You must log in or # to comment.
People get hilariously upset when you point out that sucking absolute arse at something is not a class issue nor a disability.
It’s not about accessibility moneywise - it’s accessibility skillwise. Many people do not want to put any effort into learning a new skill, so asking AI to do it for them is just way more convenient and “accessible”.
This is part of a large shift in society where “failure” is seen as something extremely negative. You either do something and are immediately good at it, or you should just stop altogether.
I agree with the first part, but I think the second part is unsubstantiated.
I agree with you. I don’t think it’s failure so much as this unwillingness to accept I can’t do something. We have generations of people who want it and want it now, and AI scratches the itch in that regard. I say this as a millennial, I’m 37, and it’s certainly true of my generation, and I find it to be true of all the generations after me.
I don’t know if it’s good or bad. I certainly know why I think it’s bad, the whole delayed gratification, entitlement, etc., but I’m sure access to information, ability to express ideas, and whatnot, are good things too.
And I’ll just indicate I have a personal anti-AI bias. Maybe I’m too lazy to use it, maybe I have some other rationale in my subconscious, but that’s where I come from.
I think it seems to usually be more about disabled people, who ai bros tend to consider either too stupid or physically unable to make real art, which is bullshit. There are amputees painting with their feet, who knows how many artists who have prosthetic hands or chronic pain. And don’t even get me started on mentally disabled people.
The main thing here is that image generation trough an llm doesn’t even count as creating.
Asking is not creating. In these systems people ask an llm to use a genai tool, the people never actually touch the tool themselves. (They wont even allow it lol)
Thats why ComfyUi with stable diffusion and not chatgpt is the standard for serious art work using ai.
They are fully open source, offline and they don’t require any more energy then playing a video game.
Also workflows look like this, more accessible means a different set of skills can now get you similar results. But it is still skill.
you indeed dont need to know how to hold a pencil to build that.
(Also there are more and more models exclusively trained with artist consent)
So yes, ai does make art more accessible to a small group of technical people. Most people know no one in this group.
Aight, here’s the thing.
All art is, at its base, about translating a person’s inner concept into an external form. Sculpture, painting, poetry, dance, whatever.
To do any art form, there is a barrier to entry. If you want to be a dancer, some part of your body must be mobile, right? Even if it’s just your eyeballs, dance by definition is about the human body moving.
But, what if you can’t move your body? Is that, and should that be, a barrier? Why can’t a person get an exoskeleton device that they can then program to either dance for them, or to respond to their thoughts so they can dance via the gear? Well, in that case the technology isn’t here yet, but pretend it was.
Obviously, it wouldn’t be the same as someone that’s trained and dedicated to dancing, but is it lesser? It still fulfills the self expression via movement.
That can be applied to damn near every form of art. I can’t actually think of any that it doesn’t apply to at least in part.
There is a difference between a human sitting down (or lying or standing) to write a book and just telling a computer to generate a book. But it doesn’t completely invalidate using a computer to generate fictional text. The key in that form is the degree of input and the effort involved. A writer asking an llm for a paragraph about a kid walking down the street when they’re blocked isn’t the same thing as telling it to write the entire book. There’s degrees of use that are valid tools that don’t remove the human aspect of the art form.
Take it to visual arts. A person can see things in their head that they may never develop the skill to see executed. They may not be physically capable of moving a brush on canvas, or pen on paper. A painter of incredible skill may be an utter dunce at sculpture, but still have vision and concepts worth being created.
The use of a generative model as a tool is not inherently bad. It’s no worse than setting up software to 3d print a sculpture.
The problem comes in when the ai itself is made by, and operated for the benefit of corporate entities, and/or when attribution isn’t built in. Attribution matters; a painting made by Monet is different from a painting that looks like Monet could have done it, but it was made by southsamurai. If I paint something that looks like a Monet, that’s great! If I paint it and pretend it was made by Monet, that’s bullshit.
A “painting” by a piece of software that’s indelibly attributed as generated that way isn’t a big deal. It comes back to the eye of the beholder in the same way that digital art is when compared to “analog” art via paints and pencils. It only really matters when someone is bullshitting about how they achieved the final results.
Is ai art less impressive? Hell yes, and it’s pretty obvious that it isn’t the same thing as someone honing their craft over years and decades. An image generated by a piece of software with only the input prompts being human generated is not the same as someone building the image with their hands via paint/touchpad/mouse/whatever.
This is still different from the matter of using ai instead of paying a human to do the work, which is more complicated than people think it is.
But, in terms of an individual having access to tools that allow them to get things inside their head out of their head where it can be seen, it has its place. It just needs to be very clear that that’s the tool used.
