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

[artdoll 45,477]

8 hours 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. 

I feel as if you sort of answered your own question. You see AI isn't being "trained" on existing art. It's simply stealing pre-existing art and becoming better at duplicating it. A real person taking inspiration from something or someone to create something of their own isn't stealing.

[LDRi 54]

13 minutes ago, Bebe said:

To a degree, of course it’s ridiculous that the intellectual property of artists was used in the development of machine learning however our anger there should be places on the capitalist class rather than the technology itself. AI isn’t bad, it can hopefully be a useful tool.

In regards to AI being used in commercial spaces, the job displacement is a genuine concern however the reality is that it’s the future. The highly skilled and highly paid croppers of the 19th century lost their jobs to machines and we no longer chastise industries that use wide weaving frames. I believe the more effective and realistic response would be to focus on preparing for and reducing the impacts of AI in commercial spaces. Artists will still create far more interesting works, whether or not that art is highly commercialised is yet to be seen.

AI is likely to take my job in the future, so I’m not unsympathetic, I just don’t see that we are willing to uprise against oil and gas for their destruction of our planet, I don’t see that we are willing to uprise against the fashion industry for its use of sweatshops and slave labour and I don’t see us willing to uprise against Disney for AI generated images. I might be wrong, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the difference in reactions to AI seems to be that it’s effecting middle class people in “developed” countries rather than impoverished, invisible people on the other side of the world. Maybe class consciousness is possible.

Within the confines of capitalism we need realistic policies and solutions. I still do believe that chastising those who generate AI images is performative because it is already our reality and there is too much invested interest in all world governments and in the commercial world for development to stop or reverse.

We can type our thoughts on the internet, but at this point it comes across as yelling into a void. Whether we like it or not the next decade is going to be filled with customer service trained AI chatbots and AI generated media, how do we regulate it?

You bring up good points, I agree we need to shift the conversation from just "AI is bad" to "what policies are being implemented to contain and curb the misuse of AI". The problem is, like all things political, peoples' emotions region supreme here. My initial comment was made as an example of that. Before we can get to the, let's strategize and advocate and raise awareness point, we first need to establish a MORAL COMPASS from which we will all operate. 

Currently we have a split society where those using and supporting AI see its use in only the positive ways and are self-serving in a survivalist way. As in, oh this makes my own personal life easier I'm going to use it, I'm going to adapt. These people have virtually no regard for the negative impact their "smart choice" has on others' lives. Our individualistic society is really shining here. But on the other side is people who are only being hurt by AI, having their job stolen and relegated as "useless, unskilled". It's simply not realistic for everyone to "level up" like you're saying. The governments across the world have no interest in insuring everyone gains the new skills needed to survive in the AI world, in fact in America and other places the people keep voting for billionaires who will make sure such fair "skill-up" opportunities are only given to the upper class. It is explicitly clear that the billionaire vision is for rich people to simply produce money for themselves and never ever have to pay anyone. The only way to stop this is with something like Universal Basic Income to ensure people can survive when there are no more jobs being offered. But obviously it will take decades to even get people to agree on the basic concept of UBI let alone vote for it. 

In theory many of your points are great, and conversation needs to shift to being strategic but I just don't think we're there emotionally yet because the 2 groups of people I just mentioned are experiencing completely different realities and it will take time for those 2 groups to even feel comfortable being able to articulate their needs to each other. What we still need at the moment is more compassion for artists and creatives who see their entire source of purpose, joy, and passion, being trampled on and disrespected by people who have not one artistic bone in their body. To artists AI advancement is an act of aggression. Artists have zero desire to take away jobs or invalidate computer programmers' role is society. So when artists see developers actual be the opposite and SEEK to remove their role of course they're going to be reactive, it's human nature to seek to protect oneself. Never in history have we seen a group be so dismissed as creative people are being right now due to AI. There is real PAIN and hurt being experienced that needs addressed before we can shift to strategy mode. 

[tyler k 4,862]

people looking for another reason to hate Chappell, shocking 

[Railing 2,365]

6 hours ago, artdoll said:

I feel as if you sort of answered your own question. You see AI isn't being "trained" on existing art. It's simply stealing pre-existing art and becoming better at duplicating it. A real person taking inspiration from something or someone to create something of their own isn't stealing.

But the problem with that argument, AI spitting out a 1:1 copy of something is extremely unlikely. It's using images as reference data, yes, but it'll also reference dozens/hundreds/thousands/even millions of other images. And then people are gonna use that reference data to prompt an image that might not already exist.  Not saying AI compares to real art, but I think the "AI's reproducing people's work" thing is a bit of a distortion of the truth.

Edited Monday at 01:36 AM by Railing

[artdoll 45,477]

1 hour ago, Railing said:

 Not saying AI compares to real art, but I think the "AI's reproducing people's work" thing is a bit of a distortion of the truth.

It's really not though. There have been occasions where AI simply doesn't know what to do with the prompt it is given and will spit out nonsensical images or artwork that are direct copies with slight changes. It's essentially bypassing copyright and allowing people to not pay artists because it's "AI generated".

[Emvee 7,721]

In a few years when ai is inevitably normalized in music production, all these keyboard warriors will end up consuming the music anyway. 
 

So tired of all the virtue signaling that means nothing when action is needed. Organize to fight against the machine! Don’t just flail wildly at the nearest artist you can berate online. 

Edited Monday at 07:56 AM by Emvee

[Cavadour 2,022]

Very interesting conversation here.

That said I don't nurture any hope for the well being and the future of mankind as it stands.

From a wide angle and global point of view, the industrial revolution only exponentially increased our biotope devastation. This whole process has been released upon us for the profit of wealthy corporations and individuals.

AI just adds another tool of the trade to achive this goal and the demise.

 

PS- As a now retired independant graphic designer and musician, I jumped very early on the computer bandwagon. I don't need to be convinced about benefits of technology.

 

Edited Monday at 12:36 PM by Cavadour

[Gorehound 3,792]

I guess I see both sides in this particular example. AI is a menace to the artist community 100% and should not be supported, especially by high profile artists, but on a surface level here AI generators give fans who can't physically make art a chance to join in on the fun with Chappell's post. So I wouldn't say she's in the wrong here.

Edited Monday at 12:24 PM by Gorehound

[mightyriverz 1,711]

lol she asked for some random pic generation, it's not like she was asking for lyrics or something, if anything I'll praise her (more) for sparing people's times

[skedaddleBItCh 2,785]

It's literally not that hard to understand why people are against AI, particularly the use of Generative AI