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!
Honestly, it’s because it went in early days.
When ML generated art was a novelty, and people hadn’t had a chance to sit down and go “wait, actually, no”.
And it’s an absolute arsepain to replace, because you’ll get 1001 prompt engineers defending slop.
feddit.uk banned generative AI content to make this process easier, and still needs to sweep through and commission new art for a few communities.Yeah, maybey it would be a good idea to have a new community vote. Can I just start that or do I have to ask the mods or something? I am pretty new to Lemmy, so I am not really shure how this works.
Lemmy honestly tends to run on the ideas of “be the change you want to see in the world” and “well volunteered”.
Stick a post up, see if people are interested.
You could message the mods. While they don’t seem to have posted for a while, there are mod actions happening still.
And if you don’t hear anything back, put it as a suggestion to the admins.While they don’t seem to have posted for a while, there are mod actions happening still.
It’s worth noting that sometimes people mod with a different alt than they use for commenting. Just because you don’t see them participating, doesn’t mean they aren’t.
This is pretty good for early AI. I’m impressed.
Intellectual property is made up bullshit. You can’t “steal” a jpeg by making a copy of it, and the idea that creating something based on or inspired by something else is somehow “stealing” it is quite frankly preposterous.
The sooner we as a society disabuse ourselves of this brainworm the better.
Edit: I have very mixed feelings about so-called generative AI, so please do not take this as a blanket endorsement of the technology - but rather a challenge on the concept of “stealing intellectual property,” which I unequivocally do not believe in.
I agree with you. AI is bad for reasons other than that it is stealing IP.
Wouldn’t it be much cooler, if we commissioned an actual artist for the banner
I hate it when AI is used to replace the work an artist would have been paid for. But uh, this is a random open-source forum; there’s no funding for artists to make banners. Rejecting AI art – which was voted for by the community – just seems like baseless virtue signalling. No artist is going to get paid if we remove it.
But like if you want to commission an artist with your own money, by all means go ahead. You’ll still most likely need another community vote to approve it though.
That doesn’t change that real artists who made real art will have had their work used without permission or payment to help generate the banner. I’m with OP.
If I drew something myself, those artists would also not be paid. I can understand a deontological argument against using AI trained on people’s art, but for me, the utilitarian argument is much stronger – don’t use AI if it puts an artist out of work.
We know this is the very famous “starry night”, right? Is OP asking to troll, or maybe is there a joke or detail I’m missing, or OP just hasn’t yet seen the Van Gogh and marveled at what was encoded into the painting?
I think they’re talking about the !asklemmy@lemmy.ml community banner. I don’t know why they posted starry night as well.
Yeah, it doesn’t have to do anything with my point, to be honest, I was just trying to make my post prettier to look at. My complaint is about the banner for this community.
Impressive footgun. I agree with your point though, it’s jarring.
then your post is next to useless as it stands
I was trying to figure what the hell you were on about
Now I have used both AI and CC/Libre (where I can find what I want) and I see very little issue if Im not coping a living artist - I’m not about to commission an artist for a banner image in my small (personal) lemmy instance
Yeah, and I don’t expect you to. You are still profiting from artwork, that was involuntarily stolen from artists to train this AI. You are not directly copying them, but you are indirectly using their work without their consent. Like I said, I don’t expect you to pay any money for the banner, but you can either search for existing artworks on the internet, that is creative commons (like on pixabay), or if you find something else (from an actual artist, that fits, just ask them nicely and I am shire they would be happy to let you use their artwork for such a purpose for free. I would also be happy to search for something like that myself and suggest you one, if that’s OK for you. It’s not about paying a bunch of money, my point is just, that we should respect artists a bit more.
I have, over the years, done all of the above. I had a site that was adjacent it a minor UK ISP that was even promoted on there forum as a first stop that I asked a photographer if I could use one of their photos that wasn’t CC (before CC/libre was mainstream) with attribution for the sine and associated app.
OK, so why do you still have the AI banner then?
Why should I change one?
Well, I guess you don’t have to. I just think it’s a bit depressing and also pretty disrespectful to artists (I think, I laid out pretty clearly, why I think that). Now, if you don’t care about any of that, I can’t stop you, I guess, this was just meant to be a friendly proposal.
A couple things. I don’t think the attached image makes the entire post “next to useless”, and you know you don’t have to set a banner image at all, right? Or, if you want one, you can put on a contest in the community, or just make one in paint or Photoshop yourself. You don’t need to jump to the slop machine, AI images are usually worse than nothing at all imo. An AI banner is “next to useless”.
A couple things. I don’t think the attached image makes the entire post “next to useless”,
well it does, the post as it stands makes little to no scene with the attached image.
I don’t have to set a banner, and 4 of the 6 communities I mod/admin that have banner images I own the copyright on, 1 is a photo from my brother and the last is AI. The banner on the instance is CC by a local photographer
Though this is about Lemmy.world I think sh.itjust.works has a similarly sad story.
We had a vote for the banner when sh.itjust.works started where a bunch of artist came forward with art for the banner and some AI guys came in with art as well. This was clearly stated by the AI guys, with no trickery. The community voted in the agora to reject the art of its users in favour of this stable diffusion slop.
