Source (Bluesky)

Alt text from source01: A girl labeled 'Artists' is holding a drawing tablet and pen under her arm. She is wearing round glasses and a blue sweatshirt. She has messy dark-brown hair and a brown skin-tone. She says "We don't really wanna MAKE A.I. art."

02: A guy labeled 'Art Enjoyers' holds his hand out while speaking. She is wearing a purple and yellow hawaiian shirt with a floral pattern over a white t-shirt, and has red hair and a light skin-tone. He says "We don't really wanna SEE A.I. art."

03: Behind them both, there is a cute girl in a business suit with a pink tie. She is blushing a bit and has pink eyeshadow, and looks upset. Her messy shoulder-length hair is parted in the middle, and held by two hairclips: one that looks like a red arrow pointing down, and one that looks like a green arrow pointing up. She says "Um ... I-Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?" She is labeled 'Shareholders'.

04: She puffs up her cheeks and pouts, a tear is on the verge of falling from one of her eyes. 'Artist Enjoyers' Guy is now in front of her yelling "AH!! SHAREHOLDERS-CHAN!!" while 'Artists' Girl is in front of her yelling "WE'RE SORRY WE HURT YOU!!!!"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -18 points 1 year ago (36 children)

It's not your own art

I've never had a problem with using assistants.” Damien Hirst

If he and Warhol are allowed skilled assistants, why not me? Are these artists stealing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Well those artists consented to being assistants and having their works used. Not so much with these image training databases

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    We are discussing if I'm an artist by using diffusion models, not if training data has been fairly compensated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    The answer is no. You’re not an artist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Then how am I different from Warhol and Hirst who are artists?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    They’re not artists, they’re grifters, you’re no different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Artists are grifters.

    To avoid paying restaurant bills, Dalí would draw on the backs of cheques.

    Michelangelo faked an ancient Roman sculpture, buried it to age it, then sold it as a rare antique.

    Yves Klein sold “invisible art"

    Elmyr de Hory forged Matisse, Picasso, Modigliani etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No, grifters are grifters, people can be more than one thing. They made art, they also grifted, they were separate things. AI is only a grift.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    AI is a grift, but it can also produce art.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Not only do I disagree that it can produce art, I would argue that is just a stupid as fuck thing to say, and you are fucking begging to be grifted and getting your wish.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    Given that people regularly mistake AI output as art, it's not at all stupid.

    You are getting angry at the wrong part of AI image generation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Have fun being grifted, grifter, go play with your “AI.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    If I am using my own GPU and open source models, exactly how am I being grifted?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If he and Warhol are allowed skilled assistants, why not me?

    OK, two things:

    1. Skilled assistants are actually skilled assistants. LLMs are not.

    2. You are specifically saying that you don't want to develop skill. Once you do, then you can take on assistants and train them. You've explicitly stated you don't have the skill where an assistant would be useful. Sure, you can hire someone to make art for you, but they aren't an assistant. They're doing the work and you aren't. They're the artist, you're just paying them.

    Stop complaining and just learn how to make art. No one was born with the skill or talent. They just practiced and learned. You want to skip this and act like you're still doing anything interesting or useful. You aren't. You can, you just refuse to and still want to be treated like you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Skilled assistants are actually skilled assistants. LLMs are not.

    LMMs/diffusion models can do something I cannot, that takes lots of training to perfect. That's a skill.

    They're the artist, you're just paying them.

    The artist is the idea generator, not the labourer. Architects are the artists. Construction workers not.

    Stop complaining and just learn how to make art.

    I can learn using AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Fuck Andy Warhol and Damien Hurst, I would definitely say the only kind of artists they were is con-artists. They ripped off talent and took credit for what others did. Fuck them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Ok. Your opinion is entirely consistent with hating "AI artists". But it does fall in the "That's not art" argument that has been continual throughout time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (14 children)

    There is no such thing as an AI artist. Point blank.

    The art was art, in regards to those two fucks, it just wasn’t their art. They were con men putting their names on the work of others. AI “art”, however, simply is not art, it’s not even AI, it’s just theft processed through algorithms.

    If you want to make art then you have to actually make something. LLMs and dispersion models are just plagiarism and procedural generation, you are literally not creating a fucking thing with it, you’re just using software.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (13 children)

    Is collage plagiarism? Are found objects not art?

    LLMs and dispersion models don't necessarily create good art, but they do create art.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    About collage and found objects?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Are you playing dumb or are you just genuinely that fucking stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    Generation of AI art is analogous to collages of found objects.

    Can you critique that statement?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

    Yeah, it’s bullshit. Someone put effort and thought into a collage, it’s a personal expression. Collage is also a specific style which people can achieve by pqtchworking their own works together as well, which gives it multiple levels of expression and depth.

    Generative AI is literally just algorithmic theft, and i would argue is nothing at all like a collage because you actually have to make and actively think to create a collage AI is not art and it is nothing at all like a collage, it’s a joke how far you fucks reach to excuse this bullshit. You are not an artist, LLMs and dispersion models do mot produce art. Fuck off with this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Collage is a specific style which people can achieve by patchworking their own works together

    Not just their own works. Other artists works are regularly included in a Collage. Just like AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

    Yes, sections, purposefully chosen with intent and reason to deliver a specific idea interpreted by the creator, it’s not just algorithmic scraping and you cant claim that you created that section of collage. It’s not at all the same thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

    If you’re argument has boiled down to explaining what a collage is as a defense you have no defense. Give it up, hack. Accept you’re a hack or start putting in the work and effort.

    Also, you didn't make a collage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    I am drawing strong parallels between an existing, recognised form of art and this new artistic tool. It is exactly how a point of debate is defended.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It’s not at all the same as collage, unless you asked someone else to make a collage for you and then took credit for it. Hack.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments