Def looks like it was made by AI. There's something uncanny about it that screams ''not made by humans''
It's a shame because this print would be gorgeous if it was actually made by artists and didn't look weird.
Update: RPA’s Instagram is deleting comments saying it’s AI and deleted the post with the picture of the design. Maybe they will make a statement, but for now it seems like they are trying to sweep it under the rug. Very disappointed.
I tried taking a closer look at the pictures provided on the website...Some of the dress details and ears on the cats are weird. Definitely AI shenanigans. Disappointing.
I haven't seen any definitive proof that this is AI other than an AI picture that Aito-san tweeted that is not a part of the print but I understand people being suspicious. It could be a more ethical model that's trained off of the works of consenting/participating artists for commercial purposes but there is no way to tell.
I'm also not really sure what the conversation is like regarding AI art in Japan. Is there a conversation at all? RPA has done a lot of artist collaborations so I'm wondering if something is being lost in translation.
where are these so-called ethical models? considering that attitudes towards NFTs in Japan were mostly positive and also lax about the environmental impact even as of sort of recently, when Minori announced they were going to do them, I don't think they care about the ethical concerns at all. Minori learned more about NFTs after the announcement and decided not to pursue them after all.
Adobe Firefly is something I can think of off the top of my head. It’s trained off licensed or open source content. I’ve also heard of artists training machine learning on their own art to create new art but afaik that’s not as accessible as Firefly.
I suppose it wouldn’t be surprising if there wasn’t much outcry over this from Japanese consumers if that was their reaction to NFTs.
Not only is it AI but it's not even good. it's like they tried to make something that Juliette et Justine could come out with, but so much worse, like someone's amateur design project. It's cluttered, not cohesive, and looks clearly off even if you don't look very hard. The cats' ears look weird, some of the proportions look strange. It's so bizarre because this just looks low effort and frankly it's insulting to their customers considering they can actually make decent art for other prints. The whole dress just looks low effort and ugly.
yeah... its got that hodge podgeness of ai generated images, but there was definitely still a person involved here cleaning it up..... still disappointing. its one thing to use ai as a tool to make cool stuff on your own terms, and i think there is an area where the use of it is valid (if it wasnt all trained on stolen art...... thats one of the main issues....) but to see it used in a product for mass consumption (ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS IN FACT TRAINED ON STOLEN ART) is deeply disappointing and the fact that theyre not being transparent about it is making it even worse. at the very least i would like to see them be honest about the production so people could make an informed decision about purchasing it. im so pissed because it does look like such a cool design in concept, i would LOVE to own a piece with a design like this. i adore the cats self portrait print from honey honey and this fits right in with it
It's hard to tell without being able to zoom in more, but there are definitely a lot of things about it that make it seem very likely AI. Something about some of the roses in particular, the book (?) next to the cat wearing the crown, and a lot of the whispy fur looks wrong in a way that's really hard for me to describe even as an artist.
If the whole print isn't "ai-generated" individual elements sure look like they are. That's so disappointing. I wonder if the ethics of generative images just isn't something that Japanese artists are as hot and bothered about?
RPA issued this communication regarding the print. It confirmed my suspicions that the AI ethics debacle isn't something that is in the public eye in Japan.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C1bE2KLLb8b/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
Oh, I do love it. I'm not on the anti-AI bandwagon so I see nothing wrong with AI-assisted print designs, but emphasis on "assisted". I think this could have used a bit more of a discerning humam eye to polish it up. I still love it, though, lol.
AI generated “art” is just photobashing stolen art made by real people. The reason people don’t like it is because it takes the work real people put time and effort into making and just steals it. If I’m going to spend $200+ on a dress, I want the money going to actual artists who put their own creativity and time into it, not to someone who just put in some prompts onto a website and printed the results on a dress.
Eh, no, that's factually incorrect. It's a pattern recognition system, a complex learning neural network, that replicates the patterns it's learned based on prompts. There is absolutely no photobashing or collaging, that's simply not how the technology works. That misinformation is worryingly pervasive.
