As someone who plays an instrument (but who was never good at writing songs) I’m scared for actual artist having to share their creative process just to prove they didn’t use ai
Either be it my recording their tracks with video evidence and the waveform in the background, as many cover musicians are already doing, or by maybe sharing their creative process and their notes etc. Not only because it’ll only be more AI training data to fake but also because it gives them more work just to show they are not making slop content, but also because sometime you kind of want to keep those things to yourself as an artist. Either because of personal reasons or because you want to kinda keep the listener in the dark with what might be the meaning behind a certain phrase/verse
Especially if you don’t perform live as an artist life must be shit rn
Why scared? This is a new unique way to connect to fans and be real. For so long made artists have be foisted upon us with their looks, sound, lyrics, etc decided by a suit. This is an opportunity to turn this on it’s head.
Corporations already weren’t paying artists. For every aspiring artist that wins a court case against a corporation there are thousands who don’t. We really need to get away from the commercialization of art anyways. Most art that is made is never meant to be sold.
I am not scared for artists, if anything AI can literally do nothing to dissuade artists and will likely inspire a new generation of artistic innovation. What I do fear is how AI will be used outside of generating entertainment.
I’m not sure you understand how much a false accusation can harm an artist’s credibility and even their livelihood. Even if they prove they didn’t use AI a lot of the damage to their name or brand will be permanent.
Most people don’t care, so I am having a hard time understanding your worry. I suppose the small percentage of people that care won’t like an artist who is either openly using AI or falsely accused.
I think you must be referring to witch hunts which exist without AI. Artists careers have been damaged from all sorts of things and that is a cultural issue unrelated to just AI.
The back edge of generated content that I don’t see a lot of discussion about is mislabeling real content, accidentally or not. It’s gonna have a monumental affect on how we consume media, even for those that want to avoid it.
Then maybe stop treating it like a purity signal wielded like a weapon, and judge content based on its actual quality?
I know it’s a radical idea. But artists can use AI and also be fully emotionally invested in the process. Other artists can choose to use no AI at all. And some can even make interesting pieces that would be literally impossible without it.
Aim your ire at corruption and greed. Not the concept itself.
some can even make interesting pieces that would be *literally* impossible without it.
Got a “for instance”?
https://m.youtube.com/@ChloeVSHistory
First one that comes to mind, but I’m sure there are more.
Could this be made without AI? Yes, of course it could. But it would require a HUGE budget, and an entire studio dedicated to it.
Is the creator hiding the fact it was AI gen? No, of course not. Would I prefer it be created with studio quality and real actors with real props? Absolutely I would. But absent that, this is still a really cool project.
Could this be made without AI? Yes, of course it could. But it would require a HUGE budget, and an entire studio dedicated to it.
Got it. So not literally impossible.
So is the argument that restricting people’s creativity to only be expressed if you have the finances to do so, a good thing?
Because it is indeed literally impossible for the average person to create this without that technology.
So is the argument that restricting people’s creativity to only be expressed if you have the finances to do so, a good thing?
Holy strawman, Batman.
Because it is indeed literally impossible for the average person to create this without that technology.
Oh, we’ve also moved the goal posts I see.
I simply asked for a single example of something impossible to create without AI, which you have failed to provide.
You instead redefined “impossible”. Or, at least, added a bunch of qualifying words around it.
The average person can’t make a photorealistic painting. Is that “literally impossible” as well?
Oh for fucks sake, why is it the people worst at claiming fallacies are always the first to try to use them. No, this is neither a strawman, nor is it moving the goalposts. If I was moving the goalposts, I would have to create a new justification that could never be actually reached. What I did, was a clarification to counter a bad-faith interpretation.
My point was ALWAYS “This thing would not exist without AI.” Not that it was impossible to exist without it, but that the requirements for its creation exceed what the average person can be reasonably assumed to possess. The average person doesn’t have access to a multi-million dollar studio, and you taking my clarification as an attempt to move the goalposts is an admission to your own strawman attempt, not me moving the goalposts.
As for claiming I’m building a strawman, again, you’re wrong. At worst it would be a non sequitur, as it was an assessment built upon a series of questions. You can claim “No, that reasoning doesn’t follow the logic,” but a strawman is when I actively argue against a position you don’t hold, which is what you did.
And it’s not even a non sequitur, it’s just displaying your actual beliefs in a non-flattering light, which was the entire point.
People are using LLMs to express their creativity due to lack of skill in the creative arts. Painting, drawing, sketching, all of these skills take years of practice to get good at. Up until now, when people had in image in their minds eye, they either had to scour the Internet for someone that had already made that thing, pay someone else to make it for them, spend years learning the skill, or… Just never make it.
Whether you like it or not, these models ARE enabling people to express their creativity in ways that were gated behind money, or years of practice.
Whether you like it or not, demanding a total cessation of their use, is definitionally calling for the restriction on how people express themselves artistically. You don’t like the framing, because your pseudo position is being a champion of artists and the downtrodden, but my argument is that it’s actually just a purity position built on tribal identity and emotion.
And because I can feel your argument building already…
It would be a strawman to pivot to “What about the Grok stuff!” Or “What about all the copywrite infringement!” Which are both genuine issues that exist, nor am I defending them or justifying them AT ALL. But they’re unrelated to the specific point that I am making and was brought up in this thread.
Demanding a universal ban/cessation is inherently restricting people’s ability to express themselves. It’s claiming a tool is offensive or inherently dirty because of unrelated ways in which it has been abused, or used to hurt people. You cannot simultaneously demand inclusivity and accessibility be universal, while also cherry picking specific areas that it’s okay to gatekeep.
Should my nephew with cerebral palsy be insulted and admonished for not learning how to draw his DnD characters properly? Because that is genuinely what is happening from MANY people in this toxic purity movement. Or artists such as this that don’t use AI, but still get these purity police on their ass accusing them of it nonetheless.
it’s literally impossible for the average person to become an expert at my instrument (for three more months) because my instrument costs like six figures. i have literally met three people my entire life with one, and they don’t specialize in it the way i do.
i’m publishing the plans for an effective practice instrument that costs $300 in about three months.
i don’t plan on charging, because people are going to get so good at my instrument. i’m currently one of the best in the world but they’ll be able to blow me out of the water in five years with good practice. I’m so excited to see what people will be able to do.
I’m not sure if this is a metaphor, or genuine. But if it’s genuine I’m very curious to know what this instrument is!
If it’s a metaphor, I think it’s a good one. We build, design, draw, and create, with the hope that we make the world a better place in some small way. The person that invented the abacus did so, because they wanted to do mathematics easier. Should those have come before been offended that their years and years of doing math on their fingers was now being stolen and simplified?
This is the march of progress. And it fucking SUCKS that people are being hurt by it. I fully advocate for universal basic income, free education, and fully funded career transitions, because technology will never slow down, and people need to feel comfortable in order to embrace it.
Should it be used as a weapon? No. But it fully deserves the ire. Generated content can not and never will be art, and artists that make use of it taint their own work and further enable the societal and environmental harm that accompanies it. The problem here is not a matter of caring too much, but an issue of how to appropriately handle a difficult-to-distinguish imitation of something that matters a lot to a lot of people.
And who are you to claim to be the arbiter of what it is to “be art,” Eh? Is the conductor an artist? They’re not writing the music, or even playing a single instrument. Is the interpretive dancer an artist? They’re not actually making anything, just wiggling their arms in funny ways.
What gives you the right to decide what is and isn’t art? How precisely do you think yourself so much wiser and more accurate that the thousands that have come before you proudly claiming that X isn’t and never will be art? Videogames, novels, digital paintings, rock and roll, you name it, and someone before you has said it isn’t and never will be art.
This is nothing more than an argument for purity.
“I do not like this thing, I have decided it is dirty and tainted. Therefore, anything associated with it is automatically tainted. Here are some post-hoc reasonings as to why it is tainted.”
Yep, this is the most important threat of Gen AI in my opinion. The erosion of trust, and the following devaluation of truth, is already hurting society so much. And it will only get worse.
Remember, it’s not just «did someone actually paint this?». It is also «did this actually happen?» and «did they actually say that?».
