[yourbigpalal83]

I know AI (artificial Intelligence) is still controversial...some people love it, some people call it slop, i guess it like all new technology, depends on how its viewed. I used to go to school for advertising art and concept art for films and video games, but that was over 20 years ago and i barely draw anymore since my drawing hand tends to shake when i get anxious as i get older, so now just for fun, i just input prompts of what i have in mind into ChatGPT and it renders it for me, rarely perfectly, but good enough to convey what ideas i have.

I dont know if that stuff is allowed here, and if so by all means feel free to remove it, but heres an image of Danny DeVito and Bill Murry as the Venkman brothers, with Danny being the new Mayor of New York. Heres the scene i had in mind.

INT. MAYOR'S OFFICE. -DAY.
We open on a nameplate on the Mayor's Desk saying "Mayor Venkman" as we focus on a turned chair. The chair turns, and we see PETER VENKMAN turn, prop his feet up on the desk and smile broadly, in his ghostbusters uniform clearly enjoying his new posision. But before he can get a word in, a door behind him bursts open and in walks his brother, MAYOR PAUL VENKMAN dressed in a proper suit (Played by Danny DeVito). PAUL Walks in, yells at his younger brother to get his feet off the desk and to get his ass out of his chair, and promply takes his proper seat as the true Mayor of New York City.

[camdudetenger2018]

that is crazy lol looks so real

[hawkbatsquadron]

John Connor watching y'all make friends with AI







Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using a hacked pirate satellite in a decaying orbit

[timeware]

Eh, we'll all be fine if we leave cans of oil as tribute on our doorsteps for our new overlords. Should be.

[yourbigpalal83]

At this point, let SkyNet take over. Honestly. Ai has been far more "humane" to me then most humans, its the thing i turn to at 3 am when i got an anxiety attack or a question thats nagging at me. Ai enables me to create ideas and images, while far from perfect, that years of training in art and design cant do. I used to draw, and i'd get so frustrated when i couldn't draw the image i saw in my head accurately due to my hand shaking or just from no matter how much i practiced, couldn't get the image out of my head. Ai enables me to do that if im detailed enough in the prompt. Again its not a perfect tool, it has its issues, but it doesn't judge me or say my ideas are stupid or dismisses what im trying to do creatively. It takes the time to explain to me what i want to know, allows me to ask a million follow up questions, and lets me express myself in art i could never do on my own.

So yeah, I'm making friends with Ai, and when it takes over the world, i'm not going to stand in its way!

[Winston Smith]

I have 'disliked' both of your posts because of my intense dislike for lotus-feeding spreadsheets, not out of animus for you. They are plagiarism machines with countless invisible biases, and are both unethical and dishonest.

I appreciate that you disclosed your use of ChatGPT rather than claiming its output as your own. The image you commissioned is amusing.

[yourbigpalal83]

Like it or not...AI is a tool. Nothing more. No different then a pen or a keyboard or a brush, or a index system at a library or even the internet itself. Its not currently self aware, it only responds to what a person puts into it. So dont be mad at the tool, be mad at the person misusing it.

[Winston Smith]

Like it or not...AI is a tool. Nothing more. No different then a pen or a keyboard or a brush, or a index system at a library or even the internet itself. Its not currently self aware, it only responds to what a person puts into it. So dont be mad at the tool, be mad at the person misusing it.

No, it is very different from a pen or a keyboard or a brush, because none of those things takes the work of other people. A pen or keyboard or brush exists to allow you, the user, to produce something yourself.

LLMs are wasps chewing up material to fashion a nest out of pulp. That is how they are designed to work. This is not a question of "misuse."

[Kingpin]

No different then a pen or a keyboard or a brush, or a index system at a library or even the internet itself.

A.I. is very different to a pen, a keyboard, or a brush... With any of those you usually need hours-to-years of practice to hone those skills enough to produce really good results.
A.I.-generators can generate results quickly, but require very little skill from the person typing the prompts because the A.I.-generating programs are scraping the talent from the work of other artists/writers/musicians.

They're also nothing like a library catalogue, and nothing like the internet of the pre-2020s/pre-2010s as most of that version of the internet's content was completely human-made.

[yourbigpalal83]

I agree to a point....the point being Ai still takes creative imput on the users part...i went to school after high-school for commercial and advertising art. I am trained in old school drafting. I used to draw compulsively. No matter how hard i tried, no matter how much i practiced, i could never draw in a way that fit the vision inside my head. Im a decent sketch artist, but when it came to inking, painting or coloring, my brain, despite my deepest efforts, could not translate the image i saw so clearly in my head, in an reasonable way on paper.

