Editorials & Other Articles

highplainsdem

(52,832 posts)

2. AI art is not real art. It's AI slop, and if it bears any resemblance at all to real art, it's because of the

Reply to milestogo (Original post)

Mon Dec 23, 2024, 10:09 PM

Monday

millions of stolen images used to train the AI.

workflows to create high-quality art, even for those without much training

The humans using AI image generators don't need training because they're not creating. The AI is, but mindlessly, because of those stolen images.

“People will be able to create deeply personal works with models trained on an artist’s photography, writing, or other creative inputs,” said Cansu Peker, founder of the Digital Arts Blog. An example: Sweden-based artist Lela Amparo merges her photographs with machine-imagined worlds. The otherworldly landscapes “feel both alien and intimately personal,” Peker said in an email.

That's sheer nonsense. Even AI "fine-tuned" to try to copy an individual style is trained first on the work of thousands, maybe milions of people whose intellectual property was stolen.

There's nothing "deeply personal" about AI generated from what's fine-tuned, either, because while what the AI vomits out in seconds might bear a superficial resemblance to someone's style, the human using that AI has little or no control over what's generated. All they can do is choose from what's offered, like online shoppers.

AI art is an atrocity. Almost all real artists hate it, but wannabes like it for the pretense that they're creative.

It's a complete lie that AI has democratized art. That's BS from AI peddlers.

See this thread from a real artist - here's the Threadreader page: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1868544745238393073.html

Or better yet, click on the top tweet and read the entire discussion, all the replies, on Twitter.