Skip Navigation

You're viewing a single thread.

138 comments

  • You all keep saying that but i don't see capitalism being overturned any time soon.

    Also art made by a computer just sounds like shit.

    • art made by a computer just sounds like shit.

      This is a common but reductive statement and I'm tired of hearing it. People have been drawing crude boobs on rocks since the first man picked up a stick but I don't hear you complaining about childrens drawing. 'AI', especially the current iteration of it, is being used for all kinds of shit that would've taken conventional computing a million real-hours to do. There is no reason that real artists can't or shouldn't incorporate AI into their workflow in any capacaity if it helps them realize the idea they have. Denoising is a simple use case that you've used if you ever took a photo on your phone but, again, I don't hear you removed about that one.

      The only thing you could possibly be upset about is that the barrier of entry to making passable art with no thought put into it has been lowered so much that a child can do it. That's a problem of you looking in places that allow that to be posted, though. You could just not. I, for example, don't care for stable diffusion spam; I don't see a lot of it because I don't go where that kind of art is.

      I'm sorry if this comes off as rude but I'm really tired of hearing uh buh AI art bad with no expansion or introspection.

      • There are a few reasons not to use AI, without even getting into the philosophical considerations like whether a generative model can have the intentionality necessary to turn its images into art.

        1. Current models are utterly dependent on using others' work without permission or compensation, and in fact the people behind AI companies are now advocating for the abolishing of IP law so they can exploit artists even more. I'm sure that will definitely apply to their products too.
        2. For all our concern about the energy and environmental cost of crypto mining no one seems to have noticed that AI is using the same hardware at the same rates as mining bitcoin, and for the same reason: to make rich people even richer.
        3. As with every other product of the large tech companies it will be free and easily accessible now but will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification that has driven us from facebook, reddit, etc.

        • As with every other product of the large tech companies it will be free and easily accessible now but will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification that has driven us from facebook, reddit, etc.

          This is why I built the AI Horde

          • I think it's wild that people here choose to compare open-source AI models that run on a single GPU to the behemoths at OpenAI and use the exact same arguments against both despite both not being the same.

          • Huh, that's interesting, I would not have expected something like that to work. Neat!

          1. humans do the same thing, we constantly intake others output and our output is absolutely going to be based on what we have experienced to some extent, the important part is if it is transformational right? (in regards to IP/copyright laws and such)
          2. With crypto at least there was an argument to be made for comparing the electrical requirements for all alternative banking solutions as a comparison, which I never once saw. For AI it depends entirely on the generation mechanism, not to mention you can self host locally and ensure the type of energy in use.
          3. self host... Again

          • I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again

            Current models are utterly dependent on using others’ work without permission or compensation,

            They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.

            the people behind AI companies are now advocating for the abolishing of IP law so they can exploit artists even more

            I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright, IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.

            will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification

            It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs. I don’t say that like a ‘lmao ur not as smart as me’ but open source AI development, especially stable diffusion and chat LLMs, has caught up to corporate AIs in every way but training data, because unlike the corporations, they walk a thin legal line. I’ve been following it closely since GPT2. It was open source that first came up with the idea of using smaller models to do specific things instead of trying to train one huge model to do everything.

            • Replying to wrong comment :p

              I did see this reply already in the thread though.

            • I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again

              You also replied to the wrong comment, but I got you. ;)

              They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.

              Tell that to OpenAI. They're not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.

              I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright

              I am generally anti-IP law myself, so I only point it out because the likes of OpenAI and Elon Musk trying to undermine it shows just how desperately dependent they are upon unlicensed content to train their models, and how that makes an interesting contrast to the fact that they hire teams of lawyers to go after people who violate their IP.

              IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.

              Yeah, I'm a pinko commie who also thinks human society should exist for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of all of its members too, but that's a conversation for another time.

              It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs.

              I honestly didn't even know it was a thing until recently, so nope, I really have not. I have read about it some though. I use ChatGPT to help me structure writing, worldbuild, etc, and - like most people who use corporate AI - find it easier (for the moment) then installing a bunch of shit and fiddling with it for hours (so basically it has the same barriers to entry as widespread adoption of linux - if it doesn't just work out of the box, most people don't give a shit how much better it is) only to thrash my GPU into an early grave, and so do millions of other people. I am also skeptical about open source AI's ability to compete long-term on practically any grounds (accessibility, volume of training data, responsiveness, advanced model features, integration with existing software, etc), but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that count.

              • Tell that to OpenAI. They're not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.