A promotional image I created for a local queer rally was deemed “AI” by the community (the image was actually the result of me sacrificing 8 hours of sleep.) The vitriol I was hit with, including one of my fellow committee members passive aggressively implying I was lying about it not being AI, was enough to make me no longer want to volunteer my time or skills for my own community.
Which is really fucking shitty. The increased lateral attacks happening because of Gen-AI pitting us against one another benefits those fucks at the top, and they didn’t even have to work for it.
We’re gonna have to record video of ourselves doing work at this rate.
It doesn’t work, AI can fake those kinds of videos.
It really can’t. It can fake short video clips, poorly, but the example they gave was of eight hours of labor.
I bet this is because LLMs stole her art for training, so now that the LLM users have pumped out thousands of slop-art aping hers down to the colour palate and brushstrokes, her originals also get identified as also AI.
LLMs don’t steal art for training, image generation models are fed datasets by humans, which are then invoked by LLMs when prompted
Arguing semantics is a classic strategy of people who don’t have a valid argument to make.
This is exactly it. Also the reason that inputting an excerpt of a classical text (cfr. Dracula, Frankenstein, …) returns “likely AI” results - it’s literally what it was trained on.
For anyone doubting Kyrgizion’s claim:
It is likely compressed using some AI tool before saving on their servers.
Really sucks this ruined everything. I have no motivation for art or music because anything made in this era is suspect now and no one has any integrity. Why even release music when people probably won’t even listen to something that new. Should have stopped in 2012 boys.
Honest question, but is your only goal for for example music to put it online? I play music, an obvious goal of it is to play it for other people, and what does AI matter? They see me play the instrument and that’s the problem solved.
Yep. One of my finest moments as a musician was last year. Guy comes up to me after a show and says something like “gosh, I feel bad for you musicians, AI is taking your job.” I was just like “do you think I do this for money? I have a day job. I play music to meet and impress women, and you’ll never be able to do that with AI.”
Artist here. I don’t draw because I’m good at it. Or because other people are better at it than me.
I do it because I like it. A lot.
It makes me happy to be able to take something from my own brain and make it real enough that others can see it. I don’t want to make a career out of it or anything. But being able to draw things for my friends for Christmas or birthdays is something that makes them happy. Drawing my own assets for games I’m programming, or sketching dumb stickers for friend group in-jokes on Discord is satisfying.
Please keep drawing. Please keep making music. You don’t have to make anybody happy other than yourself. It’s as normal an expression of humanity as dancing or singing.
Thats cool, I have never been able to draw worth a crap! Its really cool seeing people do it though its impressive how hard drawing is to me.
I do enjoy it but as with anything its a lot of work, money and time and I’m not happy if I’m just plucking along, I need to be improving ans creating full albums etc but in the end it doesn’t seem worth it. People dont care, which is fine, and I’ll maybe go back and listen to it in a few years for fun. Ive tried full on quitting but I keep getting recruited into other bands and most of my friends are musicians.
It sounds like you’ve found a lifelong happy place. That’s a good thing. Keep it close, and keep doing it. And hey, if you post a 30 second snip of your music here, I’d listen to it.
The question is if it matters. If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either? It might be pretty but not art.
It’s only art if you look at it and it tells you something that can’t easily be communicated with a thousand words. Which means it’s subjective.
To some the true dystopian take for me is that anything pretty a human produces is automatically art. Because that means there is no value “actual art”. It’s all just pretty pictures.
If an image can’t be distinguished from what AI produces, isn’t it obviously slop too and not art either?
I can’t distinguish AlteredEgo’s comment from AI, so I think it may just be slop by default. Yeah. Unfortunately, he has nothing interesting to say—I’ve literally heard these exact words from like a hundred other places, so… I guess he’s just not worth talking to. What a boring guy. Really an NPC, if I’ve ever seen one.
Try to be more original, Ego. Originality, yeah. Then I think you might be worth listening to.
Hahahe touche. Just to be clear, originality or being novel would be only one facet of what makes good art or not. AI models could soon produce endless “novel” garbage which remain garbage.
And yeah you do have a point, if you look at the endless garbage comments rolling in on social media it does beg the question. If it’s indistinguishable from AI comments, what does it say about humanity? Or does social media diminish us as a species?