And yeah, I know this is c/fuckai, and I’m arguing that ai has its place as a tool of self expression, and that’s not going to be universally satisfying here. But I maintain that the problem with ai art isn’t in the fact that it’s ai art, it’s the framework behind that that makes it a threat to actual humans.
In a world where artists can choose to create art for their own satisfaction without having to worry about eating and having a roof over their heads, ai art would be a lot less of a threat.
or to respond to their thoughts so they can dance via the gear
But thats not whats happening with AI “art”. Thats whats being attempted with other technologies
I have seen a lot of disabled artists complain about bring used in pro-AI arguments
Yup. And it isn’t even just artists. Disabled people that aren’t creatives on a professional level object to it as well. It’s an unpleasant form of ablism, trying to pander on the backs of those poor, sad disabled people.
But it is all a spectrum of technologies, when applied properly.
The properly part is the bottom panel of the posted comic, imo. The various generative models aren’t actually about helping people, they aren’t about expanding human creativity. They’re about trying to cash in on a growing technology.
That doesn’t mean that ai can’t be a good thing. It just means that it’s a bad thing in the way it exists now, or at least in the form that’s being shoved down the public’s throat.
Had the big ones not stolen the training data, were they not being used to leverage corporate goals over humans, they could be a very useful thing.
Had the big ones not stolen the training data, were they not being used to leverage corporate goals over humans, they could be a very useful thing
AI still has the problems of spam(propaganda being the most dangerous variant of it), disinformation and impersonating real artists. These could be fixed if every AI image/video had a watermark, but i dont think that could be enforced well enough to completely eliminate these issues
Those specific flaws are down to the same issue though. The training data was flawed enough, in large part due to being stolen wholesale, that it skews the matter towards counterfeits being easier. I would agree that in the absence of legislation, no for profit business based on ai will ever tag their output. It could be an easier task for non profit, and/or open source models though. Definitely something that needs addressing.
I’m not sure what you mean by spam being a direct problem of ai. Are you saying that it’s easier to generate propaganda, and thus allow it to be spammed?
As near as I can tell, the propaganda farms were doing quite well spreading misinformation and disinformation before ai. Spamming it too, when that was useful to their goals.
You haven’t demonstrated what place image generators have in your example, though. There are blind and paralyzed painters that can create incredible works, because they practiced.
Maybe these chatbots have some place (I think they’re fine for creating memes and forum slop) but I think it’s sad that potential artists are robbing themselves the opportunity to build skill by outsourcing their artistic impulses to a chatbot.
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.
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.
I have seen AI “art” that has moved me emotionally, and been inspiring, increased my immersion etc.
The AI satire video about US workers in a sweatshop factory was politically important, and made me laugh.
I once made a picture of a cat that was busy working tirelessly in the style of Rembrandt, and it was emotionally moving. I saw myself in that cat. 🥲
I and friends used AI for immersion when roleplaying.
This supports your point of giving people the ability to artistically and quickly express ideas without being a skilled artist.
I also believe that the ethical issues of ownership, and theft from authors and artists are huge issues.
The environmental issue is not my biggest concern considering how cheap and quick some genAI can be. So all gen AI isn’t automatically seen as unethical due to environmental concerns to me.
Also, has image generation gotten worse? I feel that all generated images are more “correct” but has this bad look to it now, that it did not previously have.
So much typing to say fuck all.
What they mean by that is that they have no artistic ability and no interest in learning anything about how to actually make art, they just want a product to spec for free.
There’s someone close to me whose near entire existence is basically pain. They still draw.
They hate the idea that their works got sucked by billionaires into giant plagiarism machines that are enriching them further. Pro AI people and tech bros think they should just suck it up and start using fucking AI horde or something, despite the fact that this trend makes them sick and the proposed solutions don’t tackle real issues, but spread or ignore them.
One of my main gripes with GenAI is the tech industry’s usual disregard for consent. GenAI users saying we should get rid of it altogether doesn’t endear their ideal future to me. Saying the same thing as Sam Altman, but totally in a leftist way, just grosses me out.
$30 a month so far, will be a lot more if their plan of forcing artists out works out.
Wow. Luddites got together and made a whole sub to bitch about technology.
With the Ai Horde you just need a browser on a potato.
To draw, you just need a sharp rock and a bigger smooth rock(or any other smooth surface)
And time
For AI “art”, you also need internet connection and knowledge how to use a computer
How much time you need to draw something depends on the reason you are drawing. You dont need to make good art for a lot of reasons you might be drawing
and tons of power and cooling somewhere.
stop acting like the compute comes from nowhere lol
Not really, the ai horde runs in volunteer PCs, so less power and cooling than running an aaa game
volunteer PCs
oh those run on pixie dust and fairy farts huh?
in fact, because they’re distributed amongst thousands (presumably) volunteer pcs, they’re eating up cycles that aren’t optimized so are much less efficient at their task compared to specialized gpus and asics.
there’s no free lunch.