                This is one of those cases where two groups seem like they are united on a subject but aren't really. OpenAI claims they want to abolish copyright for the good of themselves and AI, but that isn't really true. They just want immunity from it, complete death of copyright doesn't benefit them or any of the companies, since they'd lose their moral high horse against civilians using their material without paying them, as well as their ability to legally retaliate.

                Really their claimed stance against copyright doesn't undermine any of the anarchist and pirate arguments against IP law as it is today and as a concept, it doesn't even align with it. It's no different than right wingers saying there's a war on science or that they want to protect women and children from groomers. It's just obfuscating or lying about their intentions. OpenAI is just claiming their against copyright because it's easier to swallow than saying they wish to be immune from copyright, maybe even be able to usurp individual people's copyrights outright.

                • This was not an argument about how everyone who has talked about avoiding or abolishing IP law is the same or has the same intentions, this was an argument about how AI is utterly dependent upon unlicensed content, and as evidence goes, them saying 'gosh we really need to be able to skirt/get rid of/whatever this to keep going' is, regardless of the complexities of the situation, in itself evidence of that fact.

                  The specifics of their particular flavor of opposition to being bound by IP law, while interesting, don't particularly matter to that argument. But thanks for the added context.

            1. There is a difference between seeing and being influenced by a work and consuming it and regurgitating the pieces for commercial benefit. Also humans can consciously choose a set of influences or a particular style to work in, excluding the others, as they see fit. Influence is not replication; if you as a human are replicating copyrighted works then that's a different matter.
            2. Seeing how fast the planet is burning is not particularly helpful in putting out the fire, so such comparison mitigates none of the harm caused by crypto mining. It was mined (after the early-adopter idealist phase anyway) pretty much exclusively for the purpose of financial speculation. Either way, whether AI consumes more or less, it is consuming for often questionable benefit to its users and significant benefit to its corporate owners. Also you can 'self-host' crypto mining too, just not very effectively.
            3. I have only recently learned about this possibility, but I can't imagine it's anywhere near as effective as one hosted on OpenAI's servers or w/e.

            • There is, but that distinction also applies to AI creations, you can clearly see (or maybe you haven't yet?) it's not simply regurgitating, it can fundamentally transform its dataset with what it outputs. Just like humans, we can just straight copy someone else and claim it as our own but that's obviously just copying right? I don't understand why AntiAI people can't see the difference.

              Yeah, I hate the direction crypto has gone, been following BTC since 2011 and the intent has been distorted beyond recognition. I'm not sure of the landscape these days for mining, but it absolutely was a majority individuals rather then corporations, it was literally all self host. Even ASICs are still intended to be ran at home, people aren't paying other people to mine for them.

              Look into it further, while yes gigantic megacorp server farms are obviously going to be generally better performance wise, that's not really an argument against self host open source alternatives for things that do not require that amount of processing power. Plus there's a lot of potential use cases for smaller localLLMs running directly on relatively low power devices (like our smartphones)

              • I mean.. I suppose that's fair. I have not messed a ton with AI image generation, I've just tinkered a bit here and there, but I've seen some interesting stuff. The thing is though, and I realize we're getting a bit into the weeds here, but I don't think AI art is art because it lacks intentionality. Art, whether visual or otherwise, is fundamentally about communication. It's about trying to evoke something in the viewer and making some kind of connection with them on the emotional level. AI isn't trying to convey or evoke anything, so I don't believe that it's art, but I'm not saying there are no good arguments to the contrary or anything.

                Honestly while crypto might've started out as a noble idea it was not a great solution to the problem it presented, and the technology has since been a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile the crypto itself pretty quickly fell to rampant speculation and has effectively turned into a giant pump-and-dump. People aren't paying other people to mine for them, what they're doing is buying huge power- and water-hungry data centers to mine crypto for them. I live in Texas and we have several big ones here (in a mostly dry hot state with frequent power and water shortages in the summers, so that was a brilliant decision, lol, but I guess power is cheap here), so we're long past the days where an individual could accomplish much of anything in that arena.

                Someone posted a reply about AI Horde which I've been looking into, it's pretty interesting. Also I'm looking at maybe trying to self-host something like ChatGPT (I've been working on a writing project and it's been invaluable to help me brainstorm, work out structure, etc, so I don't want to lose access when it gets enshittified) but I'm still very much at the 'seeing what my options are' stage.