I think you can tell I dispise AI art. The reason for it here though is that the community voted for it over real artists time, dedication, and love for the community.
If someone really wanted to change it though one could create a discussion post in the agora, our community voting community, to have it changed. They’d likely need to provide new art which, as an artist, I’m unwilling to do. The community has shown it cares little for the time, effort, and skill involved so somebody with an hour and stable diffusion would win out over the multi-day process of making something meaningful
The community voted in the agora
Is ‘agora’ just a metaphor for expressing preferences via commenting, or is it Fediverse polling software I don’t know about?
It’s a Greek term used by the head mod for their community. Sorry for the confusion
I’m not sure weather it is AI or not. It’s much easier to tell when the images are ment to look realistic.
I very much agree. Text generation has many valid use cases and I use it on a day to day basis, but image generation as much fewer valid use cases and much more malicious ones.
deleted by creator
I mean is it really a problem if the only problem is that it’s AI
Uhm, yeah… That was the whole point, I was making.
I think your point was AI is bad.
Mine was does it matter if it’s bad.
Yes it does, for the reasons I mentioned
I mean if you want to commission an artist to make a banner and replace the one we got I’m all for it. Idrc what the banner is. I think a quick, cheap and cute slapped together picture that is somewhat related to the topic of the community is serviceable.
AI is also bad because it uses basically slave labor; people in 3rd world countries have to look at horrible shit all day to filter it out of the training data. using it endorses this, along with environmental damage, the intellectual property isn’t the only issue with it
That applies to all of capitalism, though, we shouldn’t oppose smartphones just because of the same reasons, but oppose capitalism and imperialism.
Your phone was made with basically slave labour. Your clothes probably too. Chances are even the food you eat employs workers with less than acceptable standard of living. Are you gonna stop using any of those?
Yes, bad things are bad
Your phone was made by underpaid workers in developing countries, are you gonna stop using it? My feelings on the banner are the same.
Right now, anti-AI rhetoric is taking the same unprincipled rhetoric that the Luddites pushed forward in attacking machinery. They identified a technology linked to their proletarianization and thus a huge source of their new misery, but the technology was not at fault. Capitalism was.
What generative AI is doing is making art less artisinal. The independent artists are under attack, and are being proletarianized. However, that does not mean AI itself is bad. Copyright, for example, is bad as well, but artists depend on it. The same reaction against AI was had against the camera for making things like portraits and still-lifes more accessible, but nowadays we would not think photography to be anything more than another tool.
The real problems with AI are its massive energy consumption, its over-application in areas where it actively harms production and usefulness, and its application under capitalism where artists are being punished while corporations are flourishing.
In this case, there’s no profit to be had. People do not need to hire artists to make a banner for a niche online community. Hell, this could have been made using green energy. These are not the same instances that make AI harmful in capitalist society.
Correct analysis of how technologies are used, how they can be used in our interests vs the interests of capital, and correct identification of legitimate vs illegitimate use-cases are where we can succeed and learn from the mistakes our predecessors made. Correct identification of something linked to deteriorating conditions combined with misanalyzing the nature of how they are related means we come to incorrect conclusions, like when the Luddites initially started attacking machinery, rather than organizing against the capitalists.
There likely isn’t a public domain photo depicting the same thing.
actual artists are getting fired from their jobs, because the company replaces them with an AI, that was trained on their original art.
Are you sure that’s happening? Under the previous mode of capitalism, what kind of companies were hiring artists?
As I understand it, that isn’t the actual gripe from the general perspective of the artist. Instead it’s about copyright, a concept I fundamentally disagree with. I don’t think it’s necessary, and that the artist’s capacity for prosperity being tied to copyright is a symptom of a bigger problem than being usurped by software.
I think there is good art and bad art. I think there is good AI art (tbh I can’t think of any examples, I just think in principle AI art has the capacity to be good) and bad AI art. I think the relative ease of access skews people’s exposure towards slop. I use the term slop as a descriptor for AI art that is sloppy or wholly derivative; not to prejudge it.
I think perspectives like yours haven’t compelled me to think they are meaningfully different from that of the Luddites, or those opposed to implementing computers in the workplace, etc. I genuinely sympathise with those groups, but ultimately wouldn’t have us go back.
Are you sure that’s happening? Under the previous mode of capitalism, what kind of companies were hiring artists?
Movie studios, VFX houses, advertisement agencies, should I keep going? It’s not that all of these people will or can be replaced, but the studios are already hollowing out their staff and the abstract threat of AI gives studios much more power in negotiations with artists. Since AI, much less people are willing to contract artists online, which many young and alternative artists depend on to survive. Why do you think, the Hollywood strikes are happening?
I agree, that copyright shouldn’t have to exist in an ideal society, but we still live under capitalism. Imagnine, if Disney could just scoop up all the good indie movies, and redistribute them under their own name with massive marketing budgets, taking all the profit and pretending, it’s their own work. The original creator would go bankrupt and not be able to make another great movie.