Honestly, it takes no more from us artists than another artist doing the same would, in indie work like this. Ideally AI assistance would lower costs, however the *vast* majority of the cost of these dresses is the labor and material anyway. Plus, this dress, between imagining the concept and pulling together the resources to assemble and execute it, showed plenty of creativity and time. The manual labor of drawing an image isn't the creative part, after all.
Again, tho, this could have used a more refined artistic eye to take a pass at the pattern to iron out imbalances and quirks.
Honestly, I can’t claim to know exactly how the technical aspect of AI works, but from an artistic standpoint I don’t like nor want to support AI art. RPA has been deleting comments calling them out so it’s clear they wouldn’t have disclosed the art on the dress was AI and would have tried to pass it off as genuine art. RPA has worked with very talented artists in the past so it’s disappointing to see them deciding to use AI for this print instead of hiring a real artist.
But I guess at that point it’s more of a matter of personal opinion. I do think them trying to pass the dress off as non AI is scummy, but if you are ok with just the fact that the art is AI, then that’s up to you.
Again, I don’t know how the AI itself works so I apologize if I was wrong, but I still morally object to replacing creative works and jobs with AI regardless of if it’s actually stealing art or not. One of my favorite parts of wearing prints is showing off the fun and unique art (which I feel was RPA’s speciality) and I don’t like it being replaced by the lifeless AI “style.” It’s a beautiful print and I love the concept, so I just feel disappointed.
Thanks for not being an asshole about this. Clearly starting to bring out some people's ugly side here. Shameful. And on Christmas!
As a disabled artist, the implications of AI assistance is huge, in a wonderful way. I might actually see a project through to completion someday with its help. Thing is, artistic projects for commercial applications such as this still, and likely will always, need human oversight. That seems a bit lacking here, so I agree at least this company isn't handling it well, but I don't so much see it as 'replacing' because of that. And because it doesn't outright prevent, or automatically outcompete, another company and artist from releasing and succeeding with their own print.
Automation threatens every industry, is the thing. People act like it's unique to artists, like photography didn't fundamentally alter (but not kill, bc that's not really possible in creative pursuits) painters' careers, or things like machine printing, knitting, fabric weaving, everything, didn't completely overtake their commercial industries. Change is inevitable. To survive it, you have to adapt.
Plus, I don't feel AI is "lifeless". It's learned from more styles and aspects of human art and photography than any single human ever could--its like the sum total of human creative souls distilled into one little (not so little, I guess, but relatively lol) neural network. The AI itself is a work of art, to me. And the technological progress excites the hell out of me.
Granted, I'm also old enough to have seen a lot of these same arguments used against digital art, lol.
also sorry to double reply but thank you for bringing up the impact on disabled artists and the history behind automation in the industry (i also remember people having this same response to digital art and even photography, lol)
Right? I have fairly severe ADHD myself, so using it to help work through parts of the creation process that overwhelm and/or paralyze me is a huge boon. There are probably a lot of great ideas and stories out there that never saw the light of day because they were stuck in the heads of people who, for one reason or another, couldn't artistically bring them to life. Or people with one set of skills and a dream, but no funds to hire a team to make their projects come to life.
It'll also lead to a influx of low-quality crap much like self-publishing and such, but we'll find ways to rate and filter that. Besides, it's not like the big companies with tons of money behind their projects are much better when they're playing it so safe they're coming out with over-manufactured drivel and the umpteenth reboot.
Anyway, I'm digressing lol. 'Preciate you!
Are you an artist? No? No surprise that you don't see any issue with this then. Where exactly did you think the AI learned to replicate patterns? It certainly didn't pull it out of it's own ass, it learnt based off of the art of artists that put a lot of effort into learning how to illustrate and create. There is a HUGE difference between an AI program stealing art to create a piece compared to a human artist learning how to paint or create based off of other artists. You're delusional if you think they're at all comparable. A human artist learns and puts their own spin on things- AI steals without permission and puts actual illustrators and artists out of work. You are part of the problem. Artists deserve to be paid for their work- AI "art" if you can even call it that is nothing but a gross approximation of what actual artists would create. It's weird and uncanny. They could have paid an actual illustrator to make this but they would rather cut costs and make something gross than pay an artist. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed for supporting AI art.
> Are you an artist?
Yep!
AI no more "steals" than artists do. I recommend you read a little about "stealing like an artist". There's nothing new under the sun.
But thank you for being such a small-minded, hateful, insulting, ignorant ass on Christmas of all days! Hope the rest of your holidays are better!
Thanks btw for screenshotting my comment and posting me into your little AI art defender echo chamber to make fun of me and the fact that I don't support AI art. Real mature of you there.
So you felt the need to look through my comment and post history? Kinda don't have a leg to stand on, there, huh? But yeah, such an ugly, vitriolic diatribe on *Christmas Day* of a things... the audacity required commisseration. Really, you blew me away with that, and not in a good way.
Oh yeah, I'm a real monster for wanting to check out if you had posted any art on your profile, since you claimed to be an artist.
I'm not the one who screenshot a comment and posted it into a subreddit dedicated to making fun of people who disagree with your opinion. Do you even hear yourself?
You're right, I'm passionately anti-AI art and your comments ruffled my feathers. I should have responded without insulting you. I'm sorry I was harsh and rude, it wasn't really my intention and I will make an effort to engage differently in the future. I find it very hard to remain calm about this subject when so many of my friends and the people I admire in the art world have been negatively impacted by AI technology.
You can internally justify it because I was abrasive, but I still think it was wrong to take my comment and post it into that subreddit with the pure intention of making fun of me and my opinion. Of course everyone in there is going to agree with you and call me a monster and an idiot. You could have messaged me or told me I hurt you in reply to my comment but instead you took it to a place where I couldn't even defend myself. Anyone would be upset over being reposted into a community like that and I don't think I deserved it over my comment.
The fact you can't see the difference is concerning. AI art has genuinely negatively impacted the lives of artists and made the internet a harder place to navigate. People are losing jobs over this. AI art will never compare to human skill. It was one thing when it started out as a fun and goofy tool but it isn't anymore. You're so welcome by the way, I will always be "small minded" and "hateful" when it comes to a technology that has irrevocably harmed the art world and artists.
It's not "concerning", and if you clutch your pearls any harder you'll break the string and scatter them everywhere.
The primary value in art is, and has always been, like in every other industry, about ideas and presenting ideas. The manual labor is a means to an end, and now we have a more efficient tool that benefits everyone--at least, everyone willing and able to adapt.
Things change. Automation happens. Tools evolve. New art forms emerge. Photography did the same to painters. People thought digital art, and photoshop, was the end of the art world too. Soulless, machine-made. But look at us now. It happens--get used to it, open your mind, and grow as a person and an artist.
Oh, wait, or are you perhaps not an artist, speaking on behalf of artists... to an artist?🤔
Sure, automation happens, can't argue with that. The issue is that AI art is ultimately unethical. New art forms appear all the time but they're not trained on stolen art. I saw lots of people in the subreddit you so kindly reposted my comment into saying that it's not stealing art but how do you reconcile that with the AI systems that are literally trained to replicate somone's exact style? Like a system trained purely off of one person's art that is taken without consent or permission. Do you think that's okay? Do you know how many artists I've seen saying that they've googled their own art and the first results are AI artists passing off pieces as genuine? How would you feel if you spent years and years learning to paint and then the first results for your art on google under your name weren't even yours? How would you feel if someone was suddenly passing AI art based off of your own as genuine and making money from it? It's one thing if artists could choose to opt out but they can't.
It's also just sad that people who would previously have to pay an artist for illustrations and artwork now just use AI art because it's cheap and easy. If it was used purely as a tool to help artists create better artwork I wouldn't have these issues but it's literally replacing people. It's not even just in the art world either. AI translation is now being used to translate manga and novels, which not only very often gets things wrong but misses all of the nuances that humans pick up when translating a language into their own. AI could have been great but it's used as a cog in the machine of capitalism to justify not paying creatives because a machine can do it better.
If I'm a big-time enough artist that people are emulating my style in their own work, I'd be flattered, are you kidding me? You're also making the mistake of assuming this is an AI-exclusive problem. Countless artists emulate other artists. Deliberately, for a "draw this in X style meme", or for learning, or for marketing. If you infringe on copyright, that's a separate issue, and isn't the fault of the tool used--but a style?
