Hey there, sometimes I see people say that AI art is stealing real artists’ work, but I also saw someone say that AI doesn’t steal anything, does anyone know for sure? Also here’s a twitter thread by Marxist twitter user ‘Professional hog groomer’ talking about AI art: https://x.com/bidetmarxman/status/1905354832774324356

  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlM
    0·
    3 days ago

    That’s fine, but I disagree with the personal use in it’s current state.

    So, should these tools be used or not? When I point out that if people reject using these tools then they will be used solely by corporations you say you’re not against using these tools. Then you turn around and say that you’re against using them in their current state. So, which is it?

    You are right that both work in the same way fundamentally, but like I said previously, there are other stuff the will influence someone’s art, their material reality, like the place they were born, the education they had, etc, that the AI can’t do because it doesn’t have that context and knowledge of that.

    Once again, I’m going to point out that LLM is a tool and not the artist. The experiences the person had during their lifetime that shape their aesthetic lens is precisely what the human adds to the process. That’s what allows the human to select images that look visually meaningful.

    Does a photographer claim they make photos? Or do they claim to take photos and edit them? Also, if the photographer tells the camera to take a photo and edit it by itself, does it do that? Now, if I tell ChatGPT or whatever other AI to generate a statue of a cartoon character crying, did I make that image or did the AI make it for me?

    I do photography, and the process is that I runs a couple of knobs on a camera and press a button to capture the image. For example, I took this picture last weekend at a park

    The process of creating the image was simply me pointing the camera at the bird and pressing the shutter button at the right moment. If I give you my camera gear, assuming you’ve no experience in photography, do you think you’d be able to capture this sort of image yourself?

    The only difference I see with gen AI here is that it allows you to create any kind of an image, including those that don’t exist in the real world. But I fail to see the fundamental difference between the two mediums. In both cases, capturing the image is the easy part, learning to identify a visually appealing image is the hard part. You have to learn about composition, lighting, subjects, perspective, and many other things that we refer to as taste or style. This goes back to the point I made above that the human experience is what allows us to use tools like gen AI to make images that are meaningful to other humans. The tool is just a tool.

    It’s a ridiculous comparison. GenAI and cameras are not comparable that way. You can compare how disruptive both mediums are in relation to what was the status quo, but that’s it.

    I completely disagree, and I do not think you’ve actually made an argument that they are different. All you’ve said is that the range of images gen AI can produce is bigger than what a camera limited by real world can capture. That’s not a fundamental difference.

    You’re clearly conflating art only being “real” if it is made by a human, and therefore need to justify that by saying generated images are human made. This is a whole another conversation.

    I’m not conflating anything here. What makes art real is that a human is conveying something to another human. It’s an inherently subjective thing.

    Art does not need to be human made to be considered art. Here’s an example of Ruby, an elephant that was known for making paintings.

    Sure, another conscious being can also produce art and if our mental states are sufficiently compatible then we are able to appreciate it. The context of our discussion has very clearly been focused on human art however. Meanwhile, the LLM fundamentally cannot create art precisely because it’s a conscious volitional being that has anything to convey to others.

    The same cannot be said of genAI

    Yes it can, and I gave you a concrete example of comfyui which introduces sophisticated workflows that require learning just as much skill as using a tool like Krita. You’re using a straw man argument here that ignores how these tools actually work.

    Do I really need to be more clear than this? Because I’m done repeating myself.

    Yes I do, because what you’re saying seems completely arbitrary to me. You’ve made an arbitrary distinction between some skills and others and claim that certain skill constitute are while other skills do not. You’ve provided no basis for how you decide this. You just state this as fact.

    If you’re a Marxist, then you surely understand the concept of organizing the working class and fighting for our rights in capitalism while maintaining the horizon of revolution in sight, right? Or do you think we should just accept things how they are and that’s it? Cause if it is the latter, then fuck unions and I need to tell the workers here in Brasil to just give up fighting for the re-estatization of our recently privitazed water.

    Kind of weird of you to say this given that I explicitly explained in multiple replies what I think the effective way to organize is. If you’re just going to ignore what I say then I don’t think there’s much point continuing the discussion.

