The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs


I like his prediction that these systems will lead to an eventual "mega feed", where even other forms of content like video is created by AI and automated. These companies end goal is that they get to monopolize and monetize creativity. Turn it out on mass and get your likes/ views prodding the system in the right direction to feed you more of what you want. Making them more money.

Very Dystopian. It's sad how Jean Baudrillard's concept of hyperreality and simulacrum is coming ever the more apparent with the passing of time. These companies are building our replacements.
 
Last edited:
He also talked about the reluctance of artists to stand up for themselves. The corporate entity that is in control of these AI systems says it's for research but it ultimately will come down to money and a computer automatically generating art without human prompts at all.

The best point that was made was that the assembly line robot arm that replaced a factory worker was replacing a job that was tedious and possibly unenjoyable. Whether you are a hobbyist or a professional, making art is enjoyable. Why would we want a computer to automate it and take it over when so many of us derive pleasure from making art?
 
He also talked about the reluctance of artists to stand up for themselves. The corporate entity that is in control of these AI systems says it's for research but it ultimately will come down to money and a computer automatically generating art without human prompts at all.

The best point that was made was that the assembly line robot arm that replaced a factory worker was replacing a job that was tedious and possibly unenjoyable. Whether you are a hobbyist or a professional, making art is enjoyable. Why would we want a computer to automate it and take it over when so many of us derive pleasure from making art?
It's not like musicians where they have a huge corporate body behind them lobbying for protection and profit. Even in that case the means exists already to replicate just about any artist voice and have a computer sing it, replicating their style to a T. -_-

If you are a big enough a star a hologram of you can perform concerts after you have died.

That band Abba plans to use holograms and do tours like that I remember hearing that like last year or so on the radio.
 
Last edited:
Did you notice that the drawing Steven Zapata did for this video was the type of art that earlier AI was churning out?
 
Did you notice that the drawing Steven Zapata did for this video was the type of art that earlier AI was churning out?
It's a bit abstract but it clearly has defined anatomy and form. The final render looks solid.
 
How is no one worried that The Matrix shall become a reality, in which all humans are trapped inside a machine?
It's strange but it looks like more and more we are heading towards these like dystopian sci-fi futures.
The owner of facebook rebranded his company to Meta to create a said "metaverse" think snow crash. All this algorithm stuff influencing and feeding you more content to what may suck you in.

Just a matter of time.
 
It's strange but it looks like more and more we are heading towards these like dystopian sci-fi futures.
The owner of facebook rebranded his company to Meta to create a said "metaverse" think snow crash. All this algorithm stuff influencing and feeding you more content to what may suck you in.

Just a matter of time.

It is only "a matter of time" if we allow it to be; there is still time to stop the machines from taking over.
 
It is only "a matter of time" if we allow it to be; there is still time to stop the machines from taking over.
The way our inventions/ technology progresses it's just like inevitable you know?

It's a little strange to think even technology will encompass and take over innate human ingenuity and creativity in some aspects. This is the tech currently in it's infancy imagine it in ten years. No human can compete with AIs in anything pretty much, chess, games, etc.. Watch eventually a real thinking AI is created and you have a machine designing other machines or a self operating factory. The world of tomorrow in say 30 years time will look very different.

You can choose not to use it, but the system will still exist and be funded by corporations / investors/ venture capitalists etc.
Uphill battle.
gg humanity.

Maybe it will be like uh Dune or the irobot crap where eventually a working class of android / self aware machines rebel and try to be free from humanity and that causes a war. ~_~
Crazy shit.
literally the matrix.
 
The way our inventions/ technology progresses it's just like inevitable you know?

It's a little strange to think even technology will encompass and take over innate human ingenuity and creativity in some aspects. This is the tech currently in it's infancy imagine it in ten years. No human can compete with AIs in anything pretty much, chess, games, etc.. Watch eventually a real thinking AI is created and you have a machine designing other machines or a self operating factory. The world of tomorrow in say 30 years time will look very different.

You can choose not to use it, but the system will still exist and be funded by corporations / investors/ venture capitalists etc.
Uphill battle.
gg humanity.