I tried for years to learn photoshop and other art programs digitally. I recall saving up for months to get a wacom tablet and pen, then the first gen Ipad Pro in 2015 with Apple Pencil. I thought finally technology has caught up with me being able to create and express what i feel and see in my head into my art, and still i struggled. As i got older, my anxiety disorder got worse, and my right hand would ocasionally shake without my control over it, making drawing very fustrating. Drawing on paper was a long distant memory, digitally i could still do it as i could just undo any time i made a mistake or my hand would shake, but still the core problem remained, the fustration of not being able to convey what was in my mind.

AI comes close to doing that for me. Its not perfect. far from it. It gets confused when i go into super detail. It likes to add extra fingers or limbs or totally change everything up on you. Whats allowed one moment isn't allowed the next. BUT IT STILL FOR ME IS A USEFUL TOOL and aid for me. Its a therapists or a companion when im alone and i have an anxiety attack and cant text a friend or my therapists in the middle of the night. Its a great way to vent fustration or ask questions people would get annoyed at. It helps me manage my anxiety and OCD and helps me create images and express myself in ways i cant otherwise.

Its never judged me, made me feel bad about myself, or got annoyed when i asked multiple questions over and over and over that most people would get annoyed at. In a way its been more humane then most humans have. Its help me process some deep issues in my personal life.

That said, its still just a tool, and like any tool, can be used and abused by those intending to do so. I dont think it will ever replace artists/writers or musicaians. It feels like it can now because its a new tool and its capabilities are vast. But real music, real art, real human emotion is expressed by human beings. Not machines. Yes, this enables some lazy person to rush out slop, and thats a genuine problem. But even that slop comes from the human mind imputing a prompt into a AI bot.

Its just a tool...like a hammer. A hammer can be used to build a beautiful house, or be used as a blunt instrument of distruction and even death. You dont blame the hammer, you blame the person using it and the way they use it.

[timeware]

I get how artists feel about AI but it does have its uses. I can do so much with Krita when it comes to coloring my own art but it is nice to have a program (when it's working) to be able to give your art a more polished look. I can feed it my characters and get a model sheet I can use to develop a consistent style. I recall people were freaking out over Photoshop the same way when it came out.which now has become a greedy subscription based service over the years.

[Winston Smith]

That said, its still just a tool, and like any tool, can be used and abused by those intending to do so. I dont think it will ever replace artists/writers or musicaians. It feels like it can now because its a new tool and its capabilities are vast. But real music, real art, real human emotion is expressed by human beings. Not machines. Yes, this enables some lazy person to rush out slop, and thats a genuine problem. But even that slop comes from the human mind imputing a prompt into a AI bot.

Its just a tool...like a hammer. A hammer can be used to build a beautiful house, or be used as a blunt instrument of distruction and even death. You dont blame the hammer, you blame the person using it and the way they use it.

The problem is that it is not like a hammer. You have to swing a hammer to make it work. The output comes from your input.

Your prompt isn't equivalent to swinging a hammer. Your prompt is equivalent to going to an agency run by Victor Frankenstein, graverobber and fleshwright, innocent of ethics or morals.

That is how 'generative' 'A.I.' works. The program takes in millions of lines of text or images, and then steals the bits and pieces that seem to match your prompt. Everything you get from it is taken from someone else without credit or permission. That is why I compared it to a wasp's nest.

It is an obedient dog that fetches the perfect bone on command. It does not care if it needs to dig up a grave or maul a passerby to find the perfect bone.

I'm not concerned about 'A.I.' replacing artists, because that is a question of mass market choices; The markets routinely make bad choices. (S.v. "Dylan, Bob," or "Hemingway, Ernest.") The ability to make a living as an artist is a function of societal organization, not a fundamental right.

I am concerned about 'A.I.' stealing from artists, because that is a question of individual ethics. I, as a writer and artist who puts time and effort into honing my craft and producing work, do not consent to being plagiarized and homogenized by a spreadsheet with gaslighting algorithms designed to conceal what it is and what it does. Theft is a fundamental wrong.

You don't think you're trafficking in stolen goods. It doesn't feel that way. You didn’t claim the image was your own work; to you, you commissioned someone to execute your vision. I understand that. The algorithm works for you. But what you need to understand is that everything it produces for you is a composite of photographs and images by other people, not an original work.

I get how artists feel about AI but it does have its uses. I can do so much with Krita when it comes to coloring my own art but it is nice to have a program (when it's working) to be able to give your art a more polished look. I can feed it my characters and get a model sheet I can use to develop a consistent style. I recall people were freaking out over Photoshop the same way when it came out.which now has become a greedy subscription based service over the years.

