People have always spammed lazy art, and we probably always will. Ancient runes boil down to “So-and-so was here,” and we post countless images with text slapped on them every day. Most books are lazy, most TV shows are lazy, most songs are lazy. We mostly pay attention to the good ones, and the rest is background noise.
The “lazy” artists of human history, none of which are as lazy as AI prompters too lazy to even touch a brush, were never able to create art meaningfully quicker than the “quality” artists. And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam. I know when I say art you just see dollar signs, but art actually means something to passionate people.
Not to mention how insanely lazy it is that AI doesn’t even generate original art, it has to steal from artists in its training data.
And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not prevented from seeing genuine human art.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam.
I don’t think that will be the case. We have machines that make us clothing and such, but hand-crafted goods are admired for their artistry, and those who can afford them will happily pay a premium.
Over 50 games were released daily on Steam in 2024, but we still found the great titles by word of mouth, reviews, and awards.
Maybe a lot of “art” will be generated, but I think not being able to copyright AI works will make corporations prefer human-made art so that they’ll have a monopoly over the rights. I think it’s more the case that generated assets will replace/broaden stock assets.
I know when I say art you just see dollar signs
What makes you say that?
it has to steal from artists in its training data
One of the reasons I don’t have a burning hated for AI art is because I can’t see a difference between what it generates and what I generate. I also steal from artists in my training data, be it watching a tutorial or using references. A seemingly original idea like a cat drinking tea on the moon is really just combining every Victorian tea party painting I’ve ever seen, every cat I’ve ever seen, real or drawn, and every depiction of the moon I’ve ever seen. Anything I can imagine comes from stimuli previously consumed and techniques taught by others.
If you’re making art to show it off to other people, then you’re just trying to make profit, not make art.
Nobody can take art away from you. It’s a manifestation of your emotions. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to manifest those emotions, art made with AI isn’t somehow lesser than art made with a brush. And nobody, including you, gets to say otherwise.
I don’t think people will stop spamming lazy AI art if capitalism goes away.
People have always spammed lazy art, and we probably always will. Ancient runes boil down to “So-and-so was here,” and we post countless images with text slapped on them every day. Most books are lazy, most TV shows are lazy, most songs are lazy. We mostly pay attention to the good ones, and the rest is background noise.
In support of your comment; do you know how tired I am of “loss”?
Used to see Kilroy everywhere, too.
The “lazy” artists of human history, none of which are as lazy as AI prompters too lazy to even touch a brush, were never able to create art meaningfully quicker than the “quality” artists. And they never had control over what art other people are able to see.
The issue is if we let this keep going then within 10 years 99.99% of all art ever will be ai trash and you will not see original art, since it will be blotted out with the spam. I know when I say art you just see dollar signs, but art actually means something to passionate people.
Not to mention how insanely lazy it is that AI doesn’t even generate original art, it has to steal from artists in its training data.
I’m not sure what you mean. I’m not prevented from seeing genuine human art.
I don’t think that will be the case. We have machines that make us clothing and such, but hand-crafted goods are admired for their artistry, and those who can afford them will happily pay a premium.
Over 50 games were released daily on Steam in 2024, but we still found the great titles by word of mouth, reviews, and awards.
Maybe a lot of “art” will be generated, but I think not being able to copyright AI works will make corporations prefer human-made art so that they’ll have a monopoly over the rights. I think it’s more the case that generated assets will replace/broaden stock assets.
What makes you say that?
One of the reasons I don’t have a burning hated for AI art is because I can’t see a difference between what it generates and what I generate. I also steal from artists in my training data, be it watching a tutorial or using references. A seemingly original idea like a cat drinking tea on the moon is really just combining every Victorian tea party painting I’ve ever seen, every cat I’ve ever seen, real or drawn, and every depiction of the moon I’ve ever seen. Anything I can imagine comes from stimuli previously consumed and techniques taught by others.
If you’re making art to show it off to other people, then you’re just trying to make profit, not make art.
Nobody can take art away from you. It’s a manifestation of your emotions. It doesn’t matter what tools you use to manifest those emotions, art made with AI isn’t somehow lesser than art made with a brush. And nobody, including you, gets to say otherwise.