    Workers have, through organization conquered rights and regulation in the past, yes these rights are not guaranteed to stay and are just crumbles the capitalist class throws at us to keep us from further revolting, and that’s precisely why marxism-leninism is important and the horizon of revolution needs to remain in sight and be actively sought after. Organization do not stop you from pressuring your capitalistic government from change, and in fact, fighting is needed while in the system. You claim to not be defeatist but is already throwing the towel in that front. I don’t think you have the right to keep questioning if I’m a Marxist and in fact, that’s beyond insulting and I expected better from someone I call a comrade.

    Literally nobody is arguing against organizing. The discussions is regarding what the effective methods of organizing are that actually meaningfully advance the cause of the workers.

    • Kras Mazov@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      0·
      3 days ago

      Since you clearly just ignores the totality of my arguments and just reduces them to the simplest forms there’s is no reason for me to continue this discussion, this is gonna be my final reply.

      So, should these tools be used or not? When I point out that if people reject using these tools then they will be used solely by corporations you say you’re not against using these tools. Then you turn around and say that you’re against using them in their current state. So, which is it?

      You keep ignoring what I’m saying and just reducing it to “should use”, “should not use”. These tools clearly need to be developed in the open with ethically respecting models, therefore I’m on the side of artists in fighting against the use of the current AI tools that are made with their unpaid labor and without their consent. I have repeated this statement multiple times in this thread, read what I’m saying, I’m not gonna repeat myself further.

      The process of creating the image was simply me pointing the camera at the bird and pressing the shutter button at the right moment. If I give you my camera gear, assuming you’ve no experience in photography, do you think you’d be able to capture this sort of image yourself?

      The only difference I see with gen AI here is that it allows you to create any kind of an image, including those that don’t exist in the real world. But I fail to see the fundamental difference between the two mediums. In both cases, capturing the image is the easy part, learning to identify a visually appealing image is the hard part. You have to learn about composition, lighting, subjects, perspective, and many other things that we refer to as taste or style. This goes back to the point I made above that the human experience is what allows us to use tools like gen AI to make images that are meaningful to other humans. The tool is just a tool.

      Cool, this doesn’t contradict what I said. We started to argue how it is not the human that makes it, and you just confirmed that. You didn’t make the photo, you took it while using your skills to determine when it was the best time to take it. You didn’t claim to make that image, you did claim to take the photograph.

      In the case of the AI the user is still not making the image, they are prompting the computer to do it, therefore they did not in fact make it themselves. You do not claim to have made the food you ordered, but you do claim to have ordered it. Doesn’t make it any less art, but is not made by the person that prompted it, it is made by the machine and it’s at best curated by the human. It is a tool, it is art, it is not made by user, the drawing skill is not learned, but other skills are.

      I’m not conflating anything here. What makes art real is that a human is conveying something to another human. It’s an inherently subjective thing.

      Sure, another conscious being can also produce art and if our mental states are sufficiently compatible then we are able to appreciate it.

      You cannot make this statement, you said previously that the meaning we derive from art is subjective, and if someone derives meaning and interest of the art an elephant made, then the fact their “mental state” is not sufficiently compatible with humans have nothing to do with it. I have never seen this argument before in my life and I don’t understand what it accomplishes in separating differing types of art made.

      The context of our discussion has very clearly been focused on human art however. Meanwhile, the LLM fundamentally cannot create art precisely because it’s not a conscious volitional being that has anything to convey to others.

      I already argued that genAI is not human made, and you’re arguing that AI generated art therefore is not art because only humans can make art. You’re just repeating your argument without engaging with the evidence I provided of the contrary that art is not necessarily human made, therefore genAI is still art, which I have never in this thread said the opposite off.

      Yes I do, because what you’re saying seems completely arbitrary to me. You’ve made an arbitrary distinction between some skills and others and claim that certain skill constitute art while other skills do not. You’ve provided no basis for how you decide this. You just state this as fact.

      Sure, continue lying that I’m somehow saying what is and isn’t art, when I’m in fact arguing the opposite and have already explicitly stated that multiple times. You’re not engaging with my arguments in good faith.

      Yes it can, and I gave you a concrete example of comfyui which introduces sophisticated workflows that require learning just as much skill as using a tool like Krita. You’re using a straw man argument here that ignores how these tools actually work.