      • Arts have some of the lowest barriers of entry imaginable. Anyone can pick up a pencil and do "art"

        Your comment tells me you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products. Your idea of Generative tools giving children a voice is grotesque. Any child can grab a pencil and make a drawing. It is easier than ever for a child to learn visual art as a language or writing as a voice or music as a passion.

        But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art. The children of the next generations could be holding the next Shakespeare or the next Miyazaki or the next Steven Spielberg. The children that hobble themselves with machine induced Dunning-krueger have been stolen of that opportunity.

        A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act. You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.

        There are so many living Artists out there and I love to see hear and read their aesthetic obsessions. I love the musician that mastered the violin as much as I love the urban noise artist that rubs his balls to a contact microphone. I love the novelist that took care to research for his novel by moving and living to the little town they are writing about as much as I love The crude horror short story writer that wanted to exorcise a visceral feeling by adding automatic writing to their new story. I love Tarkovsky and Neil Breen. I love The Russian Arc and saving Captain Alex, especially when watched together in a 2 movie marathon. There was a wide array of outside art that incorporated people with diverse abilities. People who paint without limbs, people whose styles are wildly different from the mainstream. The disabled and incarcerated. You won't see this art being sold in capitalism because neoliberal capitalism is inherently ableist. so instead capitalist logic suggests that they should wear someone else's mask. Thus erasing their voices.

        A love for art means that you can love and respect what someone else makes. It acknowledges that we are different, that our voices are different and that there are a myriad of forms of communication. Capitalist logic wants to make things uniform and standardized, centralized and dependent of large platforms. Current AI products follow this logic and being critical of it is as valid as criticizing the logic of every good and service that has been coopted and perverted by capitalism

        It is hilarious watching people yearn for a communist utopia while trying to silence critics of current production methods. I feel it is only a rhetoric strategy adopted by AI apologists.

        My issue with AI in creative fields is that the people that use it seem to hold a contempt towards art as a language. To them creative media that doesn't follow a certain specification doesn't exist and holds no value. So they want to jump immediately to the production line notion of a finished product. They don't believe in the human action of creating a personal language or aesthetic by exploring the limits of language. Language is bypassed by the vending machine. you mix and match a few reductive options and you get your product. AI vending machines are very depending on this mechanistic labeling of art as well. millions of works ranked and scaled through a centralized reductive criteria.

        Yes I think it is the AI defenders who are usually reductive in comments.

        They reduce the logic of artistic production to capitalist logic: Hence AI art is better because it is "faster" to make and because it looks to a standard or specification to be sold.

        They reduce living artists to materials for these vending machines. Always denigrating their work while at the meantime always hungry for the new lora or the virgin territory in training data. Artists are both valuable in bulk but dehumanized, imitated and anonymized.

        They don't believe in human voice or their own voices even. They have infinite hopes for the AI. A big chunk of AI defenders are doomers in a way. Their idea of progress is turning themselves into machines instead of making the system more humane. They always talk about efficiency and judge everything in value scales. Mathematical thinking has no place in art. Especially art made beyond capitalism. The beauty of art is that it transcends value. That it connects us to people with different viewpoints. It expands cultural horizons and subjectivity. Art is useless in the best sense of the word. It is potential beauty looking for a beholder. But that is also a trait that Ai defenders seem eager to bypass. Because art made by centralized models has the tendency to IMPOSE values and solidify subjectivity.

        In this respect the generative products we have are a self defeating practice for it's enthusiasts because it also has the potential to anonymize those who use it. I feel that is the end goal of the consolidation of generative AI models. This is the reason why CEO's are so obsessed with alignment, censorship and control. It's not "Skynet as a threat" but rather "Who gets to be Skynet?" Who floods the media with dribble? What AI model creates and sings and speaks for everyone? It's part of the pitch for large investors.

        You could have picked up a pencil a music instrument or a quill, but you choose someone else's hype cycle. And I feel sorry for the voice we lost.

        • I'm happy you took a writing class but why do I have to be your exam topic?

          you are not interested in art. you are interested in finished products.

          I'll be honest and say I debated even reading the rest of your comment because right off the bat you've just said some bullshit that anyone who even looks at my posts would know is false. I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it's useful to me which is exactly not at all.

          However, in the spirit of good faith, I did read it and I must say I feel like you're shadowboxing someone who isn't me.

          But you prefer your child to write a prompt in a vending machine thus negating any humanity that your child could bring to the world of art.

          I did not say this. I don't know why you're putting it here.

