The original artist of this is AdiFitri
this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2025
374 points (100.0% liked)
196
662 readers
27 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
Other rules
Behavior rules:
- No bigotry (transphobia, racism, etc…)
- No genocide denial
- No support for authoritarian behaviour (incl. Tankies)
- No namecalling
- Accounts from lemmygrad.ml, threads.net, or hexbear.net are held to higher standards
- Other things seen as cleary bad
Posting rules:
- No AI generated content (DALL-E etc…)
- No advertisements
- No gore / violence
- Mutual aid posts require verification from the mods first
NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.
If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.
Other 196's:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Did he paid studio ghibli for making a draw of their characters? Did he asked the authors of the character for permission for using its image?
Is not that how it's supposed to work for anti-AI folks? Or is it "rules for thee but not for me"?
It's the same rule, "fair use". Copyright isn't absolute, it needs to strike a balance between "give creators control of their thing" but also "people deserve to participate in our collective culture."
Making a one-off drawing of a character and not trying to make money off of it likely checks the fair use boxes (it's an explicitly fuzzy system, so a trial would be needed to say for sure if it's fair use or not). Whether the training set for a generative AI system is fair use or not is still an open question, but many feel that it can't be, as it's operating on a massive scale (basically every image ever created by humanity) and has the potential to eliminate the entire industry of humans selling the art they create, which copyright is supposed to protect. Ghibli isn't going to be harmed by someone drawing a picture of their characters for a meme. It could be harmed by another company making money off of mass production of knockoffs of their style which were created with thousands of unauthorized copies of their direct artwork.
I have no respect of a AI user who use AI and call them Artist.
Hey, guess what! Your argument is so inane, even OpenAI is now convinced it was a really stupid idea too. But sure, go on pretending that freely available fan art by a single person is exactly the same as a paid service by a multi-billion dollar company.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I still stand by Generative AI being a useful tool. It's just in the hands of big unilateral corporate tech rather than a public state, and artists depend on IP laws to gain profits to live, rather than being supported by a robust welfare state to provide art for a robust public domain.
Related, the post-WWII programs in England that fueled the Rock-&-Roll boom in the 1960s (with the invention and development of the electric guitar). Socialized art is a system that works well!
And yes, we'll probably have to collapse the current civilization and rebuild it with mutant animals before we get there. < sad, disappointed existential dread face >
It's just in the hands of big unilateral corporate tech rather than a public state, and artists depend on IP laws to gain profits to live, rather than being supported by a robust welfare state to provide art for a robust public domain.
The second situation is a fantasy until after we have a communist revolution. So, don't defend gen AI until after we create communism.
The second situation is a fantasy until after we have a communist revolution.
Only because it was taken from the public by Disney, since the courts ceased recognizing the public as stakeholders.
But the Constitutional function of copyright is to create a robust public domain. As that is no longer the function of copyright, we can abolish it. And the only thing that is keeping us from abolishing it is the same obstacles keeping us from abolishing autocracy.
So revolution that bridges the way to socialized art may be more necessary in the immediate future than it appears (whether or not it's easy).
Great post, drew out a couple of the most annoying kind of person on the internet so I could block them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Good to see Porco Rosso getting some love!
Gen. A.I. user and absolutely unashamed for it O7
Pick it up yourself
They aren't the one pretending to create art
Exactly. That's the problem. You should be.
No.
Bullying people who does no harm to anyone is cool now?
Many people use gen AI for completely innocuous tasks. And for many things that harm nobody. Still you take pleasure insulting and degrading Innocent people.
That's not better than any other bully/oppresor.
Don't act surprised when people stop helping and having solidarity with your fights when you have spent a decade insulting everyone around you.
There's nothing wrong with making fun of someone for making a bad life choice.
Bullying people for things that they can't change about themselves is different. That's not cool
This level of insult is bullying.
And it's not a bad life choice. Bad life choice is choosing to go online to insult a lot of innocent people in other to feed that bad human in your heart.
These latest years """"left leaning""" spaces have been feeling more like right wing echo chambers of hate and bigotry towards more and more and more people.
Mark my words, this will have consequences, and some people may ask in a couple of years how is it that no one came for help when they need it. And they shall remember that the blatantly insulted those they will be asking for help and that people just got sick of them.
At least it's what's happening to me. There are many places I won't show up for helping, that I would have helped in the past. But I cannot stand next to people who have show me that they have the heart as full of hate as the alt-right. We will most likely end up forming our own spaces I suppose.
Mark my words, this will have consequences, and some people may ask in a couple of years how is it that no one came for help when they need it. And they shall remember that the blatantly insulted those they will be asking for help and that people just got sick of them.
These comments just make me sad, because I have a feeling you are not talking specifically about artists mad at AI art when you say 'some people'. You are letting the voices of a few people convince you to abadon the silence of a majority. And in this current political world, that could result in a lot of people who see eye to eye with you being punished.
It makes me sad too. But the amount of people who just push hate speech for every little thing in left leaning spaces nowadays is too big.