      You continue to ignore that I said multiple times that the skills of one are not necessarily transferable to the other and that the skill needed to use the tool is not the issue at hand. You accuse me of strawmaning but that is exactly you have been doing here with my arguments.

      I will repeat yet again, just in case you missed it somehow: a genAI user does not know how to draw, no matter how complex is the image generated, they have a different set of skills.

      Kind of weird of you to say this given that I explicitly explained in multiple replies what I think the effective way to organize is.

      Except you didn’t. At most you have said the artists need to organize and change their current discourse to just accept things how they are. You have twice questioned if I’m a Marxist and I only took issue with that the second time because of how ridiculous it was. I have provided evidence of how this is being fought here in Brasil, but you just claim it is fruitless endeavor. We clearly disagree completely on this issue and believe each other’s stance is antimarxist.

      If you’re just going to ignore what I say then I don’t think there’s much point continuing the discussion.

      Agreed.

      Literally nobody is arguing against organizing. The discussions is regarding what the effective methods of organizing and messaging are that actually meaningfully advance the cause of the workers.

      And I never claimed anybody here is arguing against organizing. But our differing views are clearly too big to reconcile on this issue. I will continue to be unwaveringly on the side of the artists and in how collectives like UNIDAD and Soberana are fighting in this issue, not denying the tech, but heavily fighting against it on it’s current form.

      I’m done with this fruitless discussion.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmygrad.mlM
        0·
        3 days ago

        Since you clearly just ignores the totality of my arguments and just reduces them to the simplest forms there’s is no reason for me to continue this discussion, this is gonna be my final reply.

        I put a lot of effort to try and understand your position, I’m sorry you feel that I’m ignoring your argument. I don’t think I’m reducing anything here, I’m simply asking you what the tangible actions you support based on the logic of your argument. I find your statements to be contradictory in nature, and I’ve simply asked you to clarify your position here.

        You keep ignoring what I’m saying and just reducing it to “should use”, “should not use”.

        I’m not ignoring what you’re saying, I’ve directly engaged with your argument. However, I do want to understand what tangible actions you support and you’ve given contradictory statements in that regard.

        I have repeated this statement multiple times in this thread, read what I’m saying, I’m not gonna repeat myself further.

        I have read what you’re saying, and my point remains unaddressed. If this tech is not developed in the open and not used outside corporate environment, then it will be developed and used solely by corporations. When I bring this up, you say that you’re not against the use of this tech, but then you immediately say that it should not be used until certain conditions are met. I do not understand how these conditions could possibly be met if this tech is not developed in the open.

        Doesn’t make it any less art, but is not made by the person that prompted it, it is made by the machine and it’s at best curated by the human. It is a tool, it is art, it is not made by user, the drawing skill is not learned, but other skills are.

        So, you agree that this is a distinct art form just like photography. Great!

        I have never seen this argument before in my life and I don’t understand what it accomplishes in separating differing types of art made.

        🤷

        I already argued that genAI is not human made, and you’re arguing that AI generated art therefore is not art because only humans can make art.

        What I actually argued was that gen AI is a tool humans use to make art, but at this point it’s clear that you have no intention of actually engaging with what I say.

        You’re not engaging with my arguments in good faith.

        I did my best to engage your arguments, and I was met with hostility and verbal abuse in response.

        I will repeat yet again, just in case you missed it somehow: a genAI user does not know how to draw, no matter how complex is the image generated, they have a different set of skills.

        And I’ve repeatedly addressed this very point in my replies to you pointing out that you conflate the technical skill of being able to draw with artistic expression.

        Except you didn’t.

        People reading this thread can certainly make up their own mind on that. I very explicitly explained what I think effective ways to organize are.

        I will continue to be unwaveringly on the side of the artists and in how collectives like UNIDAD and Soberana are fighting in this issue, not denying the tech, but heavily fighting against it on it’s current form.

        Nowhere have I argued against this position, and all I tried to explain to you here is that messaging and tactics could be improved. You took this as a personal attack.

        I’m sorry this turned out to be a pointless discussion where we could not constructively engage in good faith. I’ve genuinely tried.