          A world without capitalism, would not be obsessed with monetizing everything and the lowering deadlines to mass produce garbage. I imagine there would be time for slowness, and introspection. To make less more meaningful art. To propose alternative aesthetics. To judge art as a human act.

          This is what I said and where the misunderstanding seems to begin, because:

          You are telling me that a free society will choose creativity as automated corporate sponsored vending machines? Well talk about a lack introspection.

          is the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won't exist because there's no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside.

          I think you're trying to argue with me as if I'm pro-AI and have made the usual pro-AI arguments when I am not and have not. AI in all of its iterations are to me what algorithms of the bygone era are: tools. You can use a hammer to crudely slam nails into a 2x4 but you're not an artist until you build something more than the sum of its parts, whatever tools you use. I don't use AI. I don't pay for any AI services. I've followed the development of LLMs, stable diffusion, and adjacent technology. I have experimented with it and found it to not be useful in my usual workflow and I don't see what else I could do with it that hasn't been done a million times over. I don't hate the hammer because it's not immediately useful to me, I just don't use it and won't be upset if someone else does. If someone else makes something beautiful with the hammer then I will appreciate it as I do art made with any other tools.

          The rest of your essay is more like a generic rant aimed at nobody in particular so I won't dissect it. The above point applies.

          • I didn't take a writing class this is just normal person writing. What a strange comment.

            "I am literally a technical photographer, an artist. I use AI to the extend that it’s useful to me which is exactly not at all."

            It is cool that you are a technical photographer; But that does not make you interested in participating in an art community. You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as "hello fellow workers". Even if you are a commited artist working in the art industry, denying your fellow artists the validity of their criticisms show a sever lack of empathy. Especially because later you stated:

            "the exact opposite of what I said. In a world where artists are not forced to participate in the social status rat race, they can pursue their arts however they want and it will mostly not include AI. AI grifters won’t exist because there’s no grift to be done, as artists are not pressured into charging money for their works nobody will care about churning out art, and low-effort generative AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside."

            But then you are doing this strange double speak: "Oh I agree with you I am an artist as well" "AI will be shoved aside as easily as we shove other low-effort artistic adventures aside." So then if we agree on this, what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism? It sounds like criticism towards AI is part of the efforts to criticize the capitalistic logic that would be a utopia to overthrow.

            If you really don't use generative AI; then it is criticism that makes you uncomfortable? Why? Why need to defend something you don't use? It's because your fortune cookie meme makes you feel smarter than others?

            I repeat the part you didn't read from a small comment you call "essay": Ai criticism is valid and necessary because the tools we have now follow capitalistic logic. So a critique of capitalism will include a critique of these tools.

            We can argue all you want about hypothetical utopian societies; But the core of this particular argument is that I find it devious to coopt anti capitalist language to deflect criticism from the capitalistic machinery we have now.

            • what is the point of defending generative AI against criticism

              because the criticism is nearly always just "I don't like it"; see the original comment.
              You're either deeply confused about what I said or you're deliberately engaging in dishonest discourse by picking and choosing whatever strawman you can argue with and applying that to me as if I said that when I didn't.

              You can make photography and disregard other type of artists. Scabs see themselves as workers you see. Or at least they like to mascarade as “hello fellow workers”.

              I reject the implication that I am a scab and will not engage further as I think you have insulted me and cannot reply in good faith. Good day.

        • GenAI does have a place in art. Computer generated art gives people a chance to express themselves in a way they otherwise never could. Some people lack the ability to imagine shapes in their minds. This would obviously hamper their ability to draw but with a Image generator they could just write something and have the computer imagine it for them. They then could take a part of that image and add something to it, generate something else that fit with it. This is art. A human using a tool to create something, something that would not have been created otherwise. Or "AI gives a voice to those that don't have time, dedication or ability to learn a medium"

          A practical example. The primary form of art I interact with is music and so when I hear this: https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=RYJAUfCkIaQ I think "Wow this is good", and it wouldn't have existed without AI.

          But there is always a place for human created art and as long we have enough computing power to use AI there will be a place for AI Art. They are both important because they are both different.

          • Having a computer "imagine" for them is already hampering their expression. Again you are forcing your capitalist logic to someone else. I have Aphantasia. I cannot formulate images in my head and I cannot remember faces. I think exclusively in verbal or written concepts. I studied drawing in college and I developed a method where I would lay down masses of value on paper with charcoal and the cut them down with an eraser and formulate a concept from that. My approach to drawing is explorative, I would have never developed this system if I hampered my artistic exploration by letting a machine imagine for me. I know artists that have Daltonism and they developed an unusual way to represent color because of that.