Maybe it will be like uh Dune or the irobot crap where eventually a working class of android / self aware machines rebel and try to be free from humanity and that causes a war. ~_~
Crazy shit.
literally the matrix.

Why are you being so negative and pessimistic on this subject?
 
Why are you being so negative and pessimistic on this subject?
I'm just looking at the trends of automation and extrapolating. Is there something to be happy about building our replacements?
Unions right now fear automation yet corporations are embracing and pushing for it at the top to make more money.
To bring it back to the original point of the thread these systems aren't built for artists they are built to replace them and make the "creators" who own it money. I could see in a few years this dominating certain niches entirely. It's already flooding the internet with millions(?) of images a day.

This is like a tiny wave in a bigger ocean of incoming societal change. Just look at the trends.
 
I'm just looking at the trends of automation and extrapolating. Is there something to be happy about building our replacements?
Unions right now fear automation yet corporations are embracing and pushing for it at the top to make more money.
To bring it back to the original point of the thread these systems aren't built for artists they are built to replace them and make the "creators" who own it money. I could see in a few years this dominating certain niches entirely. It's already flooding the internet with millions(?) of images a day.

This is like a tiny wave in a bigger ocean of incoming societal change. Just look at the trends.

In that case, how can people adapt to this trend?
 

Catamount

Uncaged
I don't feel anything when looking at most of AI pictures, with very few exceptions. And mostly it is because AI doesn't really create anything in the information field (imagine you are reading a neuroscience book - this kind of information, not words or smth). It is a description of the past, because you input something already born into this world in it and it doesn't really interpret it - just wraps it in something extra. It does not replace the communication with the artist you establish by observing their expressive works. Yes, I am talking about significant art, not transgender unicorns from DA, sure. I probably may mistake a real painter for AI, just like others can, but especially when I know it's AI-drawn, what am I supposed to see there except some fact it is depicting? I enjoy my misinterpretation of art as much as mutual understanding with an artist.
It must be different in a commercial overview of art though.
 

Korean Illustrator Kim Jung Gi’s ‘Resurrection’ via AI Image Generator Is Orientalism in New Clothing​



December 9, 2022 10:42am

It took exactly three days for someone to resurrect beloved Korean artist after his death in early October at the age of 47. Not in flesh and blood, of course, but in code through the use of an AI image generator.


By October 6, a former French game developer known online as 5you a tool, based on popular open-source AI image generator , that could generate images in Kim’s iconic style with a text prompt. 5you described the tool as an “hommage [sic]” and encouraged users to “feel free to use it” so long as they “credit plz.”

Manga, anime, and comic book artists were universally outraged, with 5you from Kim’s fans and fellow artists. Some denounced the move as a for publicity; others, meanwhile, read it as a premonition of the dystopian future that lay ahead—“they won’t let people die, they’ll work forever” read one popular comment on a . For many, 5you’s request for credit echoed a long line of white creators appropriating and then benefitting from Asian art styles.


But the controversy illuminates a truth long held by technology ethicists: New technology is not ideologically neutral; these tools latch onto and aggravate existing structural inequalities. Image generators like Stable Diffusion, DALL-E, and others are poised to do the same, creating new avenues of exploitation while also reinforcing our existing biases.


While all artists stand to lose from AI, the bot reveals how Asian artists in particular — long racialized as the robotic Other — are uniquely vulnerable to these tools as well as a new form of technologically-inflected Orientalism.


The Old and the New Orientalism​



Historically, Orientalism in Western art was motivated by a vision of Asia as an archaic, traditionalist alternative to Europe— , yet in contact with a mystic essence lost to those in modernity.


During the early period of Orientalism — typically considered the 18th and 19th centuries — it wasn’t uncommon for artists to adopt the of these cultures from clothing and decor to artistic practices like printmaking, in the hopes of imbuing their work with a kind of exotic authenticity.