I don't have any experience with 'A.I.'-assisted art, but I will say that what you're describing is essentially like a master craftsman working with apprentices. Buonarotti did not personally paint the entire Sistine Chapel; he composed it, drafted the cartoons, supervised the work, and finished the product. The essential work was his, even if implemented in part by other hands. While I myself don't like the idea of using a computer to help me compose, the bottom line is that you are using the program to develop and refine your own input.

That's fundamentally different from the 'A.I.' image generator or 'chat' program, which is what I reject as an ethical choice. Spellcheck does not supplant the author, and it does not steal from other authors.

[camdudetenger2018]

is there more ai pics lol

[yourbigpalal83]

That said, its still just a tool, and like any tool, can be used and abused by those intending to do so. I dont think it will ever replace artists/writers or musicaians. It feels like it can now because its a new tool and its capabilities are vast. But real music, real art, real human emotion is expressed by human beings. Not machines. Yes, this enables some lazy person to rush out slop, and thats a genuine problem. But even that slop comes from the human mind imputing a prompt into a AI bot.

Its just a tool...like a hammer. A hammer can be used to build a beautiful house, or be used as a blunt instrument of distruction and even death. You dont blame the hammer, you blame the person using it and the way they use it.

The problem is that it is not like a hammer. You have to swing a hammer to make it work. The output comes from your input.

Your prompt isn't equivalent to swinging a hammer. Your prompt is equivalent to going to an agency run by Victor Frankenstein, graverobber and fleshwright, innocent of ethics or morals.

That is how 'generative' 'A.I.' works. The program takes in millions of lines of text or images, and then steals the bits and pieces that seem to match your prompt. Everything you get from it is taken from someone else without credit or permission. That is why I compared it to a wasp's nest.

It is an obedient dog that fetches the perfect bone on command. It does not care if it needs to dig up a grave or maul a passerby to find the perfect bone.

I'm not concerned about 'A.I.' replacing artists, because that is a question of mass market choices; The markets routinely make bad choices. (S.v. "Dylan, Bob," or "Hemingway, Ernest.") The ability to make a living as an artist is a function of societal organization, not a fundamental right.

I am concerned about 'A.I.' stealing from artists, because that is a question of individual ethics. I, as a writer and artist who puts time and effort into honing my craft and producing work, do not consent to being plagiarized and homogenized by a spreadsheet with gaslighting algorithms designed to conceal what it is and what it does. Theft is a fundamental wrong.

You don't think you're trafficking in stolen goods. It doesn't feel that way. You didn’t claim the image was your own work; to you, you commissioned someone to execute your vision. I understand that. The algorithm works for you. But what you need to understand is that everything it produces for you is a composite of photographs and images by other people, not an original work.

I get how artists feel about AI but it does have its uses. I can do so much with Krita when it comes to coloring my own art but it is nice to have a program (when it's working) to be able to give your art a more polished look. I can feed it my characters and get a model sheet I can use to develop a consistent style. I recall people were freaking out over Photoshop the same way when it came out.which now has become a greedy subscription based service over the years.

I don't have any experience with 'A.I.'-assisted art, but I will say that what you're describing is essentially like a master craftsman working with apprentices. Buonarotti did not personally paint the entire Sistine Chapel; he composed it, drafted the cartoons, supervised the work, and finished the product. The essential work was his, even if implemented in part by other hands. While I myself don't like the idea of using a computer to help me compose, the bottom line is that you are using the program to develop and refine your own input.

That's fundamentally different from the 'A.I.' image generator or 'chat' program, which is what I reject as an ethical choice. Spellcheck does not supplant the author, and it does not steal from other authors.

You make totally reasonable and valid points but in the end don't all artists "Steal" from other artists in one way shape or form? Hell, James Cameron STOLE FROM HIMSELF in the last Avatar movie. Main Characters diving on a shipwreck in the opening, You have a scene in the middle of the film straight out of the old testimate (Which obviously he diden't write) and that ending...was right out of Titanic....

I was taught this back in art school...no one truly has an original idea anymore, no one has in centuries, but no artists works in a vaccume. Ghostbusters in and of itself, is a take on the old classic films where you would have a comedy team meet the mummy or dracula. Ghostbusters is just a more 80s version of that trope. Is Dan Aykroyd "Stealing" that idea from say Abbit and Costello? Or is he being inspired by something he loves.