            The crutch of generative AI erases the expressive potential of outsider art because it's capitalist logic dictates that "good" is a specific standard imposed by the ethos of tech industry shareholders. It is an insult for someone to tell me that I can't make art, that I need a generative crutch. It is an insult that someone might dare to take away my voice because it is not a standardized product!

            Also I am not gonna tough the music, nope, I'm opening my Spotify playlist right now.

            Finally the point is not if there is a place for human art. Ai generated dribble is not art because it bypasses the visceral search for human connection through the development of language; AI generative models under capitalist logic, flatten standardize and patronize human communication. There might be other more useful ways to use that technology , even for creative purposes. But at the moment it is valid and necessary to criticize and denounce the tools we have as a reflection of the neoliberal logic that created them.

            All this to say maybe it's time to stop coopting Anti Capitalist rhetoric to defend a system that feeds off capitalist logic.

            • Your technique is so cool (/sincere), but a lot of people do not have the time, persistence or passion do develop skills like these. If they get a good idea for something I want them to be able to express it, to enrich the world with the chaos of their mind, and sometimes GenAI is the only tool they have for that.

              Everyone has the potential to create something cool, and I don't want to take away what might be their only tool.

              The core of my opinion on the topic isn't based on anti capitalist rhetoric, it's a lot simpler than that. I like the things GenAI makes so I like GenAI. If you don't consider that art I'm fine with that. I still like it and think it has value.

              • You seem very earnest on your approach and I appreciate that. The point of me making these comments were not to police who should use AI or not, and I apologize if I gave that vibe.

                It's clear we don't agree in a lot of things: I don't believe in artistic disability. I like art when it embraces imperfection, when it's visceral and vulnerable. I even like art when it's "uncool" So I don't think an artist needs time money or passion. They just need to pull some of their humanity and put it out there. And someone at least one or two people in 8 billion will see it.

                I could go on. I could tell you I don't like how AI platforms devalue artists while devouring their life's work. I even think these platforms could have a damaging effect on our culture. And I don't like how tech corporations want to monopolize everything.

                But like you said that is not your interest in that and you are not a corporation, you are an individual that uses their platforms and it would be a mistake to berate you for that. But you seem really interested in expressing yourself. So I just want to end on the idea that someday somewhere you could grab a musical instrument or a brush or a pen and just enjoy the process without self judgement. I'm not saying you are going to find magic or fulfillment, but just that act of unloading emotion, of giving yourself to the act.

                It might not warrant tons of engagement in social media, but you might find something truly yours and personal there.

                • The reason I actually responded to you're comment is because it was long and interesting so I thought I could get a nice discussion out of it. I'm glad to have been correct.

                  I didn't come across as you trying to police AI. You were just being very critical of a tool that I think has a lot of uses. I was trying to bring an alternate point of view to the discussion.

                  I also don't believe in artistic disability, my example wasn't about being unable to make art, it was about making art being just difficult enough for someone that they don't want to try. Perfection only exists in tightly defined systems, art most certainly cannot be perfect. But I do think some people have who are capable of art don't wish to learn how do make it to the degree that they can express what they want. I'm not saying they don't have ability. I'm saying they don't have the desire.

                  And even then you can use GenAI do only to small parts of your piece. An artist I follow used GenAI to create videos for their music. The creator of this meme uses it to create small intro pictures for their blog. GenAI has uses in the hands of creative people as well.

                  I'm an anarchist. As soon as you talk about corporations and value I point to the meme this discussion is under.

                  Also I don't use GenAI. I made a couple of pictures and did try to touch them up in order to actually be presentable but in the end it just didn't work out. I do have a drawing tablet and use it to make drawings. I've posted them in my community lemm.ee/c/anaval. I also know the basics of playing a bass guitar. I'm not defending GenAI out of my own need, but because I see potential in it for others.

                  and like I said previously It's made some stuff that I really love.

        • Fucking BEAUTIFULLY put man! I wish I could upvote this more!

      • There is no such thing as AI art.

      • Found the AI “artist.”

        Also… are you seriously trying to compare a child’s drawing skills against AI?

        wtf man?

        • Found the AI “artist.”

          wat? where?

          Also… are you seriously trying to compare a child’s drawing skills against AI?

          No. You should read that sentence again.

          • That person is 100% a troll, the amount of shit he's said in this thread proves it. I'm willing to bet he'll come right back after his ban lifts and start saying the exact same things.

    • It looks like shit also.

138 comments