Chappell Roan criticised for taking AI submissions on her Alt Instagram account

[Bronco 6,614]

Honestly I'd care if she was using it for her album or single artworks. Or using it for any actual production. 

But she's just asked folk to make her essentially fan art of her & what I assume is her partner on her alt account. 

[CautiousLurker 17,393]

5 hours ago, Bebe said:

Love it or hate it, this is the future and there is no stopping it. Artists will need to adapt the same way painters adapted after the invention of photography.

There will still be a demand for artists and their unique styles however AI is going to play a significant role in media moving forward. 

There is no adapting to tech that is designed to replace us, and the notion that demand for artists with unique styles will still exist is incorrect:

https://hbr.org/2024/11/research-how-gen-ai-is-already-impacting-the-labor-market

On top of the fact demand has reduced and will likely continue to do so, many still working illustrators and concept artists say the gigs are shorter and pay less, so much so that people who are highly seasoned professionals and essentially superstars in their field report they can no longer support themselves doing creative work.

This is absolutely not something that should be brushed off with 'love it or hate it, it's gonna stay' - no, it should be fought tooth and nail as it is a gross exploitation of human labor AND a serious ecological threat on top of that - ai image generation requires an extraordinary amount of power:

https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-11-12-gartner-predicts-power-shortages-will-restrict-40-percent-of-ai-data-centers-by-20270

 

[Bebe 16,930]

5 hours ago, artdoll said:

See, that's exactly the issue. AI would not be able to produce these things without stealing from artists. lol

Yes this is correct.

 

We can’t spend the next decade afraid to develop and use AI. It’s here now.

It would be fantastic if artists got compensation and it is imperative that there is global legislation to regulate AI however it isn’t going anywhere. 

We know there was ethical issues with the development of AI. We can say the same for social media, we can say the same for streaming and frankly we could make an argument for the internet and a lot of scientific knowledge that we use every day. Getting upset at someone like Chappell Roan just doesn’t make sense at this point.

[Celloo Deng 53,661]

1 hour ago, Bronco said:

Honestly I'd care if she was using it for her album or single artworks. Or using it for any actual production. 

But she's just asked folk to make her essentially fan art of her & what I assume is her partner on her alt account. 

This, it seems like she’s just having a bit of fun 

[Bebe 16,930]

18 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

There is no adapting to tech that is designed to replace us, and the notion that demand for artists with unique styles will still exist is incorrect:

https://hbr.org/2024/11/research-how-gen-ai-is-already-impacting-the-labor-market

On top of the fact demand has reduced and will likely continue to do so, many still working illustrators and concept artists say the gigs are shorter and pay less, so much so that people who are highly seasoned professionals and essentially superstars in their field report they can no longer support themselves doing creative work.

This is absolutely not something that should be brushed off with 'love it or hate it, it's gonna stay' - no, it should be fought tooth and nail as it is a gross exploitation of human labor AND a serious ecological threat on top of that - ai image generation requires an extraordinary amount of power:

https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-11-12-gartner-predicts-power-shortages-will-restrict-40-percent-of-ai-data-centers-by-20270

 

AI is going to bring a massive social, cultural and political change and is going to replace a number of jobs no doubt about it. There is going to be a lot of harm and ultimately a lot of benefit from AI if regulated correctly.

I read what you have linked and it isn’t anything I’m unaware of. The fact that jobs are being replaced and far more are to come does not mean humans are not capable of adapting, artists have done so before.

Look at the shift that happened once photography was invented, the medium of painting had to evolve or die. Look at the Industrial Revolution or the computing revolution, it replaced numerous jobs and had a huge effect of society - some good and some bad.

As for your second article, yes there are also technological barriers to work through of course. Back in the 1980’s CRAY-2 was a supercomputer designed by the US Department of Defence. It required significant space and power to run. The iPhone 12 is about 5,000 times faster, fits in my hand and is powered by a battery that can last all day before needing to be recharged.

There are a number of problems with AI, it’s absolutely imperative that we develop AI responsibly and Chappell Roan asking fans to make pictures is not the problem. 

Edited Sunday at 09:29 AM by Bebe

[Fantina 3,282]

This.....just looks like she is having fun with the AI art? I would understand if she was using it as an album cover or poster for a concert, but this seems light-hearted and fine.

[CautiousLurker 17,393]

27 minutes ago, Bebe said:

AI is going to bring a massive social, cultural and political change and is going to replace a number of jobs no doubt about it. There is going to be a lot of harm and ultimately a lot of benefit from AI if regulated correctly.

I read what you have linked and it isn’t anything I’m unaware of. The fact that jobs are being replaced and far more are to come does not mean humans are not capable of adapting, artists have done so before.

Look at the shift that happened once photography was invented, the medium of painting had to evolve or die. Look at the Industrial Revolution or the computing revolution, it replaced numerous jobs and had a huge effect of society - some good and some bad.

As for your second article, yes there are also technological barriers to work through of course. Back in the 1980’s CRAY-2 was a supercomputer designed by the US Department of Defence. It required significant space and power to run. The iPhone 12 is about 5,000 times faster, fits in my hand and is powered by a battery that can last all day before needing to be recharged.

There are a number of problems with AI, it’s absolutely imperative that we develop AI responsibly, and Chappell Roan asking fans to make pictures is not the problem. 

The medium of painting didn't have to 'evolve or die' when photography was invented - that is an insane claim. 