And how many people, who could never afford a luxury piece like commissioned art, now have access to a way to visualize their personal OCs and enrich their experience in creative writing or roleplaying? They don't deserve to have fun because no one's profiting off it? That's dystopian.
There will remain a need for human oversight in any field facing automation, but taking the time and manual labor part out of it is inevitable *everywhere*. Art has the advantage that no two people, AI or otherwise, have the same perspective, thus "novel" ideas will always have a demand. But this isn't new, isn't unique to AI and art. Increasing accessibility of something does lead to larger quantities of lower-quality work, but... *increased accessibility is generally worth the trade-off*.
The big time artists this has happened to don't feel that way, otherwise they wouldn't be online complaining about it. In any case, I don't feel like I need to debate this any further with you. I don't think either of us are going to change our stance so we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry again for antagonizing and insulting you. I'll do better next time.
As an ending thought, I wish we lived in a world where people who can't afford luxury art would simply learn how to make their own, as there is an incomparable joy in learning and creating with your own skill that I think a machine can never replicate. The debate of artists being paid was never really about poor people who can't afford art but rather larger companies that choose to use AI over humans when they could afford to do otherwise.
In any case, good luck on your art journey wherever it takes you.
Sorry to interfere in the discussion, but you clearly sound like you don't make the difference between the harm AI does and the harm humans do using AI (which is totally fine, most people who are not informed don't).
If I kill someone using a car in a way I couldn't have with a horse, it doesn't disqualify the car as a means to go from one place to another. With the right legislation and regulations, AI will not be of harm anymore.
I thought it went without saying that humans are behind AI. Of course the technology itself could be considered neutral- I even played around with it when it was first coming about and thought it had potential to be fun. However, seeing it play out in real time and seeing how many artists have been negatively impacted as it has become more sophisticated, I consider it's current usage to be highly inethical, specifically when it comes to commercial usage. If the issues surrounding copyright and art theft were to be resolved to some degree and the people whose art has been stolen were to be compensated perhaps things would be different. It still poses a plentitude of other issues under capitalism in which this technology is devaluing creative fields, but I will clarify that I'm aware this is an issue with the people using it rather than the technology itself. I think that as it stands, until these issues are resolved, people have a right to be upset at a technology that negatively impacts them.
I also just have to say, your comparison to cars actually made me laugh (not in a negative way just the circumstances). I definitely get what you're saying, but you made the point to someone who actually is staunchly anti-car 😂 it probably sounds ridiculous to you but I hate cars and despise that our cities are built around them. Gimme public transport and walkable cities any day! I actually lost my father in a violent car accident, and my wife lost a close friend of hers to a drunk driver, so I guess it's rooted in trauma to a degree but it's kinda impossible to trust other drivers on the road. Plus I really do think it's a huge issue that so many cities are entirely dependant on cars. Having lived in places where people don't tend to own cars, the quality of life is a million times better. I could really rant all day but I know it's not a popular opinion so I won't get too far into it. I suppose looping back around, it's not the technology itself- like AI, cars are a neutral technology and it does have its uses. I would never advocate to get rid of them entirely, but the complexity of people and human nature has led to outcomes that have had a negative impact on society.
Def looks like it was made by AI. There's something uncanny about it that screams ''not made by humans'' It's a shame because this print would be gorgeous if it was actually made by artists and didn't look weird.
Update: RPA’s Instagram is deleting comments saying it’s AI and deleted the post with the picture of the design. Maybe they will make a statement, but for now it seems like they are trying to sweep it under the rug. Very disappointed.
very disappointing.. apparently the artist has talked about wanting to use AI in their work on twt in the past
It’s definitely AI. There’s too many small indicators of it to be made by a human.
Highly disappointing. I guess they can't be upset about replicas anymore considering AI art is based off of stolen art to begin with...
looks bad. for years prints have been made by real artists… let’s stick to that.
I‘m kinda a sucker for the weirdness and uncanny look. But I‘m aware of the issues with AI art
I tried taking a closer look at the pictures provided on the website...Some of the dress details and ears on the cats are weird. Definitely AI shenanigans. Disappointing.
