RuPaul under fire for using AI special effects in new movie

[gagzus 21,105]

22 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

 

 

The Luddites said the same of the automated loom; unfortunately we all know how that story ended. Now even the few actual couturiers still use fabrics made on an automated loom. I suspect the perspective will change with time on this, too - and artists will be lauded for how they use AI. 

I respect the opinions, and agree that there’s a grave loss of respect for artists skills - but I think there’s also a bevy of new opportunities for creatives to take while embracing the use of AI. 

A massive problem with genAI though isn’t about the loss of respect for artistic skill, that already is pretty low when you think about how non-artistic people think about modern art vs traditional art. The problem is it’s literally theft. 

GenAI uses pre-existing styles and creations (all mashed together) from unwilling participants. And because it isn’t correctly moderated the average person can use it. Which makes people misunderstand creativity and have the opinion “oh I’m an artist now” which isn’t correct. As a graphic designer I see so many AI posters that have massive problems with their designs because they use the same 5 design styles as a base but then will throw in other styles for different elements.
 

As I’ve said before, using genAI doesn’t make you an artist it makes you a collagist.

Which at the same time is an insult to actual collagists. GenAI isn’t like DaDa which uses pre-existing material to give new meaning to it. GenAI has no meaning it’s just corporate and straight forward because it doesn’t use human emotion to create. It’s homogeneous. 
 

Portrait artists didnt disappear because photography was invented for instance. Even today you can get a portrait painted of you if you wish and same as you can have a photoshoot done. 
 

And a big thing people don’t understand and will probably find controversial is me saying is; not everyone is creative and you can’t just become creative. 

[VelvetVenus 19]

If someone explained me the AI concept a few years ago I’d FOR SURE name Rupaul as its first potential user 

[MountainMonster 2,370]

19 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Societal degradation. The shrinking of the working class. The slow erosion of industrial communities through de-skilling and wage deprecation which has in first world nations become a driving factor in hyper partisanship, political radicalisation, political violence, the destruction of the social contract. 

Its a propaganda of history that luddites were against advancement.

The luddite movement was specifically an attack on a ruling class that sought to weaken the working populations. It was an attack on low wages, it was a battle against the deliberate designs by the industrialists to make workers poorer. Luddites of the time weren't attacking technology, they were attacking the wealthy who were seeking to undercut workers. 

The luddites were fighting against a deathmarch to poverty during a period of high unemployment and high inflation caused by the napolenic wars. 

They also campaigned for higher minimum wages and to end child labour exploitation. 

Its a massive oversimplification and bastardisation of history to boil luddites down to being technophobes.

How much longer are those of us who have to work to live going to accept technological advancement making it harder to get well paid work while the owners of it get richer? 

Are we really supposed to just sit still and watch as the few remaining employment opportunities in western societies are increasingly automated and human workers are forced out? 

Perhaps automating the mundane is the answer to escaping capitalism. If jobs are gone for workers, then there is no one for capitalists to sell to. It’s a viscous, symbiotic relationship - and perhaps instead of revolting at the thought of automation, we push through it to the point that human lives can no longer be viewed as working capital. Additionally, skilled labor is typically code for manual labor workers. Those who sacrifice their body to earn a paycheck. Technology, and AI, have afforded people the ability to stop working their limbs to the point of long term disability, simply to accrue a paycheck. 

[MountainMonster 2,370]

3 minutes ago, gagzus said:

As I’ve said before, using genAI doesn’t make you an artist it makes you a collagist.

Do the artistic masters still life paintings make them simply collagists? Is everyone who used chiaroscuro after DiVinci simply a copycat? Are all realists just the slowest photographers?

and that simply disregards the written component to generative AI. Poor results come from poor prompts. Is there no art in being able to articulate what you want created? And what about those who generative AI gives the opportunity to create who perhaps lack the skills, or even worse, are perhaps disabled to where they are unable to create in any way other than to articulate what they’re looking for? I understand that there is fear in the impacts to what generative AI can do to jobs and profitability of art - and that is a problem. But we can’t keep pretending that AI doesn’t have substantial benefits, including increasing accessibility to creation. 

