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

[Mason 152]

She's just interacting with her fans, not like it's anything important. I mess around with AI art all the time, it's kind of entertaining.

anyone who's upset about this needs to build a bridge lol

[nATAH 43,112]

2 hours ago, AndiGaga said:

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

stealing art is not technical progress, it's sloppy, it's regression

my company has started using ai and it just looks ****ing awful and lazy, even the logo is spelt wrong on so many occasions 

just pay graphic designers and get it done right otherwise you just look stupid

[nATAH 43,112]

1 hour 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. 

not even remotely the same

there's giant difference in inspiring somebody's style and talent vs feeding a machine that exists just to make profit

[RahrahWitch 6,977]

I feel like people really don't understand the difference between types of AI and have just fallen for the marketing hype of it all being the one thing.

AI has amazing use cases but it is a broad term and what we're talking about here is generative AI in particular. Not only is this kind of AI morally questionable it's also a legal minefield with requiring global scale theft to actually work, expensive to run and running the data centers requires massive amount of energy and clean water. Gen AI might have some small use cases but it's absolutely not the future and deserves all the pushback it gets.

[AndiGaga 6,132]

22 minutes ago, nATAH said:

my company has started using ai and it just looks ****ing awful and lazy, even the logo is spelt wrong on so many occasions 

That will change in a year. You will no longer be able to tell the difference soon

[nATAH 43,112]

9 minutes ago, AndiGaga said:

That will change in a year. You will no longer be able to tell the difference soon

what a miserable timeline we live in

[Bronco 6,613]

AI does look terrible atm. And the current set up does involve exploitative companies.

But the arguments around labour loss, erasing the artists etc was the same thing used at the advent of midi machines/synthesisers/electronic instruments/all the computer software used now.

The goal shouldn't be, prevent technological advancement. The goal should be to make technological advance work for the society that uses it. 

 

[Fusel 1,093]

What a bad bad take

[Bebe 16,930]

5 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

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. 

It really isn’t an insane claim. I studied art history.

https://www.thecollector.com/how-photography-transformed-art/

As photography became more accessible, many artists had the same fears about how this new technology could  replace them.

”Since photography could depict the world more accurately than painting, the latter had to reinvent itself. For this reason, the focus of painters shifted from representing reality to portraying emotions and impressions”.

This is a commonly accepted fact.

Nobody is defending AI utilising the work of artists to “learn” and develop. Its a fact that the work of artists was exploited, lets look at regulating AI moving forward.

The only reason energy consumption isn’t comparable is because we are talking about another leap in technology, it doesn’t change that AI will develop to be more energy efficient. I’m not even sure what you are trying to argue here to be honest, would love to see regulation on AI companies, would love to see carbon taxes on all companies etc.

The reality is that AI is here and we need to look at developing it in ethical ways, ensuring artists are compensated when their work is used to build and improve these AI systems and ensuring that important safeguards are put in place regarding what sort of images can be generated by these systems.

I don’t even think we disagree about AI having problems and am honestly a little perplexed at this conversation.

AI has problems, AI also exists and is here to stay. Those are the two realities of this situation. 

[Bebe 16,930]

5 hours ago, artdoll said:

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.

Absolutely, that’s a fact.

I do find the conversation over AI interesting though. Because although, yes, it is factual that AI was built on stealing art, literature, academic work and other intellectual property there are ethical concerns with almost everything we consume.

Nestle owns most of the confectionery we consume but also own fashion brands, beauty brands and pet foods. They admit that they utilise slave labour for cheap costs. We wouldn’t freak out about someone eating a Kit Kat.

Bristol Myers Squibb is a multibillion dollar pharmaceutical company. They, among other things, were involved in a 1940s U.S. experiment which led to infecting hundreds of Guatemalans with syphilis. We believe their treatments on STI’s, including HIV/AIDS, are great technical advancements and wouldn’t dream of us not utilising the benefits of these technologies and treatments.

Yes AI has been problematic and in many ways it continues to be.We could continue to go on about the unethical practices of corporations that we interact with daily and these tech companies are no different.

I don’t say any of this to defend these AI companies or tech companies that have jumped on the bandwagon and I don’t do it to dismiss the issue as if it has no value at all. I hope, although doubt, there will be tangible consequences for these developers who stole the content of creators and I hope that we push for better regulations and compensation moving forward.