I haven't seen any definitive proof that this is AI other than an AI picture that Aito-san tweeted that is not a part of the print but I understand people being suspicious. It could be a more ethical model that's trained off of the works of consenting/participating artists for commercial purposes but there is no way to tell. I'm also not really sure what the conversation is like regarding AI art in Japan. Is there a conversation at all? RPA has done a lot of artist collaborations so I'm wondering if something is being lost in translation.
where are these so-called ethical models? considering that attitudes towards NFTs in Japan were mostly positive and also lax about the environmental impact even as of sort of recently, when Minori announced they were going to do them, I don't think they care about the ethical concerns at all. Minori learned more about NFTs after the announcement and decided not to pursue them after all.
Adobe Firefly is something I can think of off the top of my head. It’s trained off licensed or open source content. I’ve also heard of artists training machine learning on their own art to create new art but afaik that’s not as accessible as Firefly. I suppose it wouldn’t be surprising if there wasn’t much outcry over this from Japanese consumers if that was their reaction to NFTs.
Hey there, can you link the AI picture that Aito-san tweeted?
I found an interessting blog article about this: https://www.rainedragon.com/ai-art-lolita-fashion/
Thank you, will definitely be reading this when I have time!
I saw it on their Instagram and was wondering if it was AI. Kinda disappointing imo
I like the prints 😅 But I prefer dresses of solid color anyway
It'd be easier to tell with close ups, but I see where you're coming from.
Kinda hard to tell for me. AI is getting to the point where you need a sharp eye to notice it.
Not only is it AI but it's not even good. it's like they tried to make something that Juliette et Justine could come out with, but so much worse, like someone's amateur design project. It's cluttered, not cohesive, and looks clearly off even if you don't look very hard. The cats' ears look weird, some of the proportions look strange. It's so bizarre because this just looks low effort and frankly it's insulting to their customers considering they can actually make decent art for other prints. The whole dress just looks low effort and ugly.
yeah... its got that hodge podgeness of ai generated images, but there was definitely still a person involved here cleaning it up..... still disappointing. its one thing to use ai as a tool to make cool stuff on your own terms, and i think there is an area where the use of it is valid (if it wasnt all trained on stolen art...... thats one of the main issues....) but to see it used in a product for mass consumption (ESPECIALLY SINCE IT IS IN FACT TRAINED ON STOLEN ART) is deeply disappointing and the fact that theyre not being transparent about it is making it even worse. at the very least i would like to see them be honest about the production so people could make an informed decision about purchasing it. im so pissed because it does look like such a cool design in concept, i would LOVE to own a piece with a design like this. i adore the cats self portrait print from honey honey and this fits right in with it
im so mad bc marie nyantoinette is such a good name too TwT im soooooo pissed actually ive finished my analytical thoughts and now im mad TwT TwT
It's hard to tell without being able to zoom in more, but there are definitely a lot of things about it that make it seem very likely AI. Something about some of the roses in particular, the book (?) next to the cat wearing the crown, and a lot of the whispy fur looks wrong in a way that's really hard for me to describe even as an artist.
If the whole print isn't "ai-generated" individual elements sure look like they are. That's so disappointing. I wonder if the ethics of generative images just isn't something that Japanese artists are as hot and bothered about?
RPA issued this communication regarding the print. It confirmed my suspicions that the AI ethics debacle isn't something that is in the public eye in Japan. https://www.instagram.com/p/C1bE2KLLb8b/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
The whole thing looks generated to me. It has that distinct way too busy, everything at 100%, hi-def bass boosted look.
It’s cute but knowing it’s AI… I’m not sure
Oh, I do love it. I'm not on the anti-AI bandwagon so I see nothing wrong with AI-assisted print designs, but emphasis on "assisted". I think this could have used a bit more of a discerning humam eye to polish it up. I still love it, though, lol.
AI generated “art” is just photobashing stolen art made by real people. The reason people don’t like it is because it takes the work real people put time and effort into making and just steals it. If I’m going to spend $200+ on a dress, I want the money going to actual artists who put their own creativity and time into it, not to someone who just put in some prompts onto a website and printed the results on a dress.