[Bronco 22,419]

Just now, MountainMonster said:

Perhaps automating the mundane is the answer to escaping capitalism. If jobs are gone for workers, then there is no one for capitalists to sell to. It’s a viscous, symbiotic relationship - and perhaps instead of revolting at the thought of automation, we push through it to the point that human lives can no longer be viewed as working capital. Additionally, skilled labor is typically code for manual labor workers. Those who sacrifice their body to earn a paycheck. Technology, and AI, have afforded people the ability to stop working their limbs to the point of long term disability, simply to accrue a paycheck. 

Yeah, the whole "this is the solution to capitalism" argument sounds great until you look outside and see what is happening. 

The world is being made uninhabitable for the workers. The wealthy are building bunkers and exploring how to live in space. Meanwhile, the workers are being told to stop breeding, global food production is becoming under increasing threat due to climate change and widespread destruction of natural biomes. 

Since the 60s, industrial manual labour jobs have been increasingly automated. Thats why the rust belt exists - because that industrial region's working class population was destroyed by automation without a just transition for workers. They were laid off en masse and left to rot. Rather than their jobs being made safer (which was costly) they were replaced by machines with the bare minimum staff retained to service those machines - while the tech was built to remove those jobs as well. 

There is nothing to be gained by forcing automation through without actually removing the power from those who are funding automation advancements to increase their wealth through exploitation. Its signing a death warrant. 

Technology has not afforded people the ability to stop working their limbs to the point of disability - they've created alternative ways to achieve workplace disability. 

There's a reason why desk workers have increased neck, back and eye issues in life. 

And the loss of those manual labour jobs in industrialised communities didn't improve people's lives - they are among the most deprived regions in western nations. And its not just the workers immediately effected, there is a wealth of data showing successively worse outcomes in education & health for each successive generation born in those areas.

[Ilia Malinin 2,609]

3 hours ago, MountainMonster said:

Just like a general question for the room… is this a battle worth fighting? I mean, it’s happening regardless, unfortunately. 

as someone who is a creative like gagzus, yes.  ai is actively taking away the jobs of freelance artists like me.  something i would take anywhere from 2 hours to 2 weeks to make can be made in seconds with ai.  my commissions have been dry for over a year because of the rise of generative ai.  it needs to stop somewhere.

[gagzus 21,105]

12 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

Do the artistic masters still life paintings make them simply collagists? Is everyone who used chiaroscuro after DiVinci simply a copycat? Are all realists just the slowest photographers?

No because all these things are man made and no 2 people will make the same thing and they aren’t homogenous.

12 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

and that simply disregards the written component to generative AI. Poor results come from poor prompts.

Even great prompts will give you terrible results because as I said above. GenAI is homogenous and limited.

12 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

Is there no art in being able to articulate what you want created? And what about those who generative AI gives the opportunity to create who perhaps lack the skills, or even worse, are perhaps disabled to where they are unable to create in any way other than to articulate what they’re looking for?

You articulate what you create in your own way, and it will be unique to you. Art and articulation aren’t straight forward, you learn new things about creating things as you create it. AI only has the capability for definition and there’s only some articulation that happens with time during creation. And like I said AI is homogenous and uses other people’s creativity to make something. Human error is what makes great art, AI is perfected so perceived errors can’t occur. No 2 humans will have the same brush stroke but a million AI paintings will.

As for the disability angle, that’s not how accessibility works. Creative disabled people exist and can create great art. Artists find a way. 
 

If you can’t find a way or to articulate, you’re not an artist you just think you’re an artist. You’re an artist if you want to draw  say a cat and tou just create it in your own imperative way, but you’re not an artist if you say “I want to draw a cat” but can’t find a “way” to draw a cat because you’re comparing it to a pre-defined way and not doing it your own way.  
 

That’s what artists vs AI is. An artist will create from their own vision, AI creates from a definite article. 

 

12 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

 

I understand that there is fear in the impacts to what generative AI can do to jobs and profitability of art - and that is a problem. But we can’t keep pretending that AI doesn’t have substantial benefits, including increasing accessibility to creation. 

As I’ve said before generative AI has zero benefits. Literally zero. The people whose art it uses arent credited or compensated. The art it makes is cold and homogenous and part of making art is learning through experience. You learn nothing from a prompt.

Assistive AI is great and has been around for years. For example if you search for specific words and compile them and highlight them in a document, that’s a form of AI. It‘s helpful and assistive it isn’t telling you “this is how it should be written” or “this is the best version of this”.
 