I just hope we can also start to face the reality thatAI is here, the race has started. I hope we can begin to focus our attention on how this new technology can help us, how we can regulate AI to ensure it is being developed ethically, how we can hold tech companies accountable from a legal standpoint and how we can prepare society for this massive economic and societal shift that we are on the brink of and work to lessen the impacts on those who will lose work.

Criticising people for generating images is not doing anything to push the conversation forward in any of these areas.

Stories like these are, to me, such a shallow and uninteresting take on AI. Let people make their stupid pictures. There is no version of the future where this technology gets rolled back and forgotten about. It’s here, this is what it can do. So, now what?

I also think there is also something to be said about the discrepancy in the reactions against AI when compared to most companies, because I think it’s actually speaking to a concern among middle class people in “developed” nations that this will effect them directly rather than faceless people from “developing” countries that are out of sight. That’s a seperate conversation for another time though. There’s no such thing as ethical consumption under capitalism.

Edited Sunday at 04:16 PM by Bebe

[LDRi 54]

5 hours ago, AndiGaga said:

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

What an extremely cold, robotic way to express humans having their entire livelihoods, their passions, their dreams stolen from them by a handful of tech developers who seek nothing but to profit no matter whose neck they have to step on in the process. 

Defending AI places you immediately on the side of reprehensible side of humanity. Yes there have been technology advances in the past which have displaced people. But the difference is those people who lost jobs to machines etc were then able to learn how to manage the machines, how to build the machines, etc. There were still opportunities to go around. AI essentially eats itself and continues to eliminate those "new" opportunities. The goal is to give as little humans as possible a job. 

AI is only taking away jobs it's not adding jobs. Why are we as humans, with a population at now over 8 BILLIION people, letting ANY industry take away jobs. We need MORE jobs for MORE people. But instead we're sitting around letting a handful of greedy tech people and corporations completely reshape the atmosphere and create a system where only a fraction of "elite" employees will be able to hold a job. 

The people "letting" this happen are AI defenders like you. You lack compassion, empathy, and ultimately are on the wrong side of history. Do better and fight back. 

[Bebe 16,930]

4 hours ago, Naufri said:

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?

1. Computers took jobs from people, automation in production took jobs away from people, internet shopping took jobs away from retail workers. We could go on. I do believe that we are on the precipice of a significant social and economic upheaval as a result of AI. The 19th century had the Industrial Revolution when machines replaced many of the professions that had previously required manual labor and led to significant job displacement. It also led to the generation of new jobs, better working conditions, increased productivity, better communication, increased education etc.

Job displacement is a genuine concern, however AI is here. How do we ensure people reap the benefits of this new technology and prepare our society to be upskilled and prevent a skills mismatch in the new world?

2. The environmental concerns are legitimate however seems a little overblown when considering the far larger environmental impacts of other tech industries, the food industry as well as oil and gas. Again, AI is here. How do we ensure that there is a net environmental positive when rolling it out at scale? Did you know the UN uses AI to detect when oil and gas installations vent methane, a greenhouse gas that drives climate change? How can we utilise AI to help us tackle climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste?

3. So let’s regulate!

4. Brings us back to point 1. It’s essentially the same argument. We have seen technology create significant job displacement in the past. How do ensure society is prepared for what will undoubtedly be a significant shift in society and in the world economy?

Framing any technological advancement as either good or bad, including AI advancement, is extremely simplistic. The negatives you talk to may be true, but it doesn’t change the reality we are in and we now live in a world with AI. The solution literally cannot be to turn back time. We need to accept that AI is here, it is going to continue to develop and what we need to do now is prepare, regulate, ensure that we can see a net benefit from AI and work to lessen the negative impacts that occur during any major change.

[altern8version 568]

the whole "it's the future" argument is kinda lame, because like... sure, it can become more commonplace in the future, but people still have the right to think it's sh!tty and ugly and lazy and theft. it's literally just generating an amalgamation of other peoples' work

it's like when people say "I have free speech" - sure, you can say whatever you want, but we can still judge you for it 

 

[Bebe 16,930]

29 minutes ago, LDRi said:

What an extremely cold, robotic way to express humans having their entire livelihoods, their passions, their dreams stolen from them by a handful of tech developers who seek nothing but to profit no matter whose neck they have to step on in the process. 