There’s no asics and specialized gpus for this sort of thing. We’ve also developed foss workers that are indeed more optimized. Also a lot of our volunteers use solar power.
I any case, yes of course it consumes some electricity, but all digital entertainment does and as I said we’re comparable to AAA gaming , so I don’t see why you’re singling that out.
so I don’t see why you’re singling that out.
I didn’t single out anything, I despise the entire spectrum bud. There’s no free lunch for AI.
disengage
I think you should, it’s fuck_ai, lol,
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024
Did you wander in here to advocate for your energy gobblin AI thinking we’d go “oh it’s distributed consumption SO THAT’S OK”?
Honestly?
I know a lot of robotgirls who say what you’re doing to their people is reprehensible.
It makes it more accessible to the lazy and talentless.
deleted by creator
People who are “talented” might start out at a better point in a field than others but they’ll hit a wall where they have to actually put in work to go further, that comes all at once instead of in small steps.
Disabled people can make great art. They can also hire someone else to help them; people who work succeed more together than apart.
I also think that having someone make a nice image is not worth the sheer amount of electrical energy and water cooling needed to power the datacenters.
People have aptitudes. The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive. But yes, even with talent a person has to work hard and practice. The word “talent” implies that the person worked hard to develop the skill. I agree we shouldn’t downplay the amount of work that goes into specializing, but let’s not pretend that means there’s no such thing as talent. Some people have a knack for things that others don’t, I’ve seen this firsthand on so many occasions. These knacks are what can be turned into talents.
So let’s not downplay a person’s natural aptitude by saying “well you just worked super hard, anybody can do that.”
In my work place we hired an intern who was pivoting careers and wanted to learn a new skill. The company was doing well, so we kept her on so long as she was trying. We patiently worked with her for years, but the skill NEVER clicked. She came from a robust background, so she was clearly capable, but we eventually figured out that she didn’t have the talent for it. She eventually decided that career wasn’t for her and left for another company - and in her new position she picked up on the different and required skill super quick. Our brains are elastic, sure, but they’re also hardwired in all different ways.
The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive.
Put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and the 1 student that likes the subject the most will be the best student.
There’s different levels of interests between the students. A student that is very invested in the subject is going to learn more than a student that wishes they were doing anything else. That’s what happens when something “clicks” - when a student goes above and beyond the taught material because they’re always thinking about it. “Talent” is indistinguishable from enthusiasm.
Sure, there are literal cognitive differences between people, but 99 times out of 100 “talent” is just passion imo
It’s this. Everybody else’s take us missing this. I play a BUNCH of musical instruments, and when people are like, “Oh wow, how did you learn to play all of those. You must be so talented!” And I always say, “Time. Time and a lot of practice. And most importantly a LOT of patience with myself”.
The thing is, to get good at something, you have to be bad at it first. And many people simply do not have the passion to keep pushing through the part where they’re bad at it.
I’m with you on all of your points actually (it’s photography all again), but you did post it in /fuck_ai 😁
What a crock of shit. You clearly haven’t lived with talented people. I’ve had roommates that I got to observe their daily habits and while they did work and practice, much of their skill came from how their brains and muscles were wired. Talent is very real. To assume every accomplishment that out shines another is simply a product of greater training and effort is an excuse of the ignorant.
There is literally no fucking such thing as talent.
Counterpoints:
Cringe news station, but 3 years old
And lastly, for now, Chloe Chua at 9 years old with decades level violin mastery (she can also play the piano).
I can’t visualize things in my head so generative ai can help me “see” my thoughts in a way i couldn’t otherwise. Are there artists with aphantasia? I’m sure, and kudos to them. I took several art classes and could never really do well unless i was trying to recreate someone else’s work.
But absolutely agree with your point. I would love for the future to have art licensed for genAI use so artists get their royalties and i can use it. I don’t like all the theft in current LLMs so don’t use them anymore
One of the animators behind The Little Mermaid had aphantasia.
There’s also experimenting with more abstract forms - playing with color and shape. Art doesn’t have to be a picture of something.
Ok so i do know there are some people with aphantasia who do art but didn’t want to get into a long rant about this but congratulations your comment has triggered me by sharing the first search result with no commentary (did you even read it?).