In this case the little thing is just insulting people using an AI tool (not even the big bussiness they are insulting the PEOPLE). But I've seen it more and more with a lot of different examples in the latest years. Another big instance is militant veganism, I'm sick of being called a rapist and a genocidal guy equivalent to Hitler for just eating meat, so they are alone until they got their shit together and start calling out the bigots in their spaces.
And like those two each year that passes there's something new you have to blindly follow the lead or be insulted for doing nothing wrong. It feels like in the left community things are not open to debate anymore, and any dissidence of though is quickly punished. It's almost ironic that the place for diversity does not feel like any diverse thinking is allowed anymore.
This AI thing have not even be debated anywhere, some people decided that it's bad and that's it. No further arguments are allowed, and it's free season for hunting and insulting the PEOPLE that even dares to use a tool that's everywhere to use right now.
I know is a vocal minority, and that's the vocal minority I want to leave out, and I hope we can build spaces where this hateful people are called out. Because right now in the community spaces we have these people are not being called out, quite the contrary they are prone to reach positions of power and take hold of the communities, most probably because people prone to violence and conflict are far more likely to fight and achieve for positions of power. While peaceful people tend to get away from such conflicts.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
You know, if you're not good at art, you don't have to be an artist. Not everyone needs to paint the mona lisa. You can just do something you're good at instead.
If you are not good at painting portraits or landscapes you cannot use a camera, that's cheating. You need to leave that task to oil painters. Because pushing a button and getting an image is not art.
Only oil painters are real artists. If you are not an oil painter don't even dare to try to express yourself.
People with cameras choose what they take photos of.
People using AI also choose what they want to create.
And generative artists for instance, a lesser clue of what the final result will be than a AI artist.
Generative art is not art?
Collages are art?
Art gatekeepers are always funny, full of inconsistencies.
The point of art is humanity. Art is inherently an expressive medium. There’s no such thing as “good” art or “bad” art. If you’re outsourcing your art to a machine, a glorified denoising algorithm, you lose the point. Sure, it might look pretty. Sure, it may be of the style and appearance you are aiming for. Nonetheless, it is not art, as it is inherently inhuman.
What is human is the effort that went into making that algorithm do what you want. The art is not the image, the art is the algorithm. The art is the prompt, by definition. But the image is not art, and calling it that is a misnomer.
You are free to believe what you want. Nobody can change your opinion by willing it. I have used generative AI “art” applications before. While they’re interesting, and have their uses, (such as coming up with new ideas, or to assist with backgrounding, which is what I have used them for,) what they create simply is not art. Their output is not copyrightable.
To draw a stick figure is to make art. To write a detailed description of an image is literary art. To feed that description into GAI is an action one may take, but its output is not art.
So generative art is not art?
Generative art is an art style that existed for decades (some people even mark up the XVIII century as the birth of this style). In this art style the artist create an algorithm, and that algorithm will later produce diverse results (music or plastic arts) based on randomness so the final result is unknown and volatile.
This art is not made with traditional techniques, as an algorithm is used to produce the final piece. Nowadays this art is obviously computer generated.
And no, this kind of generative art does no uses or have anything to do with AI generative art. Completely different techniques.
So generative art is not art?
The public has largely decided that it's not. That's why it's controversial to use. Don't waste my time.
Typical, talking all that much about art and don't know shit about art.
Here, for your knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
Generative art exist since the XVIII century, much earlier than you have even been alive. And boomed with computer era in the 60s. And have never been specially controversial (not more controversial that any other contemporary art style at least).
And not, it's not AI art. It is a different art style that people that like to fill their mouths """defending"" art don't even know.
That's what you get for following the dogma without using your brain. Radical ignorance. People that "don't know and don't want to know" no wonder that political situation is how it is with so many people rejecting knowledge and just following religion or religion-like dogmas.
Well, it's a shame that chatgpt through sheer corporate momentum has completely erased whatever branch of artistic expression this is.
You should be pissed at Sam Altman for appropriating your culture.
I'm not into identity politics, sorry. Can't say I'am surprised anti-AI people having an overlap with indentity-politics.
You "can't say you're surprised" that anti-AI people are left of the overton window? Amazing.
This is true, however, i covered that in my previous response. The algorithm hand-made by a human is the art.
That seems a convoluted disticntion.
When I see these pieces in museums I've seen the piece not the algorithm. I should call the artists and museum curators and tell them they are doing it wrong.
I suppose with digital art the art is the brushes and the log of movements, not the final .png
The intent for the artists is to create the final images, the thing that the viewer enjoys is the final images. I think it's easy to asume than the final images are art. Even if you also want to consider the code itself a piece of art, that's totally ok.
I’ve really painted myself in the corner with my semantics, pun intended.
Before we delve too deeply into these definitions, and because I have to pick up a family member from the airport in a few minutes, i’ll just leave a few links that illustrate (pun intended, again) my point a bit better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics
The arts or creative arts are a vast range of human practices of creative expression, storytelling, and cultural participation. The arts encompass diverse and plural modes of thinking, doing, and being in an extensive range of media.
People using AI also choose what they want to create.
