Why AI art is so controversial

You've probably heard about "AI art" - pictures created by simply typing in a few words. These are text-to-image generation tools based on huge natural language models - DALL-E 2, Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, and now more.

But why are they so controversial? It boils down to two big questions:

1. Will AI art take artists' jobs?
2. Does AI art steal artists' work?

#short #AI #AIart #technology

[DavidJonRandom]

There's also another problem with AI art: is making art even a task we want to automate? Why are we automating things that make us happy? Eventually it comes down what we prioritize in our capitalist society.

[a.y.n.rupanddown]

You also forgot that artist don't consent for their art to be used in ai training mechanisms and sometimes those mechanisms even sell products and stuff.

[hade_]

ai ain't just replicating the artist's style, legit human artist water marks have been found in ai art

[nani]

The problem with AI art is that, they become so progressively good at rendering art that it makes us artist lose motivation to do what we do as always. Imagine this, as an artist, my art basically take me between and around 5-6 hours, from sketch to rendering. And seeing people use AI just to replicate the art that I had created for a mere second, it just makes me go crazy. In shorter terms, it's like someone copying from you on a test and they get better scores than you do. It's absolutely just saddening.

[marko]

The problem is that companies making these AIs are not asking you for permission. I am an artist and I can say that every one of us sees the picture differently than the other might. Of course, there will still be human artists, but AI law has to be updated.

[nyxxx]

A very important part of art is the process.

Museums dont just talk about the appearance if the finished project .but the symbolism, construction and more

[TheDramacist]

I wanted AI to do my dishes so I had more time for my creative hobbies. Not vice versa.

[thatsawrap]

nothing is as special as a human being creating art by hand.

[Rose-yxjq]

A person uses other artists works as inspiration, while AI uses them as samples.

[younggod]

It's soulless, has no vision, and should thus not be considered intellectual property.

[Travel-]

Art and music is what makes us humans . Being able to communicate your feelings through them is only human

[youevil]

Getting inspired and creating a new image with your own hands is different from typing a few words and have a machine using image databases to do all the work for you. The person using Ai to create a new image is an OPERATOR. While the person creating his/her/their own art in an ARTIST.

[felipew]

Artists are already underpaid and here we are debating on whether or not we could indirectly monetize their work without them getting a cut ... 🤦‍♂️

[ste-fa-no]

I think it is problematic because the artwork used as "inspiration" is yet under copyright, and it's being processed without consent or payment. Why not pay the artists? The tool is great, but it should pay royalties.

[abandoned__]

-artists work is being taken without consent
-these stolen works are filtered through AI to make commercial products
-AI samples and replicates others artwork, people take inspiration and study them
-its more of an image, not an artwork since it lacks the fundamental process of creation

personally i think ai can be used to help artists colour or animate, but taking over a CREATIVE INDUSTRY is not very creative at all!

[alphabetagamma]

In my opinion, art isn't just about the end result... It's also about the story, and what went into creating the piece...
Let me explain - Consider the Starry night by Van Gogh. Now if we look at the painting for what it is, many people will sya that it isn't something particularly attractive or interesting.
But when you learn about what went into making the painting, the artist, his life, his reason for creating that painting, the fact that the distortion represents his teary vision etc(you get the point) you will definitely start to appreciate it.
Even if an AI creates a visually similar piece thats "equally as good" as the Starry Night, it still wouldn't have much value... Because it's just a bunch of pixels lightning up in a specific pattern mathematically calculated by an insentient algorithm.

[violetskies]

Another problem is they're not just mimicking the style of public domain artists who are long dead, they're taking the data from current artists who post online and using their style so now their art can be recreated in seconds by a program and they receive no compensation.

[adamjoestar]

The only people who say AI learns the same way artists do are non-artist. We learn in completely different ways, its a shame that so many non-artists try to act like they know everything about art

[ThatKrazyLunatic]

As an artist, this entire situation scares me.

[ianw.]

A big problem is that they sample our own art without our permission and then use it to put us out of jobs. Also, art should be about human expression. Ai is making the art, not a human. It’s just a disgrace really