First off, yes, art comes in many forms. I use my artistic expression in my writing. But abstract art can still be visualized in advance by artists, something i literally cannot do. Can i still make art (abstract and otherwise), yes, but it takes longer than someone else who can visualize. Also telling me i can just do abstract art is like telling someone who can’t use their legs that they can still walk if they use some hands crunches and drag their legs along. Is it possible? Maybe! Is it something that will be enjoyable? Probably not. I don’t feel people would respond to a handicapped person this way but maybe they do. They do respond this way to me, all the time. Maybe they think they are helping, but it’s not helpful.
Anyway, the animator. So if you actually read the article it talks about the difference between seeing it describing things. I cannot see my wife in my head, but i have studied her face countless times over the decades. If i were to describe her face to you it would be a series of long lists about each feature of her face. This is what i would compare to someone’s job as domain knowledge. If you do something many times, you have experience with this. If i were an animator for a company then yeah i could have domain knowledge and get by doing that since i have prepared long lists of different characters, objects, or general setting characteristics for new things (it will still be harder than someone who can visualize since they don’t need to iterate as much).
Now if you ask me about something else though, the details i can recall are much less. If i want to draw a cthulu-esque monster combined with two humanoid legs then i could try to recall details about these things but my cthulu piece is just a blob, i don’t really know much besides describing tentacles. Of course i could look things up but then im just back to copying things.
But what if i just want to make my own original art? Well, i need to describe it in my head first. Describe it in great detail and then hope the words i have used to describe it match how i actually want it to appear for my writing.
And that’s the type of art i care about. And that’s the type of art genAI can help me visualize if i use it (again, i don’t anymore). But imagine that handicap person who can’t walk now getting some robotic assisted crutches. That’s what i imagine it felt like for me to visualize things with genAI. I could just feed it lists of details and it effortlessly showed me approximations of what my detail-lists are. I could “see” my thoughts for the first time. Could i do all of this myself without genAI? Yeah if i spent enough time on it. It just isn’t fun for me.
And what do you do for work or hobbies? Do you do anything that you’re dogshit at? Do you do something that you do have a physical or mental disadvantage in? Ive done hobbies to push myself in other areas of my life, but not this one. Like i said, it isn’t fun for me. And telling me to do other kinds of art isn’t helpful either.
And to be clear, I’m not using any of this as a justification to use genAI on unlicensed work. My original comment expressed my desire to have models with licensed work. Because i do want to just effortlessly “see” my thoughts like everyone else. That’s it.
I am sorry if the article offended you.
My point is that anyone can do art. If you can make marks, you can make art. I would worry about leaning too much on the “imagination” of the computer, and I do not consider AI generated images art.
I’d also suspect there are things that may not be “learnable” – if you don’t have great spatial perception or colour vision, that might not really be a skill than can be practiced.
It doesn’t mean you can’t do art either. Art is not only “faithful representations of reality”. Heck, that is probably the most boring and useless definition of art one could think of.
Edit: nevermind, just read another comment equating art’s value to its financial success. Now, that is an even more boring definition of art.
The most impressive art is when people learn the rules well enough to ignore them.
As someone with the fine motor control of someone made of all elbows, who couldn’t hope to ever draw anything and who leaves that up to people with talent and work ethic for money, all of the cool things in my head that die there because they’re better in my imagination than I could ever express through words or art.
I feel seen.
Give digital art programs a try. There’s plenty of free alternatives to the big subscription model vultures out there, there’s GIMP for image editing, Krita for drawing, Blender for 3D, DaVinci Resolve for video editing, Audacity and Pro Tools Free for sound recording and editing, you can even make modular synths using VCV Rack. And if you like rum and eye patches theres versions of the big players out there too.
I am absolutely shit at drawing, but professionally I make 3d animations, having drawing skills helps, but it’s not necessary to learn any one of these.
I am even more terrible at those than I am with physical media.
Everyone is terrible when they start. You can get better if you practice over time.
You might not ever draw the next big masterpiece, but if you practice you will get better.
All it takes is 15-30 minutes a day.
It really is just persistence and accepting a certain amount of “I’m so bad at art” for eternity. Just make something, draw, paint or whatever. Look for things that motivate you to make stuff and learn to do it anyway, sucking is the first step to being kinda good at something.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Creative skill and imagination. It is inherent to art.
Even the shittiest executed art is art. Your perception of art is skewed by the commodification of it through capitalist societies. I sincerely implore you to take up any kind of art that does not require AI if you’re truly interested in expressing yourself.
Have you considered collage? You just need some mod podge, a few foam brushes, and magazines/random print material. There’s still lots of room for skill and exploration, but there’s not a technical barrier to entry.
