathe of the other issues knocked out. The cat is out of the bag. The knowledge exists. When that happens, you have to adapt society as much as you have to adapt the technology itself.
We were talking about accessibility, and you still haven’t actually demonstrated how chatbots make art more accessible.
The fact is, they don’t. Anyone can make art.
Creating chairs isn’t accessible to your uncle because he just wants somewhere to sit. A chair is functional first, so, a chair must be able to serve that function. Not everyone can do that or have the tools to do that. There’s a firm limitation on access for making furniture.
Art isn’t functional like that, or if it is, function comes second. You don’t paint merely to create a picture, you paint to express yourself. The point of art isn’t merely the end product, it’s the journey of creation and the feeling of “I did that!” Everyone can do that and everyone can get the tools to do that, even if they aren’t good at it - and everyone can get better!
The question of accessibility is firmly against chatbots.
Buildings and chairs can be artistic, obviously, but they are art second and they don’t even need to be artistic at all.
In contrast, art doesn’t even need to be functional to be art. Architecture and furniture without function aren’t actually architecture or furniture. In fact, once you take away function, art is the only thing that remains. After all, a chair no one can sit in or a building no one can enter may not be furniture or architecture, but they can still be sculptures.
I wasn’t talking about accessibility, that’s just what you latched onto out of all of it. I’m not sure why, other than it being a part of the comment, but it was never the primary subject of the comment.
I’m not arguing. I’m expressing my internal responses.
I’m not trying to convince anyone, change any minds, and I’ve said so at least twice.
I’m just talking about the general subject matter. It applies to the OP concept, but isn’t exclusively so, or directed at that as a primary goal.
I mean, you get that it’s okay to be tangential, right? A post can be a springboard rather than the sole topic of discussion or expression. Hell, every response to a post is at least a tiny degree off since it’s filtered through a human brain before being responded to. It’s a matter of how far, or how broad.
The OP image even purely about accessibility of art, it includes capitalist motivations for ai generators, which I did directly address.
Not every comment has to be a debate. People can just talk, say their little thing and that be that.
It isn’t about that, not really. It’s about what art is and isn’t, and how the tools are made more than how they’re used.
To reframe it, the problem with the generative models isn’t really people using them, it’s how they were trained in the first place, and how we handle differentiating between ai output and human output.
All of the corporate ones stole the training data. And that includes works by living artists. It was, and is, entirely possible to train the software without shitting on people. It would be slower, but i don’t see that as a negative because it would also end up better in the long run because it would also be more selective.
I also don’t think that anyone will deprive themselves of any skill that they would have put the effort into to begin with. There is a big degree of laziness/unmotivation in humans. People that just want the end product and not the journey there. I don’t see a problem with that tbh.
Anyone that would use ai as a way to skip over years of practice to get a specific image/piece out of their head into visibility isn’t the sort to have done it to begin with. They’d give it a try, see that what they want isn’t going to be realized in what they think is a reasonable time frame and just quit
They never would pay someone else to do it either.
The ones that would, they would anyway, though they might use ai while they’re learning.
Lemme give an anecdote that might be interesting, though not as some kind of proof or whatever. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, I’m just babbling my thoughts.
Used to work for a guy. Quadriplegic, with limited arm/hand control. Details don’t matter much for this, but it all depends on where the spinal injury is.
He enjoyed working with wood. Had a lathe, saws, vises, all kinds of tools. He’d work for weeks on some things, getting it all just how he wanted. The same things, I could turn out in a day, they weren’t exactly complicated things.
But he would still go buy something like a chair. Why? Because his guests needed a seat, and it would take him a month to make.
Ai generation is pretty much the same use case. It fills gaps. Someone that’s driven to create is going to create because the process is part of that. Without a drive, a need to create, most people will just buy the chair. Divorced from a capitalist system where artists have to lose to ai products rather than just create for the sake of creation, the ai problem isn’t much of a problem. Remove that from the equation, and then artists can create only what drives their passion instead of having to worry about commissions and sales to pay the bills.
Slap a permanent kind of marker on ai output, and you’ve got a swathe of the other issues knocked out. The cat is out of the bag. The knowledge exists. When that happens, you have to adapt society as much as you have to adapt the technology itself.
We were talking about accessibility, and you still haven’t actually demonstrated how chatbots make art more accessible.
The fact is, they don’t. Anyone can make art.
Creating chairs isn’t accessible to your uncle because he just wants somewhere to sit. A chair is functional first, so, a chair must be able to serve that function. Not everyone can do that or have the tools to do that. There’s a firm limitation on access for making furniture.
Art isn’t functional like that, or if it is, function comes second. You don’t paint merely to create a picture, you paint to express yourself. The point of art isn’t merely the end product, it’s the journey of creation and the feeling of “I did that!” Everyone can do that and everyone can get the tools to do that, even if they aren’t good at it - and everyone can get better!
The question of accessibility is firmly against chatbots.
Damn, certain historical artistic architects and furniture makers would strangle you with a 2×4 for that statement.
Imagine being that much if an art purist asshole.
Buildings and chairs can be artistic, obviously, but they are art second and they don’t even need to be artistic at all.
In contrast, art doesn’t even need to be functional to be art. Architecture and furniture without function aren’t actually architecture or furniture. In fact, once you take away function, art is the only thing that remains. After all, a chair no one can sit in or a building no one can enter may not be furniture or architecture, but they can still be sculptures.
I wasn’t talking about accessibility, that’s just what you latched onto out of all of it. I’m not sure why, other than it being a part of the comment, but it was never the primary subject of the comment.
That’s the primary subject of the OP! Did you even look at it or did you just jump into arguing?
I’m not arguing. I’m expressing my internal responses.
I’m not trying to convince anyone, change any minds, and I’ve said so at least twice.
I’m just talking about the general subject matter. It applies to the OP concept, but isn’t exclusively so, or directed at that as a primary goal.
I mean, you get that it’s okay to be tangential, right? A post can be a springboard rather than the sole topic of discussion or expression. Hell, every response to a post is at least a tiny degree off since it’s filtered through a human brain before being responded to. It’s a matter of how far, or how broad.
The OP image even purely about accessibility of art, it includes capitalist motivations for ai generators, which I did directly address.
Not every comment has to be a debate. People can just talk, say their little thing and that be that.
So you’re just derailing the thread. Cool.
If that’s how you want to interpret it, feel free.
It’s annoying for you to derail a thread with tangents, but whatever, I’m not a mod.
But don’t fucking talk down to me because I was trying to stay on topic.
It’s pretty fucking obvious why I was talking about accessibility, because that’s what the thread is about.
I’m so fucking mad now holy shit.