If you trace someone’s art or copy their style and were paid to do it yes that is generally frowned upon. And if someone posts their work that IS mainly just other styles combined, you encourage them because they are capable of making something new as they improve, possibly a style no one has seen or a unique take on an existing style. The ai will always be generating in the confines of its training data, and getting WORSE as it is trained on more ai art, not better.
The ai will always be generating in the confines of its training data
…and a human artist will be generating within the confines of their total experiences, even ones they aren’t consciously considering. Nothing is totally ex nihilo.
Not just their experiences, the mind can create things it has never experienced. Within the confines of what their mind can create, sure. It’s just that one is knowably confined, one is unknowably confined, and COULD go outside of what we currently have.
All artists copy, iterate or regurgitate existing work. What does pay have to do with anything? It’s clearly not a deciding factor for anti ai critics; the original post doesn’t mention payment at all.
they are capable of making something new as they improve, possibly a style no one has seen or a unique take on an existing style
This just isn’t how humans create. There’s also nothing stopping a human artist from taking inspiration from AI output (“wow, the combination of X subject in Y style is interesting. How can I improve it”), is there no value in that? Is that line of creativity forever tainted?
always be generating in the confines of its training data, and getting WORSE as it is trained
Categorically false for art. Ai output quality does get worse when you inbreed it on facts or data based in the real world. The only thing it’s really truly good at is hallucinating, which is a fine way of making art because the quality is entirely subjective.
A model with 60B parameters has something like ~60B^16 possible outputs. Just because humans currently lack the creativity to do anything interesting with it doesn’t mean the tool is slop.
There are real, ethical reasons to dislike our current AI usage. But saying all AI content is bad ipso facto is just reactionary nonsense.
If you trace someone’s art or copy their style and were paid to do it yes that is generally frowned upon. And if someone posts their work that IS mainly just other styles combined, you encourage them because they are capable of making something new as they improve, possibly a style no one has seen or a unique take on an existing style. The ai will always be generating in the confines of its training data, and getting WORSE as it is trained on more ai art, not better.
…and a human artist will be generating within the confines of their total experiences, even ones they aren’t consciously considering. Nothing is totally ex nihilo.
Not just their experiences, the mind can create things it has never experienced. Within the confines of what their mind can create, sure. It’s just that one is knowably confined, one is unknowably confined, and COULD go outside of what we currently have.
Not how AI works
All artists copy, iterate or regurgitate existing work. What does pay have to do with anything? It’s clearly not a deciding factor for anti ai critics; the original post doesn’t mention payment at all.
This just isn’t how humans create. There’s also nothing stopping a human artist from taking inspiration from AI output (“wow, the combination of X subject in Y style is interesting. How can I improve it”), is there no value in that? Is that line of creativity forever tainted?
Categorically false for art. Ai output quality does get worse when you inbreed it on facts or data based in the real world. The only thing it’s really truly good at is hallucinating, which is a fine way of making art because the quality is entirely subjective.
A model with 60B parameters has something like ~60B^16 possible outputs. Just because humans currently lack the creativity to do anything interesting with it doesn’t mean the tool is slop.
There are real, ethical reasons to dislike our current AI usage. But saying all AI content is bad ipso facto is just reactionary nonsense.