In my opinion, generative AI is doing exactly the same thing, but indirectly. If Disney were to release a fully AI generated movie, they would still have profited from the work of a bunch of unconsenting and uncredited independent artists.
AI “art” is also not art, because real art requires a concios and self aware being to observe the world in a unique way and get inspired to express a new idea in their art. AI is not conscious and therefore cannot observe the world or get any new ideas. There will never be good AI-“Art”, because AI can only recreate and recombine the existing (and yeah, I know, that AI images are technically unique, but they are still only derived from what the AI was trained on). The best, an AI could do, is imitate a human as well as possible. It cab only succeed in decieving us, letting us think, there is some person behind this art, but there will never be anyone behind it.
I don’t think my earlier reply came through. I’ll try rewriting it.
AI can add, remove, change or refine input, either text or image-based, either wholly or partially, which may or may not itself be AI-generated. That feature set certainly allows room for genuine, inspired artistic expression. The way you describe AI art is as though it is all created by asking ChatGPT to draw you something. This isn’t the case, and neglects to consider the litany of AI model types that are fundamentally different to LLM’s. Models which are operated by humans directly interacting with them in a range of ways.
Let’s say you’re a concept artist for a movie. After replacing you with AI, how does the company instruct the model in the concept to be represented? If they’re just asking ChatGPT to come up with something itself, then sure - your description applies. And the output will be shitty concept art, and the movie will shittier than it otherwise would be. People might consume it, but it would be a slippery slope towards failure either because a) people don’t like it, or don’t like it enough for it to reach the critical mass required to spread, or b) someone else does the same uninspired and easy job more cheaply or effectively. If you’re an AI-slop consumer, why watch AI slop movies when you can just watch AI slop Tiktoks?
Good art resonates with people not because humans are easily entertained by pretty flashing lights or whatever an AI can churn out, but because of their relationship to a piece of art which is derived from their human experience. Companies have tried to broaden appeal and lower costs by appealing to the lowest common denominator for centuries, but beyond a certain point it is a failing business model. In my opinion, if some companies want to try, let them find out why there are 1000s of AI-generated movie trailers but no movies.
I think that AI can be used for the concept art in a way that maintains artistic integrity and capacity for artistic expression by having someone skilled in representing visual concepts operate the AI tool. That someone would be for all intents and purposes an artist. In essence the artist position would not be redundant; the way their job is done would have changed.
Not the OP but I’ll put my PoV.
AI allows to cut junior and entry level artists. Companies only need to retain top 1% talent orchestrating hordes of AI.
While it is still a craft, commercial art is not about being genuine; it is to deliver product and meeting deadline while passing QA. AI’s output rate outpaces human labor, and the top 1% can certainly identify what aspect makes AI output slop. Which means they can cherry pick “OK” part of AI, review, iterate, tweak to deliver product while keeping quality. The process previously involved comunication between senior and junior artits. Now companies don’t need the rest of the 99% anymore as workforce.
What will happen in the long run? Who knows. Companies are known for only keen on immediate profit.
This tendency is widespread and not limited to art field, nor related to the argument of intrinsic value of art. I can argue this is more of labor (and capitalism) issue, on top of people whose art stolen not getting enough compensation for their work. While I’m not against AI technology itself, its effect on peoples livelihood and climate impact makes current AI landscape hard to defend.
Who cares? Who makes a new account just to ask this sort of leading question?
Well, obviusly I care. I joined Lenny today, yes. I joined this sub and was immediately a bit disgusted by the banner. So I made a post about it. Why do you care if I care then?
“This community should be about inclusion and kindness” - as you tell us our banner sucks and whoever made it. You can spot a .world user a mile away. -edit: and you joined two hours ago?
Well, you didn’t even make it or anyone, an AI made it. Kindness towards artists and not kindness towards people using their art without consent.
If you want to get philosophical, all art is plagiarism, derived from the inspiration of others.
The AI sector is not pushed by consumer money. A consumer strike won’t alter at all the macro-dynamics happening at the moment. If you want to resist AI, go blow up some data center or unionize some tech workers.
You’re making a moralistic point, blaming consumers instead of corporations, which leaves not much room for action.
None of that means that what OP is proposing wouldn’t still be the right thing to do. A drop in the ocean, sure, but still preferable to the alternative.
Performative politics have been proven to have a paralyzing effect on people. If you feel you’re doing something and it has no impact, you just disengage from meaningful politics because you already absolved yourself.
Ok, well in that case I guess we should just keep looking at those ugly as shit pixar-ish chipmunks. Maybe their cutesy faces will motivate someone of the 5k monthly visitors here to become the next unabomber who finally defeats Peter Thiel.
It’s just a single png. If somebody kicks up their feet and stops caring after getting the mods to change it, then do you honestly think that they could’ve gotten anything significant done in the first place?
I’m one of them. I went from thinking naively that consumer politics matter to leaving my career to fight big tech, unionize tech workers, and for a year or so I’ve also worked on limiting the harm of generative AI specifically.
If I thought this petty stuff would do anything, I would have probably wasted a lot of time in the wrong hole.