Even if we take away the tragic effects on the environment, great art in history was made by humans. Not AI.
 

New techniques were invented BECAUSE of human error and experiments, and we should continue to nurture talent. 
Because in the arts new movies, plays, music, paintings, designs all come from people’s imaginations and inspired by their life and other media. 

[MountainMonster 2,370]

1 minute ago, gagzus said:

No because all these things are man made and no 2 people will make the same thing and they aren’t homogenous.

Even great prompts will give you terrible results because as I said above. GenAI is homogenous and limited.

You articulate what you create in your own way, and it will be unique to you. Art and articulation aren’t straight forward, you learn new things about creating things as you create it. AI only has the capability for definition and there’s only some articulation that happens with time during creation. And like I said AI is homogenous and uses other people’s creativity to make something. Human error is what makes great art, AI is perfected so perceived errors can’t occur. No 2 humans will have the same brush stroke but a million AI paintings will.

As for the disability angle, that’s not how accessibility works. Creative disabled people exist and can create great art. Artists find a way. 
 

If you can’t find a way or to articulate, you’re not an artist you just think you’re an artist. You’re an artist if you want to draw  say a cat and tou just create it in your own imperative way, but you’re not an artist if you say “I want to draw a cat” but can’t find a “way” to draw a cat because you’re comparing it to a pre-defined way and not doing it your own way.  
 

That’s what artists vs AI is. An artist will create from their own vision, AI creates from a definite article. 

 

As I’ve said before generative AI has zero benefits. Literally zero. The people whose art it uses arent credited or compensated. The art it makes is cold and homogenous and part of making art is learning through experience. You learn nothing from a prompt.

Assistive AI is great and has been around for years. For example if you search for specific words and compile them and highlight them in a document, that’s a form of AI. It‘s helpful and assistive it isn’t telling you “this is how it should be written” or “this is the best version of this”.
 

Even if we take away the tragic effects on the environment, great art in history was made by humans. Not AI.
 

New techniques were invented BECAUSE of human error and experiments, and we should continue to nurture talent. 
Because in the arts new movies, plays, music, paintings, designs all come from people’s imaginations and inspired by their life and other media. 

I just don’t agree. Entering the same prompt into generative AI twice will yield different results - which completely contrasts with your argument that it is homogenous. It also learns from mistakes, just like humans do. If you offer a correction, it will adjust accordingly. Additionally, it’s very dismissive to say disabled people “will find a way,” and disregarding generative AI as a method. Regardless, we just don’t see eye to eye on it. 

[MountainMonster 2,370]

9 minutes ago, Ilia Malinin said:

as someone who is a creative like gagzus, yes.  ai is actively taking away the jobs of freelance artists like me.  something i would take anywhere from 2 hours to 2 weeks to make can be made in seconds with ai.  my commissions have been dry for over a year because of the rise of generative ai.  it needs to stop somewhere.

I’m sorry to hear that. I definitely understand the perspective of when it impedes your cash flow. Hopefully things change quickly for you. 

[TEETHTEETH 1,790]

Is anyone surprised? This is the new commonplace. AI is going to be used on some level across the board. Like it or not. I only hope it’ll be used with discretion and let the integrity still shine.  

[MountainMonster 2,370]

23 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Yeah, the whole "this is the solution to capitalism" argument sounds great until you look outside and see what is happening. 

The world is being made uninhabitable for the workers. The wealthy are building bunkers and exploring how to live in space. Meanwhile, the workers are being told to stop breeding, global food production is becoming under increasing threat due to climate change and widespread destruction of natural biomes. 

Since the 60s, industrial manual labour jobs have been increasingly automated. Thats why the rust belt exists - because that industrial region's working class population was destroyed by automation without a just transition for workers. They were laid off en masse and left to rot. Rather than their jobs being made safer (which was costly) they were replaced by machines with the bare minimum staff retained to service those machines - while the tech was built to remove those jobs as well. 

There is nothing to be gained by forcing automation through without actually removing the power from those who are funding automation advancements to increase their wealth through exploitation. Its signing a death warrant. 

Technology has not afforded people the ability to stop working their limbs to the point of disability - they've created alternative ways to achieve workplace disability. 

There's a reason why desk workers have increased neck, back and eye issues in life. 

