I look at these works of art created by artificial intelligence and I think: yes, it’s beautiful, yes, it’s good, but… What’s the point? Where’s the story, where’s the work, if everything is so simple, then what’s the point? It’s no better than a store where you come and buy, although no, you come, take everything you need for free and leave. I don’t see any value in it, it’s just boring.
I’m not a good artist. If I could commission someone to make art for me I would. The reality is if we restrict art sources to human artists in absolutely all cases, nothing much will get done. There’s so much demand and not enough supply. I will commission someone if I intend to distribute work. If the point is to give the viewer a rough idea i.e. an unfinished product, I will not hesitate to use AI as one of my many tools available to get my point across.
I understand you, but I know that AI is a tool that they are going to use to control, not to help people… But yes, you can use it, but I’ll tell you this: if there is too much art, so much so that no one will pay for it, won’t everything turn into a living garbage dump?
Corporate-owned AI (or anything corporate, really) will be used to control sooner or later. As such, I’m not a fan of those, and I agree with your concerns here. I like community-based and local LLMs, on the other hand.
You’ll find someone willing to pay to differentiate themselves from the sameness of mass-produced AI art.
Agree with the sentiment, as someone who dabbles in worldbuilding. Sometimes, I’d like a picture that doesn’t readily exist to accompany the text, so I get Stable Diffusion to generate one on my machine. A picture is worth a thousand words, and even if the audience is just myself, it gets the point across much better than anything I could draw myself. While I would like to work on my art skills or pay for commissions, it would starve me of the spare time and resources that allow me to worldbuild in the first place.
Yes, now it may seem good, but because of this there may be gigantic competition, because of which it will be mainly large companies that will earn money, and not indie authors.
Do you mean that if AI art has improved sufficiently, people will pay the companies behind the image generator models rather than individual artists? Elaborate if I didn’t understand that correctly.
No, to be honest, I’m not very good at explaining, and I’m not a native speaker, so I’ll say this: let’s say we have an average market trader, he lives a quiet life and is happy that there is an alternative to a factory or a construction site. And then a boom is built, a store where everything is cheaper, and gradually our trader’s clients no longer come and he can no longer support his business. As a result, he is in despair because he does not have enough money even for the most basic necessities, and he has no one to borrow from, and in the end he has to go to a construction site or even worse.
I see. Companies behind the AI models won’t see any of my money since I insist on free and self-hostable options and I’d opt for commissions from human artists if I need something better than my computer can generate. But not everyone will be like that and I understand where your concern comes from.
Well, I guess you’re right.
That worked five years ago. Why wouldn’t it work now?
If “worked” mean “I just don’t bother because I can’t draw and I don’t have money, so I’ll keep my ideas in my head”, sure.
I’m pretty sure AI art will cost more and more money to users in the coming years
local models only cost electricity and aren’t hiding usage costs
deleted by creator
Dude, it seems you hit the target right on target, and in a weak spot too.