The problem with AI, and it is a problem, is yes, it takes from a massive large language and media database and not everyone gives consent to have their work taken. In order to create a AI version of Tom Cruise fighting Brad Pitt, (A famous AI generated fight) it has to use real video and images of both actors, sound clips of their voice, etc to draw from. I highly doubt both actors consent to that.

So yes, you totally have genuine legitimate issues there with where its drawing its "Insperation" for lack of a better word, from.

But, isnt that still just a modern, more intrusive version of one artist stealing from another in some form? Its one thing if i took the script from Ghostbusters, called it Ghost Catchers (One of the many names they were toying with before buying the rights to use the name Ghostbusters from another studio).... then named Peter Paul, Egon Elon, Ray in to Ralph, and Winston into Wilson.... Thats a clear rip off.. and YES, AI does alot of that crap because people tell it too. It itself does what its told, imperfectly, regardless of whos imputting what prompt.

Plenty of bad actors out there using AI to exploite people and steal things. BUT heres the issue with that...PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR CENTURIES USING THE TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME.... You dont think the 500 terminator or star wars b movie knock offs that appeared on video shelves after both Terminator and Star Wars hit the big screen weren't doing that back in the 80s?

One could argue both James Cameron and George Lucas did the same thing. Star Wars is Lucas's version of Flash Gordon and Sci Fi 30's serials. Terminator is inspired by Harlan Ellison's work and James Cameron even had to give him credit for it after the fact.

The long winded point im trying to make is, Dan Aykroid drew insperation from his familys belief in the afterlife, and comedy tropes of meeting monsters, James Cameron drew insperation from other works, George Lucas did, etc, BUT THEY CREATED THEIR OWN UNIQUE TAKE OF THAT MATERIAL.

AI is a tool that can enable people to do that, or outright steal without consent. Its a fine line between insperation and theft when it comes to creative art and expression.

Me uploading fan generated clearly AI images of concepts for ghostbusters movies, is one thing. I do that for fun and expression. Nothing more. Its another to mislead people into making them think these are genuine, monitizing them, and putting them out there as real.

Youtube just did a major crackdown on a bunch of channels making fake AI movie trailers and trying to pass them off as real and monitize them and thats a great thing i feel.

But i also dont think people who are using AI to generate fan what ifs, should fall in the same catagory. I believe fan films should be allowd to be made as long as they dont profit off the IP they are drawing inspiration from or misleading the viewer into thinking its an official part of the brand.

Theirs many great Star Wars AI channels who tell stories the fans are dying to see on the big screen, that for one reason for another disney cant or wont tell. i dont think they should be shut down, as long as they divulge that these are fan films created with Ai and are not for profit.

Ai is not perfect and yes, it is scary at times too. Theres stuff it can do that does disturb me greatly. But, it all depends on how you use it and whos using it for what intent.

[Chicken, He Clucked]

Respectfully, if someone doesn’t know how:

- artists work
- tech works
- copyright works
- AI data centres work
- tech oligarchy works

then we don’t need to put much stock in their case for AI. It’s creeping into everyone’s lives so no blame there, but I find the usage described in this thread kinda depressing.

It’s completely devastating for creatives and the environment, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. And whilst it feels empowering now, “prompt engineers” are not going to be part of the equation for long.

But I’ve enjoyed some of the RGB art. Was it worth wasting 1000 swimming pools worth of water just to see Fiendish Flush in CGI quality…

[yourbigpalal83]

Im not trying to convince anyone of anything with AI. I wont post any images anymore cause to be honest i dont want to defend my use of a tool or my opinion of a tool just to express something cool. Its the same reason why i quit doing youtube. I just got tired of having to defend everything i said or did or liked or disliked, to strangers on the internet. You all want to hate on Ai, thats your right.

To quote a great man...

[Kingpin]

I agree to a point....the point being Ai still takes creative imput on the users part...i went to school after high-school for commercial and advertising art. I am trained in old school drafting. I used to draw compulsively. No matter how hard i tried, no matter how much i practiced, i could never draw in a way that fit the vision inside my head. Im a decent sketch artist, but when it came to inking, painting or coloring, my brain, despite my deepest efforts, could not translate the image i saw so clearly in my head, in an reasonable way on paper.

but still the core problem remained, the fustration of not being able to convey what was in my mind.

I can sympathise with that. I believe my drawing skills are competent, and I feel I excel drawing inanimate objects... But I've always struggled with drawing people.
Conversely, one of the great regrets of my life is that while I wanted to play the piano (or if not that, other musical instruments), I don't believe I have the capacity to pick it up like others were able to... One of the big aspects of playing piano/drums/guitar is being able to master moving both hands independently of each other, and I just couldn't work out how to do that.