In the post-World War II era, however, Asia became an increasingly dominant player in the global economy and in the development of technology. The notion of Eastern backwardness could no longer hold in the face of its growing influence, and so a new myth arose to rationalize the superiority of the Western subject while making sense of this global reconfiguration. Asian peoples began to be depicted in the media as essentially robotic— automata capable of fine-tuned execution and coordination, but lacking the sort of individual creativity and spirit that defined the Western subject.


As the theorist Wendy Hui Kyong Chun ,” these depictions protected whiteness’ hegemony over the human by “jettisoning… the Asian/Asian American as robotic, as machine-like,” while explaining Asia’s technological proficiency in dehumanizing terms that justified their .


This framework has since been dubbed “techno-Orientalism,” where the traditional and premodern imagery that once stereotyped Asia is replaced by “hyper technological terms,” as. In this formulation, Asian people are racialized using the language of machines, as industrious, hard-working, and functionally competent, yet hollow and , while their art is “soulless and mechanical.”


Techno-Orientalist stereotypes have become commonplace in mainstream media, from Hollywood blockbuster films like Blade Runner, with its Tokyo inspired , to musicians like Grimes, who frequently draws on in her , to video games like 2022’s Stray, which depicts a thinly disguised Kowloon Walled City populated solely by robots. White creators in nearly every medium have and continue to use Asianness to symbolize robotic futurity, and vice versa.

The Logical End of Techno-Orientalism​


5You’s model simulating Kim Jung Gi and his art style is just the latest evolution in this twisted association between Asian bodies and roboticism. Finally, the Asian artist, long racialized as mechanistic, is reproduced via technology. The Asian artist is fully realized as a machine, thrust into the public as a product to be exploited and consumed. It’s not just their art, but the artists themselves that are now appropriated— pacified, transformed into a pure tool, made manipulable for anyone who might be so inclined (as long as they give the developer credit, of course).


Though one might point out that historically famous white artists have also been simulated by image generators, the speed with which Kim was mechanically refashioned after his death gestures towards an underlying attitude that already saw him as mechanistic to begin with.


In September, Jennifer Gradecki, a Northeastern University art and design professor, that “creativity is actually the one thing that isn’t going to be able to be automated” in the future. Gradecki may have meant to reassure artists, but for Asians, a group often — and characterized at best as effective replicators, but rarely — her statement rings like a warning for how these tools might push us further towards the margins and alienate us from our art.


Jet Li, for instance, when he explained in 2018 that his refusal to work on The Matrix franchise stemmed from the fact that the filmmakers wanted Li to “record and copy all [his] moves into a digital library,” meaning that the movements of his body, honed during a lifetime of training, would become someone else’s intellectual property forever.


When you’re already seen as mechanistic, the reproduction of your bodies and art through machines isn’t seen as theft, but simply the next logical step.


Fighting the AI Future​


We shouldn’t simply resign ourselves to this alienated future — and many artists aren’t, instead using a range of disciplines to interrogate the boundaries between human and machine creativity.


Chinese Canadian painter , for example, incorporates a robotic arm into her art-making practice. As the robotic arm and Chung read each other’s brush strokes and respond in an ever-evolving dance, the machine collaboration centers her body— rather than divorcing her from it— by highlighting the physical performance between these organic and inorganic beings.


Meanwhile, last year, Korean American artist , installed a series of floating “biologized machines” — giant ovoid airborne structures that suggest jellyfish — in Tate Modern’s Turbine Hall. The installation contained another component often included in Yi’s practice: a particular aroma that changed week to week based on different time periods. One scent profile was meant to evoke the bubonic plague. Yi’s semi-autonomous robo-organisms challenge the cold, sterile notion of as disembodied “pure cognition” by integrating them in natural forms, while her olfactory scent-scapes serve as a carnal reminder of embodiment.


Korean American filmmaker Kogonada has challenged techno-Orientalist ideology directly in his latest film, After Yang. In the film, starring Colin Farrell, Jodie Turner-Smith, and Justin Min, a father goes on a mission to repair his daughter’s non-responsive robotic “big brother” and caretaker, Yang. The film is a on the figure of the in the sci-fi genre, complicating this archetype beyond recognition and making space for something new.