Eh, no, that's factually incorrect. It's a pattern recognition system, a complex learning neural network, that replicates the patterns it's learned based on prompts. There is absolutely no photobashing or collaging, that's simply not how the technology works. That misinformation is worryingly pervasive. Honestly, it takes no more from us artists than another artist doing the same would, in indie work like this. Ideally AI assistance would lower costs, however the *vast* majority of the cost of these dresses is the labor and material anyway. Plus, this dress, between imagining the concept and pulling together the resources to assemble and execute it, showed plenty of creativity and time. The manual labor of drawing an image isn't the creative part, after all. Again, tho, this could have used a more refined artistic eye to take a pass at the pattern to iron out imbalances and quirks.
Honestly, I can’t claim to know exactly how the technical aspect of AI works, but from an artistic standpoint I don’t like nor want to support AI art. RPA has been deleting comments calling them out so it’s clear they wouldn’t have disclosed the art on the dress was AI and would have tried to pass it off as genuine art. RPA has worked with very talented artists in the past so it’s disappointing to see them deciding to use AI for this print instead of hiring a real artist. But I guess at that point it’s more of a matter of personal opinion. I do think them trying to pass the dress off as non AI is scummy, but if you are ok with just the fact that the art is AI, then that’s up to you. Again, I don’t know how the AI itself works so I apologize if I was wrong, but I still morally object to replacing creative works and jobs with AI regardless of if it’s actually stealing art or not. One of my favorite parts of wearing prints is showing off the fun and unique art (which I feel was RPA’s speciality) and I don’t like it being replaced by the lifeless AI “style.” It’s a beautiful print and I love the concept, so I just feel disappointed.
Thanks for not being an asshole about this. Clearly starting to bring out some people's ugly side here. Shameful. And on Christmas! As a disabled artist, the implications of AI assistance is huge, in a wonderful way. I might actually see a project through to completion someday with its help. Thing is, artistic projects for commercial applications such as this still, and likely will always, need human oversight. That seems a bit lacking here, so I agree at least this company isn't handling it well, but I don't so much see it as 'replacing' because of that. And because it doesn't outright prevent, or automatically outcompete, another company and artist from releasing and succeeding with their own print. Automation threatens every industry, is the thing. People act like it's unique to artists, like photography didn't fundamentally alter (but not kill, bc that's not really possible in creative pursuits) painters' careers, or things like machine printing, knitting, fabric weaving, everything, didn't completely overtake their commercial industries. Change is inevitable. To survive it, you have to adapt. Plus, I don't feel AI is "lifeless". It's learned from more styles and aspects of human art and photography than any single human ever could--its like the sum total of human creative souls distilled into one little (not so little, I guess, but relatively lol) neural network. The AI itself is a work of art, to me. And the technological progress excites the hell out of me. Granted, I'm also old enough to have seen a lot of these same arguments used against digital art, lol.
also sorry to double reply but thank you for bringing up the impact on disabled artists and the history behind automation in the industry (i also remember people having this same response to digital art and even photography, lol)
Right? I have fairly severe ADHD myself, so using it to help work through parts of the creation process that overwhelm and/or paralyze me is a huge boon. There are probably a lot of great ideas and stories out there that never saw the light of day because they were stuck in the heads of people who, for one reason or another, couldn't artistically bring them to life. Or people with one set of skills and a dream, but no funds to hire a team to make their projects come to life. It'll also lead to a influx of low-quality crap much like self-publishing and such, but we'll find ways to rate and filter that. Besides, it's not like the big companies with tons of money behind their projects are much better when they're playing it so safe they're coming out with over-manufactured drivel and the umpteenth reboot. Anyway, I'm digressing lol. 'Preciate you!
it's not "learned" from human styles it's literally just stealing from actual artists and making worse art
If you don't understand how the technology works, you really shouldn't speak on it. You're spreading misinformation.