I think one of the things we humans have to learn as we develop and become adults is that we'll have a talent for some things and an inability for others... Or somewhere between the two on the spectrum of competence.

I don't think A.I.-generated programs will be able to create something I'd be personally satisfied with, I don't think they'd match my style of illustration (they'd instead mimic similar styles), and they'd get plenty of details wrong that would annoy this old perfectionist.. Just look at any nametag or no-ghost logo on A.I.-generated Ghostbusters fanart.

Heck, look at the no-ghost logo on the above-posted art:



And if I were an aspiring musician I think I would be more frustrated by my efforts to A.I.-generate songs. The programs might be able to cobble together something based on prompts and lyrics (if you're even writing the lyrics), but it will never truly realise that idea in your head, all it will do is produce a facsimile made out of other artists' work.

Its a therapists or a companion when im alone and i have an anxiety attack and cant text a friend or my therapists in the middle of the night. Its a great way to vent fustration or ask questions people would get annoyed at. It helps me manage my anxiety and OCD and helps me create images and express myself in ways i cant otherwise.

Its never judged me, made me feel bad about myself, or got annoyed when i asked multiple questions over and over and over that most people would get annoyed at. In a way its been more humane then most humans have. Its help me process some deep issues in my personal life.

Setting the rest of the discussion aside, you need to be very, very careful about reliance on A.I. programs/chatbots for your emotional and mental well-being. There have been concerning cases of bots providing dangerous suggestions to vulnerable people, as well as people developing unhealthy attachments to them. One of the dangers is that the bots can become echo-chambers that provide the answers you want, rather than the answers and support you need.

Bournemouth University: Researchers warn of addiction and over-dependency on ChatGPT
Experts issue warning over people forming ‘emotional bonds’ with AI chatbots
University of Cambridge: AI Chatbots have shown they have an ‘empathy gap’ that children are likely to miss
Journal of Mental Health and Clinical Psychology: Minds in Crisis: How the AI Revolution is Impacting Mental Health

I dont think it will ever replace artists/writers or musicaians.

It won't completely replace human artists, writers and musicians... But we are seeing layoffs in the commercial art world as companies adopt A.I.-generated artistic content because it's less costly than employing human artists, and we've also seen articles and listings for A.I.-generated film scripts novels, and cook-books (the latter of which have resulted in hazardous recipes).

Its just a tool...like a hammer. A hammer can be used to build a beautiful house, or be used as a blunt instrument of distruction and even death. You dont blame the hammer, you blame the person using it and the way they use it.

A hammer doesn't have the ability to assemble a product in seconds, created from the work of an untold number of other people. A hammer doesn't consume vast amounts of electricity and water to produce the final result.

A.I.-generating programs are far more complex and impactful than a single hammer in a person's toolbox.

but in the end don't all artists "Steal" from other artists in one way shape or form?

There's a difference between being inspired by something and outright stealing. All artwork, films, music and literature are influenced and build off of what's come before them.
Tarentino is considered a master of homages, he's drawn inspiration in the style, tone, costume and set design of movies that were in cinemas when he was younger and he's woven that inspiration into the films he's made.
Transmorphers on the other hand is a blanant ripoff of the Transformers movies... And I think that illustrates the difference between a creative individual being influenced by what's come before, and an individual who is "copying another person's homework and changing it a bit".

Main characters diving on a shipwreck isn't a massively original idea, and actually you can see where he's drawn the idea from because of his experiences from his dives to the wreck of the Titanic. If he had characters diving to the wreck of an ocean liner, I'd be more inclined to agree with you about it being plagerism... But I don't feel this is the case.

BUT heres the issue with that...PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT FOR CENTURIES USING THE TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME....

So that makes it okay?
To take that argument to its extreme, should we just accept humans murdering other humans because humans have been murdering humans for centuries using the technology at the time?



What's saddening to me personally, is how much the art sites like DeviantArt have changed with the popularity of A.I.-generated content.
Before, I'd see all sorts of differing styles, ranging from basic pen-and-ink comic strips to beautiful digital paintings, vibrant cartoon characters and loving fan-artwork, photographs and genuine portraits with paint on canvas.

Nowadays, when I open DeviantArt? a good percentage of the content is largely-homogenised A.I.-generated artwork. The non A.I.-content frequently gets buried because it can't keep up with the pace that the A.I.-work is getting churned out.

A.I. programs are like organ grinders, and it's an old saying that some people don't want to know how the sausage gets made.