Again, there is no adapting to tech designed to replace people - it can generate dozens of print ready images in seconds - there is no adapting to that 'because artists adapted before'. And it is absolutely not an excuse anyone should be throwing around when so many people are risking to lose their livelihood after having the work of their labor essentially stolen - appropriated without their consent nor knowledge. No one stole fine artists' collective labor to invent photography.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/jul/02/google-ai-emissions

'Google’s goal of reducing its climate footprint is in jeopardy as it relies on more and more energy-hungry data centres to power its new artificial intelligence products. The tech giant revealed Tuesday that its greenhouse gas emissions have climbed 48% over the past five years.

Google said electricity consumption by data centres and supply chain emissions were the primary cause of the increase. It also revealed in its annual environmental report that its emissions in 2023 had risen 13% compared with the previous year, hitting 14.3m metric tons.'

I don't think that's comparable to a computer they built in the 80s.

AI image generators should die, and there is a not zero percent chance they will because currently most big genai startups are getting sued. 

As for Chappell - I absolutely think people should be angry at tech giants first and foremost, as well as politicians working to amend copyright laws.

I'm not surprised by why they lash out at Chappell or any artist who dabbles in genai, however - she makes art - it feels like a betrayal when an artists who should understand another artist's plight when their work gets stolen, seemingly doesn't care. 

Edited Sunday at 09:55 AM by CautiousLurker

[Bronco 6,614]

3 minutes ago, CautiousLurker said:

there is a not zero percent chance they will because currently most big genai startups are getting sued. 

Lawsuits that will go nowhere while the tech industry runs the White House, Congress & SCOTUS. 

AI is here to stay. 

The train left the final station years ago. There is no getting off the ride now until its come to a complete stop. 

[artdoll 45,477]

1 hour ago, Bebe said:

Yes this is correct.

 

We can’t spend the next decade afraid to develop and use AI. It’s here now.

It would be fantastic if artists got compensation and it is imperative that there is global legislation to regulate AI however it isn’t going anywhere. 

We know there was ethical issues with the development of AI. We can say the same for social media, we can say the same for streaming and frankly we could make an argument for the internet and a lot of scientific knowledge that we use every day. Getting upset at someone like Chappell Roan just doesn’t make sense at this point.

Yes, however I'm not angry at Chappell. Rather just pointing out the reason why people are able to create things with AI in the first place.

Regardless your stance, AI was built upon stealing from actual artists to create things for people. Whether that's commercial, professional or personal use. The whole point seems to me almost as if it was developed to get the art without paying the artist. That is the issue.

[AndiGaga 6,132]

To all the AI haters:

Its progress. Technical progress. It will happen, its good that it happens, like it was always good when whe developed further. Are there some negative aspects? Of course, but we can not stay the way we are, we need growth

[nightadieu 4,263]

7 hours ago, artdoll said:

See, that's exactly the issue. AI would not be able to produce these things without stealing from artists. lol

Can you tell me the difference between AI being trained on existing art and actual artist using existing art as inspiration?

They will always be the same, people are just scared of new technology. 

[Naufri 7,171]

16 minutes ago, nightadieu said:

Can you tell me the difference between AI being trained on existing art and actual artist using existing art as inspiration?

They will always be the same, people are just scared of new technology. 

1.  It will take jobs from people.

2. It's TERRIBLE for the environment.

3. Right now generarive IA requires lots of resources and money, on do you want to leave such a "powerful tool" in the hands of a bunch of megacorporations? Because that's what's happening right now.

4. At the moment companies like Activision are refusing to hire actors in Europe to dub videogames because they don't want to accept the condition to not use those voice works to train voices "clones" for future games.

Guys, not all new technologies are good for people, Did nuclear bomb worth the thousands of lives lost, and decades of Cold War?

[Kayi 1,292]

Can't they stop following her content if she doesn't please them ? They litteraly bully her and that's not ok. 

This is a joke, she won't use it as an album cover or anything... 

And ofc AI is part of transhumanism, artists shouldn't hate it but use it as a tool for their creation. Imagine if we cancelled autotune and electronic sounds bc it's technology ? 

AI needs artists too so it won't replace them. Artists also need to adapt by being even more creative and by protecting their art by understanding this technology. 

They need to make the ppl understand clearly what is Art ? They need to demonstrate them that Art are human creations. But they can also say that AI is a tool, not just a bad thing that will steal their jobs. They need to redefine ethic and bring philosophy to the public debate. 

But artists can also make art and stop bullying Chappell Roan. 

Edited Sunday at 12:24 PM by Kayi

[Togekiss 2,349]

Does anyone think AI is a good thing?

I love Chappell Roan. I think she is a really interesting artist.

Edited Sunday at 12:21 PM by Togekiss
Britney b*tch

[lastpopicon 4,368]

5 minutes ago, Kayi said:

Can't they stop following her content if she doesn't please them ? They litteraly bully her and that's not ok. 

This is a joke, she won't use it as an album cover or anything... 

And ofc AI is part of transhumanism, artists shouldn't hate it but use it as a tool for their creation. Imagine if we cancelled autotune and electronic sounds bc it's technology ? 

AI needs artists too so it won't replace them. Artists also need to adapt by being even more creative and by protecting their art by understanding this technology. 

They need to make the ppl understand clearly what is Art ? They need to demonstrate them that Art are human creations. But they can also say that AI is a tool, not just a bad thing that will steal their jobs. They need to redefine ethic and bring philosophy to the public debate. 

But artists can also make art and stop bullying Chappell Roan. 

 

AI is a sensitive topic but it's here to stay. I honestly feel for people whose jobs might be affected by it but it's the price to pay for progress and that's the cold hard truth.

 

When industrialization happened, machines started doing the job of men, it the age of the computers machines will also start doing the job of men, just in a different way.

 

I just wish people didn't have to lose jobs, perhaps we can find a better solution.