But I’m a proponent of using advanced algorithms and now LLMs to improve discourse on social media. For example the endless reposts of the same garbage, with the same emotional manipulation for karma or propaganda - this an AI model could see and tag. Like “this repost #120 of a video showing X without mentioning the context Y. Funny comments are “Z” and “W”. Emotional manipulation towards “U” politics.”
We as a species are easily emotionally manipulated. And those with money and power or those who find themselves in a righteous mob of same thinking morons have the ability to reshape how people perceive the world. This is how all facets of the pluralistic overton window have become more and more polarized and have shifted towards authoritarianism. Because the social media tools spread certain memes globally now. And you see that Lemmy, despite not being owned and controlled by capitalists and developed by communists has not magically made this problem go away.
If you hate AI slop comments you should also hate human slop comments at least to a degree. It is degrading to know that much of our content can be faked by a LLM machine, but it also opens the possibility to rise above it. Simply by tagging “this is AI quality garbage”. This is one application where the primitive verbal intelligence of AI could be useful as a tool because it can be broadly applied. To raise the bar.
I’m not going to say that all things created by people aren’t slop, but it’s also true that our context for understanding art can change over time. What we’re getting now, with certain art styles being associated with slop is a kind of Seinfeld effect.
To give a specific example: When the movie Annihilation came out, it quickly became a favorite of mine. I loved its visual style, and the narrative theme about broken people. A few months ago I re-watched it and realized that its visuals have been so coopted by endless slop recreations that I couldn’t disassociate it from AI output. Even though the themes were still there and no less resonant than when I first watched it, my brain couldn’t enjoy the film because I kept thinking about slop. The movie hadn’t changed and all the artistic intentionality behind its creation was still there, but my ability to enjoy it was destroyed.
Interesting. Because Gen AI is certainly the annihilation of certain facets of human creativity (I’d say the sloppiest aspects). What is creativity without meaning but annihilation? (EDIT: I’ve recently rewatched Annihilation and rewatching the ending now again, I love it more than ever because how relevant it is to the currently ongoing annihilation of our civilization).
It’s also a great example of how hate bandwagoning reduces enjoyment. I’ve seen this with “Rings of Power”. It’s not the best TV show, certainly not the worst. There are like 4 subreddits discussing the show, 3 filled with endless hate and vitriol. 1 with discussions about who or how artistic decisions were made this or that way and how it conflicts with the source material. Finding that community made watching the show more enjoyable again.
So the community you choose absolutely does affect how you can enjoy entertainment or art. Basically you shouldn’t allow yourself to be infected with hate mongering because that has it’s own “economy” of karma and grifting on e.g. youtube.
A more important example would be how judgemental opinions can affect the view on “minority” cultures or the global south. Liberalism wants to commercialize it, conservatism wants to purify it.
Let’s remove art from the debate then. It’s something that presumably took hard work and now that hard work is put into question.
It is but that is the harsh reality. Gen AI is no doubt an insult to what it means to be human, what we value about ourselves. What it means you either just enjoy the process, or have to work harder to create art that rises above. As long as you can see something with your inner eye and communicate that to others through your medium, art is saved.
But how much hard work is put into stuff that is never even questioned because it isn’t “trending” like OP for some reason? Because there isn’t enough bandwidth? How is that not the same problem we’ve had for the last decade? People created things in obscurity and nobody gave a shit.
Want to know what this tells me? The image is likely already in the training data.
The stated goal is that we won’t be able to tell the difference.
People are using AI to determine what is or is not AI so that they can avoid AI
This is funny
This is likely on purpose. The goal is to normalize AI and make people feel like “everyone uses ai”.
þe steal from artists and þen turn around and make damn sure þat þey cant have shit pipeline is what AI is all about. Given þe fact þat it looks like all of mainstram tech is AI pilled it seems like the only recouse is to leave and figure out some sort of alternative
Hi, I just wanted to let you know that the thorn makes it harder and more annoying to read your comment. You’re pushing real people away from interacting with you.
I’m fine wiþ ðat. I þink that modern written English has lost a lot of its original “character” and so I now use þ and ð. I’m well aware that it takes a few more seconds to figure out what I’ve written, if ðat pushes some people away from interacting wiþ me, ðat’s cool, ðey aren’t obliged to interact wiþ me.
