I first dabbled with AI image generation back in 2022 and sprinkled a few such images throughout my worldbuilding project. It was easy to look past all of the flaws with the idea that it was nothing more than a novelty. And I never cared nearly enough about my worldbuilding to pay anyone for artwork of it.
Now that I look back at it, those images are obvious slop, which I've grown to dislike as much as the next person. But recent comments I've seen here and on other sites have made me wonder if my brain has rotted in the same manner that makes some boomers fall for AI slop. There will be videos where the use of AI is not very noticeable to me, but not with deceptive intent. Maybe an illustration to get the point across or a subtle two-second animation. Commenters will very passionately point it out. To be honest, I don't see the creator either paying for the equivalent human work or drawing anything better themselves.
Does it really just look that bad? Is it an issue with what AI and the companies that sponsor it stand for? Theft of real artists' work? Does it change at all if the images were generated locally with the creator's own hardware and resources? What about upscaling images, like I do with old wallpapers so that they look better on new monitors?
I assume what I've just said will attract downvotes, but that was my thought process and I do want to understand where other people draw the line and for what reasons. Should we limit it to quick-and-dirty illustrations, pure novelty, upscaling existing images, a model that only incorporates work if the artist consents, or something else?
never. ai "art" is theft.
Let's not just exchange blunt claims, but reason a little.
Copyright critics have long made the somewhat compelling argument that copying isn't stealing because the original digital item does not become scarcer in the process. So how can AI taking artists' work be considered theft if it, too, just uses copies of the original work and maybe transforms them into a new work (which would, under U.S. law, fall under "fair use")?
We might argue that, well, fair use does not apply because most AI companies try to monetise the models derived from other people's work.
Which leads me to the question: would you find visual genAI more acceptable if it weren't commercial?
Because AI companies are making a huge profit (and wrecking the environment) on stolen art.
Thereβs a huge difference between someone that torrent 1T of books over his/her life and a company that torrent every books in history to make a machine that will try to destroy art as we know it for the profit of the 1% few.
Alright, I get that. It's pretty much what I wrote up there in the second half of my posting.
I'd still be curious as to your answer to my question there:
Personally probably still see it as slop, because I think that genAI are just a by product of the inherent spyware they are