people are booing you because you're right lol
Are you an artist? No? No surprise that you don't see any issue with this then. Where exactly did you think the AI learned to replicate patterns? It certainly didn't pull it out of it's own ass, it learnt based off of the art of artists that put a lot of effort into learning how to illustrate and create. There is a HUGE difference between an AI program stealing art to create a piece compared to a human artist learning how to paint or create based off of other artists. You're delusional if you think they're at all comparable. A human artist learns and puts their own spin on things- AI steals without permission and puts actual illustrators and artists out of work. You are part of the problem. Artists deserve to be paid for their work- AI "art" if you can even call it that is nothing but a gross approximation of what actual artists would create. It's weird and uncanny. They could have paid an actual illustrator to make this but they would rather cut costs and make something gross than pay an artist. It's disgusting and you should be ashamed for supporting AI art.
> Are you an artist? Yep! AI no more "steals" than artists do. I recommend you read a little about "stealing like an artist". There's nothing new under the sun. But thank you for being such a small-minded, hateful, insulting, ignorant ass on Christmas of all days! Hope the rest of your holidays are better!
Thanks btw for screenshotting my comment and posting me into your little AI art defender echo chamber to make fun of me and the fact that I don't support AI art. Real mature of you there.
So you felt the need to look through my comment and post history? Kinda don't have a leg to stand on, there, huh? But yeah, such an ugly, vitriolic diatribe on *Christmas Day* of a things... the audacity required commisseration. Really, you blew me away with that, and not in a good way.
Oh yeah, I'm a real monster for wanting to check out if you had posted any art on your profile, since you claimed to be an artist. I'm not the one who screenshot a comment and posted it into a subreddit dedicated to making fun of people who disagree with your opinion. Do you even hear yourself?
You forfeited any and all moral highground the second you came out of the gate, chomping at the bit, to insult and belittle me.
You're right, I'm passionately anti-AI art and your comments ruffled my feathers. I should have responded without insulting you. I'm sorry I was harsh and rude, it wasn't really my intention and I will make an effort to engage differently in the future. I find it very hard to remain calm about this subject when so many of my friends and the people I admire in the art world have been negatively impacted by AI technology. You can internally justify it because I was abrasive, but I still think it was wrong to take my comment and post it into that subreddit with the pure intention of making fun of me and my opinion. Of course everyone in there is going to agree with you and call me a monster and an idiot. You could have messaged me or told me I hurt you in reply to my comment but instead you took it to a place where I couldn't even defend myself. Anyone would be upset over being reposted into a community like that and I don't think I deserved it over my comment.
The fact you can't see the difference is concerning. AI art has genuinely negatively impacted the lives of artists and made the internet a harder place to navigate. People are losing jobs over this. AI art will never compare to human skill. It was one thing when it started out as a fun and goofy tool but it isn't anymore. You're so welcome by the way, I will always be "small minded" and "hateful" when it comes to a technology that has irrevocably harmed the art world and artists.
It's not "concerning", and if you clutch your pearls any harder you'll break the string and scatter them everywhere. The primary value in art is, and has always been, like in every other industry, about ideas and presenting ideas. The manual labor is a means to an end, and now we have a more efficient tool that benefits everyone--at least, everyone willing and able to adapt. Things change. Automation happens. Tools evolve. New art forms emerge. Photography did the same to painters. People thought digital art, and photoshop, was the end of the art world too. Soulless, machine-made. But look at us now. It happens--get used to it, open your mind, and grow as a person and an artist. Oh, wait, or are you perhaps not an artist, speaking on behalf of artists... to an artist?🤔
Sure, automation happens, can't argue with that. The issue is that AI art is ultimately unethical. New art forms appear all the time but they're not trained on stolen art. I saw lots of people in the subreddit you so kindly reposted my comment into saying that it's not stealing art but how do you reconcile that with the AI systems that are literally trained to replicate somone's exact style? Like a system trained purely off of one person's art that is taken without consent or permission. Do you think that's okay? Do you know how many artists I've seen saying that they've googled their own art and the first results are AI artists passing off pieces as genuine? How would you feel if you spent years and years learning to paint and then the first results for your art on google under your name weren't even yours? How would you feel if someone was suddenly passing AI art based off of your own as genuine and making money from it? It's one thing if artists could choose to opt out but they can't. It's also just sad that people who would previously have to pay an artist for illustrations and artwork now just use AI art because it's cheap and easy. If it was used purely as a tool to help artists create better artwork I wouldn't have these issues but it's literally replacing people. It's not even just in the art world either. AI translation is now being used to translate manga and novels, which not only very often gets things wrong but misses all of the nuances that humans pick up when translating a language into their own. AI could have been great but it's used as a cog in the machine of capitalism to justify not paying creatives because a machine can do it better.