No, they do not. That is, in fact, the point of having a decision engine make decisions for you. I would know, I've used it.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don't make you a master of graphite on canvas.
So no, you would not know. Same as you have show me a vast lack of knowledge in art-related themes.
Once again I must repeat that you don't even knew what the concept of generative art, as the conceptual art that started getting famous on the 1960s, is.
How are you even able to talk about these topics without such basic previous knowledge?
You have the right to have opinions, but you must admit that opinions from people who know are more valuable that opinions from people who does not know. I have argued here with people with very based and knowledge-funded opinions against AI art. I would recommend to read those to get an oposition to my points.
Holding a pencil over a piece of paper don't make you a master of graphite on canvas.
But it does make you an artist.
Being an artist is nothing special. As I have been defending since forever, everyone and everything can be an artist. Even the wind and the rain can be artists in the sense that they can create art. What's difficult in this life is being a GOOD artist. That, very few are.
Even the wind and the rain
Sorry, those aren't people. The Grand Canyon might be awe-inspiring, but it's not art.
This is what it always comes down to. Every single one of you thinks that art is spectacle. It's very consumerist of you.
That we disagree.
And I know that my definition of art is not common. But art is not a scientific term. Is the most subjective matter in the world, so I feel free to give my own interpretation which is as valid as any other.
To me art is more intrinsic to the object than to the way it was created. Something being art is defined, by me, in the eye who looks and not in the hand who made it. Art is made by the viewer in some way, not by whatever created the thing that's being perceived. It's a way to look at what art it that it's truly ego shatering for artists (which are not wildly known for having on average small egos). But I like it. And I can really argue for that:
Imagine infinite monkeys with typewriters, they will eventually write Hamlet, exactly as Shakespeare wrote it, letter by letter. That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare's version is? Even if they are identical, and will produce the exact same feelings in the audience?
That version of Hamlet is not art, but Shakespeare's version is?
Yes. For the same reason that training a chatbot on your mom's happy birthday texts will never be good enough.
Do you need to feel a love connection with every artist? If not that response is not really relevant isn't?
It is literally the same. If I put it side by side you will not be able to distinguish them. If you cannot distinguish between two things they are the same.
If you were a future archeologist and found those two scripts. Your job as an archeologist is to catalogue the arts and crafts of past civilizations. How would you able to take the script written by the monkey and thrown it into the trash while taking the Shakespeare script and put it into a museum, when the two of them are exactly the same, and you have no evidence on who wrote it?
If you need to know that something was made by an human to be considered art then you may have issues when you see a piece of art without the ability to know it's contexts. For me that's an inconsistency. Something being art or not cannot depend on the knowledge on who or what did it.
Again all this is subjective. If we want an objective truth we need to do some science. Thus an experiment. We could try to define art by the physiological responses that individuals have perceiving certain things, those which share the same physiological response can be considered art. Or even if we want to add the axiom that art NEEDs to be made by humans, we could look and measure the physiological responses of individuals making different things, and catalogue those with the same physiological response as art makers, or artist and the products of those actions art. It would be interesting to do these experiments and add traditional and AI art into the mix, don't you think?
How would you able to take the script written by the monkey and thrown it into the trash
Why would I throw a marvelous statistical anomaly into the garbage?
Something being art or not cannot depend on the knowledge on who or what did it.
It can. It does. "Welcome to the neighborhood!" from your neighbor and from a local Internet Service Provider inherently mean different things, even if they're "identical."
you may have issues when you see a piece of art without the ability to know it's contexts.
For most of human history, I've been able to assume that something that looks like it was built by people was built by people.
The existence of LLMs has made me more cautious, yeah. Seems like a societal net-negative.
If we want an objective truth
God, this is why stem majors need to take humanities.
Just curious and for a good laugh.
Can you be more specific in why do you think that a stem major would need to also study humanities? Do you think studying humanities make you a superior being? A better human? Do you think the study of humanities is what gives people morals and people that had not study humanities are all sinners that would go to hell? I've heard it all.
But I'm curious to hear one more. What way do you think truth about nature can be approached that it is not the scientific method?
I know that some people approach truth by dogma "this is true because I (or someone I like) say so" but I must never agree on that.
I can have all opinions about art that I want, same can you. As long as they are internally consistent probably both will be true. I think "art is what make people feel they are perceiving art" is better than "art is something that is made by someone who a subculture of the western world gives the rank of artist and that it was not made by a technology based on neural networks generation text-to-image as it was presented in the year 2021". But both are still opinions, if you want something more solid you need the scientific method and experimentation.
Can you be more specific in why do you think that a stem major would need to also study humanities?
The fact that you would even ask this. Do you even know what they study in there? Speaking of rejecting knowledge, my guy, there is so much out there to learn. You have trapped yourself within the smallest box.
is better than "art is something that is made by someone who a subculture of the western world [...]"
Mine is actually "art is communication," but if being dishonest makes you feel better, go for it, buddy.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I feel like all the people out there are mindless NPCs that just do anything a big corp say it's cool. make me feel helpless
view more: next ›