The impact of these technologies is , but if history is to , new tools tend to carry on the mistakes of the past without direct intervention. Liberating these devices from their dehumanizing potential will require us to challenge and reimagine the frameworks we use to navigate the oppressive binaries of man and machine and East and West.


Only then might we truly live up to Kim Jung Gi, that these technologies would help us pave new paths forward— enabling us to express ourselves more clearly and ultimately “make our lives more diverse and interesting.”


Source:
 

~Avant~

Eveningstar
He also talked about the reluctance of artists to stand up for themselves. The corporate entity that is in control of these AI systems says it's for research but it ultimately will come down to money and a computer automatically generating art without human prompts at all.

The best point that was made was that the assembly line robot arm that replaced a factory worker was replacing a job that was tedious and possibly unenjoyable. Whether you are a hobbyist or a professional, making art is enjoyable. Why would we want a computer to automate it and take it over when so many of us derive pleasure from making art?
The same reason porn exists probably
 
"After being informed that one animator was attempting to create a machine that “draws pictures like humans do,” Miyazaki fired back, “I feel like we are nearing to the end of the times. We humans are losing faith in ourselves.”"

 
Is this person famous or influential in commercial art industry?
I just posted that to show there was a protest movement going on on artstation. I personally wouldn't call her "famous" for an artist but having nearly half a million followers yeah I would say she is famous. If someone can see something posted and recognize who made it without name on it they are famous in my opinion.


Both professional and amateur artists alike , the field’s biggest portfolio site, for its seeming inaction against a rising tide of AI-generated imagery washing up on its front page.

I think a few months ago, I commented to uh Loni in a chat group that like on Steam community tab pages for games and other places like DeviantArt. It has become saturated with millions of AI generated pictures. Tad excessive. I don't check artstation daily, but apparently it was becoming a problem on it and someone started posting NO AI images as form of protest and it caught on.

War against the machine. 🏴

I'm glad people can see something that is anti humanities for what it is.
It's like if someone told me this novel was written by a machine. I don't want to fucking read it. Absurd.
 

Reversing an earlier decision, the United States Copyright Office rules that a comic book made using A.I. art is ineligible for copyright protection

By
Published 2 days ago

The United States Copyright Office (USCO) reversed an earlier decision to grant a copyright to a comic book that was created using "A.I. art," and announced that the copyright protection on the comic book will be revoked, stating that copyrighted works must be created by humans to gain official copyright protection.

In September, Kris Kashtanova announced that they had received a U.S. copyright on his comic book, Zarya of the Dawn, a comic book inspired by their late grandmother that she created with the text-to-image engine Midjourney. Kashtanova referred to herself as a "prompt engineer" and explained at the time that she went to get the copyright so that she could “make a case that we do own copyright when we make something using AI.”

"AI art" is artwork created by an artificial intelligence machine learning process, meaning that a computer/machine has learned information, such as the past work and art style of other artists, and descriptions of characters and images, and then generated a new image using that learned knowledge. The knowledge fed into the machine is almost always from humans, who also often feed into the machine specific guiding instructions for the creation of the art, but the actual final creation is generated by the computer/machine (in this instance, it would be Midjourney).


The USCO had previously denied giving copyright protection to A.I.-produced art, including earlier in 2022 when it denied protection to Stephen Thaler and his AI-generated painting, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler then sued the Copyright Office, so the Office granting protection to Zarya of the Dawn was naturally a surprising turn of events.

WHAT HAPPENED WITH ZARYA OF THE DAWN'S COPYRIGHT?​


However, in a post on her Facebook page. Kashtanova revealed that the USCO had contacted her to tell her that it was revoking the protection, explaining that it had errantly missed that Midjourney had created the art for the comic (despite Midjourney being listed on the credits of the cover of the comic). The USCO has given Kashtanova 30 days to appeal its decision.


Kashtanova pointed out at the time that they were “open how it was made and put Midjourney on the cover page,” but the actual application doesn't specify the role of Midjourney in the creation of the comic, only noting that the comic was "A.I.-assisted."
 