Defending AI places you immediately on the side of reprehensible side of humanity. Yes there have been technology advances in the past which have displaced people. But the difference is those people who lost jobs to machines etc were then able to learn how to manage the machines, how to build the machines, etc. There were still opportunities to go around. AI essentially eats itself and continues to eliminate those "new" opportunities. The goal is to give as little humans as possible a job. 

AI is only taking away jobs it's not adding jobs. Why are we as humans, with a population at now over 8 BILLIION people, letting ANY industry take away jobs. We need MORE jobs for MORE people. But instead we're sitting around letting a handful of greedy tech people and corporations completely reshape the atmosphere and create a system where only a fraction of "elite" employees will be able to hold a job. 

The people "letting" this happen are AI defenders like you. You lack compassion, empathy, and ultimately are on the wrong side of history. Do better and fight back. 

Have you ever read about The Luddites? They had the exact same fears. They were highly skilled workers who suddenly found their craft had essentially been made redundant due to technology. I’m sure many had the very same fear that all most workers had to offer was manual labor which would be replaced with automation. They couldn’t have predicted the explosion of new fields of work that occurred. 

AI may be taking jobs now, but only because with any technological advancement at a scale like this there is a skill mismatch. There will undoubtedly be job creation that comes from AI whether directly through AI engineers or indirectly (I could give weak examples but it’s harder to conceptualise the same way, TiKTok influencers couldn’t be conceptualised at the start of the internet).

To be obvious, the greedy corporations and capitalists who owned the buildings and machinery and paid for labor held the power back during the industrial revolution too, it’s really nothing new. Instead of Henry Ford we have Elon Musk.

It feels like we are on the cusp of class consciousness and revolution which is exciting! However we are seemingly focusing our energy on the technology that has been created rather than the capitalist class that you actually have an issue with. 

I would love it if we could actually benefit from AI, seize this technology and use it to serve the people, demand regulation from our politicians and ensure that they are appropriately planning for our transition into the AI world. We need to be realistic, we can’t bury our head in the sand and pretend that AI will go away, it’s here.

[Bebe 16,930]

44 minutes ago, altern8version said:

the whole "it's the future" argument is kinda lame, because like... sure, it can become more commonplace in the future, but people still have the right to think it's sh!tty and ugly and lazy and theft. it's literally just generating an amalgamation of other peoples' work

it's like when people say "I have free speech" - sure, you can say whatever you want, but we can still judge you for it 

 

It may be lame but it’s realistic. 

You can call it ugly, shitty and theft. It’s an amalgamation of the hard work and intellectual property of artists, writers and content creators. The development of AI was unethical and unfair. AI poses all of these risks!

Okay, so now what?

While there are valid criticisms and concerns surrounding AI - it feels as if most are engaging with these criticisms and concerns in such a juvenile way. 

It’s an easy position to say “AI stole peoples work and that’s bad!” It’s something everyone can agree on it’s not a particularly interesting take at this point. We’ve heard it before, now what?  

Every government for the US and UK to Iran and North Korea to China and India is utilising AI and researching its potential and current usage in warfare and cyber warfare and disinformation campaigns. It’s not going away. 

Every industry in the world is interested not only in how they can sell AI, but how AI can improve productivity and cut costs. It’s not going away.

Criticising people for making images also feels like an extension of this surface level engagement with AI. The people saying “It’s the future” don’t disagree with the surface level engagement of “these things are bad and I don’t like the bad things” they are just tired of us rehashing the same points everyone agrees with and are hoping we can instead start to discuss what we can do moving forward. 
 

I don’t care that Chapelle Roan asked her fans to generate AI images of her. Welcome to 2025, this is our reality now and it’s not going to change. I care about engaging with the concerns of AI in a more substantial way.

With a rise in image-based sexual abuse how can we ensure tech companies have built in features to ensure deep fake images aren’t created? How do we build new cultural norms and manners regarding the creation of AI images and what laws can we put in place to help protect (mostly) women from being abused online?

With AI technology developing at such a rapid pace, what industries are the most likely to be affected and what can we do to lessen the impacts of job displacement within those industries? Are our government social services robust and prepared for a potential of short term job loss and can we effectively upskill people in relevant skills needed?

With tech company leaders, such as Elon Musk, denouncing “woke” AI, and others concerned about racial, gender bias in AI how do we ensure our AI technologies are honest, factual and inclusive? 

These are just some of the discussions I wish we were having at this point rather than “AI stole art and is stealing jobs. I hate it”.

Edited Sunday at 05:36 PM by Bebe