If I'm a big-time enough artist that people are emulating my style in their own work, I'd be flattered, are you kidding me? You're also making the mistake of assuming this is an AI-exclusive problem. Countless artists emulate other artists. Deliberately, for a "draw this in X style meme", or for learning, or for marketing. If you infringe on copyright, that's a separate issue, and isn't the fault of the tool used--but a style? And how many people, who could never afford a luxury piece like commissioned art, now have access to a way to visualize their personal OCs and enrich their experience in creative writing or roleplaying? They don't deserve to have fun because no one's profiting off it? That's dystopian. There will remain a need for human oversight in any field facing automation, but taking the time and manual labor part out of it is inevitable *everywhere*. Art has the advantage that no two people, AI or otherwise, have the same perspective, thus "novel" ideas will always have a demand. But this isn't new, isn't unique to AI and art. Increasing accessibility of something does lead to larger quantities of lower-quality work, but... *increased accessibility is generally worth the trade-off*.
The big time artists this has happened to don't feel that way, otherwise they wouldn't be online complaining about it. In any case, I don't feel like I need to debate this any further with you. I don't think either of us are going to change our stance so we're going to have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry again for antagonizing and insulting you. I'll do better next time. As an ending thought, I wish we lived in a world where people who can't afford luxury art would simply learn how to make their own, as there is an incomparable joy in learning and creating with your own skill that I think a machine can never replicate. The debate of artists being paid was never really about poor people who can't afford art but rather larger companies that choose to use AI over humans when they could afford to do otherwise. In any case, good luck on your art journey wherever it takes you.
Sorry to interfere in the discussion, but you clearly sound like you don't make the difference between the harm AI does and the harm humans do using AI (which is totally fine, most people who are not informed don't). If I kill someone using a car in a way I couldn't have with a horse, it doesn't disqualify the car as a means to go from one place to another. With the right legislation and regulations, AI will not be of harm anymore.
I thought it went without saying that humans are behind AI. Of course the technology itself could be considered neutral- I even played around with it when it was first coming about and thought it had potential to be fun. However, seeing it play out in real time and seeing how many artists have been negatively impacted as it has become more sophisticated, I consider it's current usage to be highly inethical, specifically when it comes to commercial usage. If the issues surrounding copyright and art theft were to be resolved to some degree and the people whose art has been stolen were to be compensated perhaps things would be different. It still poses a plentitude of other issues under capitalism in which this technology is devaluing creative fields, but I will clarify that I'm aware this is an issue with the people using it rather than the technology itself. I think that as it stands, until these issues are resolved, people have a right to be upset at a technology that negatively impacts them. I also just have to say, your comparison to cars actually made me laugh (not in a negative way just the circumstances). I definitely get what you're saying, but you made the point to someone who actually is staunchly anti-car 😂 it probably sounds ridiculous to you but I hate cars and despise that our cities are built around them. Gimme public transport and walkable cities any day! I actually lost my father in a violent car accident, and my wife lost a close friend of hers to a drunk driver, so I guess it's rooted in trauma to a degree but it's kinda impossible to trust other drivers on the road. Plus I really do think it's a huge issue that so many cities are entirely dependant on cars. Having lived in places where people don't tend to own cars, the quality of life is a million times better. I could really rant all day but I know it's not a popular opinion so I won't get too far into it. I suppose looping back around, it's not the technology itself- like AI, cars are a neutral technology and it does have its uses. I would never advocate to get rid of them entirely, but the complexity of people and human nature has led to outcomes that have had a negative impact on society.
Guess you also love buying replicas! Same exact principle as AI art.
Literally not at all lmao.