Catamount

Uncaged

Reversing an earlier decision, the United States Copyright Office rules that a comic book made using A.I. art is ineligible for copyright protection

By
Published 2 days ago

The United States Copyright Office (USCO) reversed an earlier decision to grant a copyright to a comic book that was created using "A.I. art," and announced that the copyright protection on the comic book will be revoked, stating that copyrighted works must be created by humans to gain official copyright protection.

In September, Kris Kashtanova announced that they had received a U.S. copyright on his comic book, Zarya of the Dawn, a comic book inspired by their late grandmother that she created with the text-to-image engine Midjourney. Kashtanova referred to herself as a "prompt engineer" and explained at the time that she went to get the copyright so that she could “make a case that we do own copyright when we make something using AI.”

"AI art" is artwork created by an artificial intelligence machine learning process, meaning that a computer/machine has learned information, such as the past work and art style of other artists, and descriptions of characters and images, and then generated a new image using that learned knowledge. The knowledge fed into the machine is almost always from humans, who also often feed into the machine specific guiding instructions for the creation of the art, but the actual final creation is generated by the computer/machine (in this instance, it would be Midjourney).


The USCO had previously denied giving copyright protection to A.I.-produced art, including earlier in 2022 when it denied protection to Stephen Thaler and his AI-generated painting, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler then sued the Copyright Office, so the Office granting protection to Zarya of the Dawn was naturally a surprising turn of events.

WHAT HAPPENED WITH ZARYA OF THE DAWN'S COPYRIGHT?​


However, in a post on her Facebook page. Kashtanova revealed that the USCO had contacted her to tell her that it was revoking the protection, explaining that it had errantly missed that Midjourney had created the art for the comic (despite Midjourney being listed on the credits of the cover of the comic). The USCO has given Kashtanova 30 days to appeal its decision.


Kashtanova pointed out at the time that they were “open how it was made and put Midjourney on the cover page,” but the actual application doesn't specify the role of Midjourney in the creation of the comic, only noting that the comic was "A.I.-assisted."
This makes sense, I agree that it shouldn't be copyrighted as a whole. People are running around with the word "idea" like ot just means a random thought in their head they can put copyright on. Uh now, it's not that.
If you want to create a unique story book, sure, go ahead. You can even use AI generated illustrations - that would be cool and convenient for you. You can also claim the story as your own, this is a book you wrote, and unless it is plagiarism sure you are the good one. However, if you chose to make a comic but you can't actually produce a comic drawing... oh well. Guess you gonna make a free webtoon then.
All people shouldn't be profiting from stuff they make on equal terms. Random school newspaper level photos won't take World Press Photo Show places and that is normal. We should evaluate things people produce differently, be it art or craft. Higher quality and more uniqueness - higher price. AI might never produce two images that are visually the same, but it is still and algorithm and thus nor unique in nature.
 
as someone whose interests lie in ai (not art ai) and digital art this was really saddening

you like to think tech developments are going to be a net positive but nah this one is not

it’s gonna speed up workflows for big animation companies at the cost of infinitely accelerating plagiarism and fucking the livelihoods of millions of people

similar issue with chatgpt making teachers’ jobs an absolute mess

ai has and can achieve wonderful things yet these dinguses are focusing on applications that serve criminals and scammers

v unfortunate
 
I was on pixiv. Saw some like hyper real women / anime stuff generated. So even porn this will replace eventually on a mass scale. Why hire actors etc. If you could create/generate people and just use old scenes in a giant algorithm to generate new ones...swap celeb faces on etc.
I expect this stuff in 5 years now.

The disturbing thing is uh yes that one category we should not name or talk about people are generating ai hyperreal looking smut of it. I know it's Japan but that's pretty fucked. -_- you have to wonder is that person training his ai program on actual illegal content?

Beyond fucked.

Dystopian tech. I see on YouTube that's the trend now talk about ai for these finance channels etc. guys. Some of them are having an existential crisis as well because it feels like this stuff can replace you and take your job. (It will)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom