I heard a bunch of explanations but most of them seem emotional and aggressive, and while I respect that this is an emotional subject, I can’t really understand opinions that boil down to “theft” and are aggressive about it.
while there are plenty of models that were trained on copyrighted material without consent (which is piracy, not theft but close enough when talking about small businesses or individuals) is there an argument against models that were legally trained? And if so, is it something past the saying that AI art is lifeless?
Why would you need an argument beyond AI art is lifeless?
I disagree strongly on that argument. I’ve seen many examples of AI generated images that have genuinely made me stop, and shake my head in amazement.
Give us some examples of moving AI generated images.
The thing, even with human-made art, is that what’s “moving” is highly personal. Maybe accept that their experience is different from yours?
Art is a form of communication, to hear that someone can be moved by expressionless AI slop is kinda like hearing someone had an enlightening conversation with a dog.
Like sure I can imagine someone can interpret a dog’s barks to mean something, but it’s still a bizarre scenario that says more about the person than it does the art.
When you can’t tell if a machine made it, and it moves you personally, then what invisible metric are you defining, and judging it on?
Same metrics anyone judges art by, what it says to them. This is incredibly context dependent.
Show me the art and if just showing it to someone is insufficient, explain it to me.
That says more about you than about AI.
No. I watched a video recently of one of the best figure tutors around. Upset with AI. As he critiqued them, multiple times he struggled to tell if it was AI or not. Now, if one of the top YouTube figure drawing instructors struggled at times to identify the difference in his attack against the tech, I’m pretty comfortable saying that it can absolutely move you.
Because it means nothing to me. sorry to disappoint but I don’t even understand that argument, I saw plenty of AI images that looked full of life to me, so what does that even mean that it is lifeless? Maybe explain it instead of just being condescending about it.
When a human creates art, there is some intent on it, some emotions they felt when they decided the color pallete, the form… The fact that someone created it and that there’s some story behind it gives the piece weight.
Why is an abstract monument created by humans something other humans like to see, and doesn’t happen the same on a landslide? Because there’s a story behind it.
AI art is lifeless because there’s no intent behind it, you don’t appreciate the skill of the author behind it. It’s just prompt mastery and anyone can replicate it, it’s cheap.
It’s like comparing human made sculptures with 3d printed sculptures, if 3d printers could create details and work in big sizes. It’s cheap.
Okay, I guess I just don’t connect to that argument because intent and understanding the artist is rarely a thing I look for in day to day art. 99% of the images I see that make me feel anything do so because of the imagery itself plus sometimes my own experience that might come to mind from it.