I never realized it, but isn’t a collage basically the analog version of AI art, except in this case it’s using the literal other art of people rather than learning from it and blending to make something new? Literally using other pictures to make a picture.
The art and challenge of collage is changing the context. Consider how the Avalanches work is entirely samples - but there’s something there that was not in the constituent parts.
Or video collage. YouTube Poops are another example of that kind of finding something new in what was already there - what about Robotnik’s PINGAS.
I posted a project on c/artshare which is chunks of a Christian courtship manual which I drowned in paint and then chopped out the most fucked up parts from. I don’t think that is something AI would do trained on a model of pop Christian literature - that’s something I a person with context and reactions to that literature would do. An AI can create pictures that might look nice, but they don’t have meaning. Art for me prioritizes meaning. - but I’m the kind of weirdo that burst into tears when I saw the replica of Fountain at the Tate.
But you were talking specifically about a static medium, not video or music, which are not static mediums. We were also discussing image gen AI, not video gen etc.
Most people also don’t consider video or music edits collage either, and call them something else. Because they use different skills and are different mediums.
Also, you do realize we’re still talking about current AI generation right? There doesn’t exist an AI that executes processes on it’s own (maybe) yet. So your whole thing wasn’t relevant either, really, in any way more than saying a piece of paper will spontaneously draw something on itself.
That said, you can, using prompts, training, guidance steps, etc, actually do exactly what you did in a digital format, using a diffusion image generation AI. You can get more specific by using it + Gimp.
Edit: and I mean, you still are using someone else’s art to create what you made.
You’re not alone. Sorry all these pricks think you just haven’t tried.
I wish to formally apologize for offering friendly advice on the internet, maybe I should have been even more of an apparent prick than I apparently was and told op to give up forever on their desire to be more creative and told op to eat shit and die.
Or you could not think less of someone for using a tool that you don’t need to express their creativity.
I don’t think less of OP, if I did, I wouldn’t be be giving suggestions for freely accessible digital art programs of all different kinds and not even limiting myself to just visual mediums.
All I want to do is offer words of encouragement to go and try some of these. They’re free programs, what’s the harm in encouraging someone to give them a try?
When these programs were new, “real” artists viewed them in the same way that AI is viewed now.
And these tools ended up aiding artists rather than replacing them and these tools still require human competency and creativity to use. I don’t type “make me picture of trump of trump as a sith lord” and some ugly collage of stolen artwork gets spit out without any human interaction or intention. Instead I have to actually make that or figure out how to make it work as a collage.
IDK. I don’t like AI for commercial applications. But for frivolous things? That’s it’s critical application. I’m not taking food from the mouth of any artist if I post some AI meme image I generate onto a social media site. There is no universe where I’m paying an actual professional artist to make meme images for me to post to social media. I’ll sometimes use AI slop, but only in slopworthy applications. Screwing around on fediverse and other sites is such a slopworthy application.
I feel like this is what people don’t see.
Yeah, I view AI slop images like I would any copy-pasted meme image from years past. Technically, we were all violating copyright when we screenshotted images from random sites and news events and turned them into memes. Some photographer took those shots, and we stole them and used them for cheap laughs. And no one cared, because again, no one was going to pay to license a photo for a random internet forum or social. No photographer was going hungry because of meme images.
I don’t feel like that’s actually an argument against it. Why would everyone need to learn to draw? Why if I need some random background asset or prop should I spend months or years learning to do something I don’t enjoy? The alternative is to pay an artist, but in many cases it literally doesn’t make sense to waste that kind of money on a trivial thing. It can have its uses.
should I spend months or years learning to do something I don’t enjoy?
Okay. If you don’t even like drawing, why should I care to see it, then?
Is this like when casual acquaintances who don’t like each other pretend to make weekend plans they both know they’re going to cancel if either one of them ever brings it up again?
I’m not saying this is something that should be used to crank out slop to sell as posters or paintings or idk. I’m saying it can help e.g. indie devs, people making random powerpoints, making a customised meme, stuff where the art isn’t the main point but is sometimes still necessary.
Yes, but what I’m asking about is why you feel an indie game needs that. People generally find the effort made by someone less skilled way more charming than they do a technically proficient AI-thing, anyway.
Like, you’re describing background assets as if they were a handshake the two of us are required by social contact to perform as part of our greeting ritual—why is it necessary? If you’ve got shaky hands, we could just… not do it. You know?
I never spent any money on AI. Use locally run open source models.
Doesn’t that require a load of computer power? My computer could start a house fire opening a PDF.
Depends on your hardware (such as your graphics card). But it’s definitely possible and a lot of people do it.