And the loss of those manual labour jobs in industrialised communities didn't improve people's lives - they are among the most deprived regions in western nations. And its not just the workers immediately effected, there is a wealth of data showing successively worse outcomes in education & health for each successive generation born in those areas.

Ok - and you’re missing the synthesis of my argument. What’s your alternative solution? You and I and no one else is going to stop generative AI. None of you will stop watching Drag Race. None of you have left here despite several known instances of Gaga using generative AI. You’re still feeding it time and money but looking disdainfully at every instance of its usage; I just think it’s obviously not an instance of anyone actually having a moral line in the sand where they’re willing to actually put their money where their mouth is. 
 

and regarding the neck, back and eye issues of desk jobs - be so fr… I’d take any of those over losing appendages, my life or developing terminal diseases from working in labor and manufacturing. 

[gagzus 21,105]

3 minutes ago, MountainMonster said:

I just don’t agree. Entering the same prompt into generative AI twice will yield different results - which completely contrasts with your argument that it is homogenous. It also learns from mistakes, just like humans do. If you offer a correction, it will adjust accordingly. Additionally, it’s very dismissive to say disabled people “will find a way,” and disregarding generative AI as a method. Regardless, we just don’t see eye to eye on it. 

It doesn’t contrast with my argument though because it comes from a pool of references and can’t create anything from scratch therefore it is homogeneous. It can’t invent a new way of creating something that doesn’t already exist. Like I said no 2 painters have the same brush stroke, no 2 people have the same handwriting. AI uses a pre-existing image and mashes it with other pre-existing elements. It will never have a unique signature. If it did we’d never be able to detect AI, which we can — because it’s homogenous.

Disabled artists will find a way to make art because they’re artists, because a painter who wants to paint needs to physically paint (doesn’t have to be with a brush, your hands or anything anybody else has done, you can do what you’re capable of) and won’t ask AI to make a painting for them. Same for a writer, a musician and beyond. 

Creativity and skill aren't mutually exclusive.

Art is tactile, there’s no right or wrong way to paint or to write. If there were then every painter would have the ability to make a Van Gough or a Picasso identically technique for technique, stroke for stroke, colour for colour. That’s what AI does, not art.

 

 

[MountainMonster 2,370]

2 minutes ago, gagzus said:

Art is tactile, there’s no right or wrong way to paint or to write. If there were then every painter would have the ability to make a Van Gough or a Picasso identically technique for technique, stroke for stroke, colour for colour. That’s what AI does, not art.

Are photographers artists? We don’t read Shakespeare in his own handwriting - does that mean that his plays aren’t artists? Were the weavers on looms not artists because there are only so many stitches? Are you not an artist because you create on a computer, not by hand? I think the idea is the art, not the product - the method to get there is simply that. 

[gagzus 21,105]

1 minute ago, MountainMonster said:

Are photographers artists? We don’t read Shakespeare in his own handwriting - does that mean that his plays aren’t artists? Were the weavers on looms not artists because there are only so many stitches? Are you not an artist because you create on a computer, not by hand? I think the idea is the art, not the product - the method to get there is simply that. 

Yes photographers are artists because they’re physically using a camera and arranged a composition and created something from nothing and (back in the day) you would treat photographs physically in a room. 
 

We don’t read it in his own handwriting but it was written in his handwriting in the first place and those phrases and stories didnt exist before he created them. To the point he literally invented entirely new words that we use today. They didn’t exist before, AI isn’t going to invent new terms it can o my use a pre-existing one.

The weavers were because they physically created something, and yes you are an artist when you use a computer because you’re (once again) creating something from scratch that didnt previously exist. And if you do steal or use pre-existing material you get permission, buy rights or you are rightfully disciplined for copyright infringement. Whereas AI isn’t regulated to do that.

The idea is the art, but the product is also the art, and as I said GenAI doesn’t have an original thought nor an original product. If you ask for a surrealist painting it will create something that 1) isn’t a painting it’s a photo (which defeats the purpose of asking for a painting) and 2) something that uses other surrealist artist’s interpretations and not your own.
 

So it isn’t art. It’s a collage or the equivalent of gathering sources and (ironically) not crediting them. 

 

[SpadesToStart 3,772]

World of Wonder is an incredibly unethical company that will do anything to save a buck so…this is not the least bit surprising.