Yes. The first thing that early humans did, after they had enough food and shelter, was make paintings/carvings and jewellery, closely followed by ornate and decorated clothing.
3 Likes
@sooz What was the link to the Glaze site? I stay away from the major social media platforms and am hopeful that it would it would be added protection against the AI monsters. I am highly concerned about AI âscraping/ harvestingâ being as I have only begun my digital art journey (8days hereâŚ1 week on dA). I have posted works on deviantArt which allegedly offers 3 months of protection from it during the free trial. You have all been wonderful helping to build my confidence as I begin my journey. So I am very interested in that tool and hopefully, it might be able to provide a little peace of mind.
Yeah, I think weâre right to be concerned. You can read the article here.
1 Like
@B_Venom Without art we wouldnât have written language. Drawings were the first means of communication between humans to convey where the prey was at and to give others a rough idea of seasons and migration patterns. The art of crafting beads was one of many early forms of currency/trade. Living, breathing, humans (even other animals) craft and create works of art (a spiderâs web (depending on the species)) is not only beautiful but is neccesary for its survival). Art made by humans is very necessary . Those very same hands crafted the engravings for the images that can be found on every currency on this planet. Unfortunately, money is a neccessary evil and we ALL need it or want it. A HUMAN was the one that designed it. AI âscraping/harvestingâ is extremely dangerous. It EFFECTS everyone (hence the strikes going on in Hollywood). It is a threat for ANYONE that is involved in fields of intellectual/creative propertiesâŚright down to the âgeniusesâ that programmed/created AI enginesâŚHmmmâŚwonder what they are going to do when they are no longer needed to develop or program anything because AI can do it faster. The problem is that because of human nature there will be far too many that are willing to cross the line and not just use it for a tool or assistance which ultimately renders it useless as far as its intelligence. If it was extremely regulated it would be nothing more than another highly glorified smartphone (which I think are pretty dumb and annoying when you first get themâŚLOL) Food for human thought.
2 Likes
I truly hope that didnât come off as too much of a rantâŚLOL
1 Like
Another type of counter argument for people saying AI is just a tool -
Image from the website by Per Axbom CC BY-SA
4 Likes
@sooz Thank you so very much! I sent them an email. You are right about it being alarming! A million thanks for this! Hopefully, it goes throughâŚsometimes my tablet has other ideasâŚLOL. I actually was concerned the moment I joined dA because they offer what is known as Dream Up as part of one of their higher priced packages. Admittedly, I am kind of having some misgivings about the site due to the borderline heavy spamming of signing up for core at 50% offâŚI barely can manage to navigate around their website!! Did I make a mistake by trying them out and uploading some of my work? Again, thank you bunches!
2 Likes
But you are aware that dA feeds your submitted works into their AI, and you gave them the allowance to do so with registering along? And their protection only protects for other kinds of thievery than their own AI. Just askingâŚ
Michelist
1 Like
I had no idea! Do they do that even without CORE membership???
That is horrible! I really hope that WebGlaze responds soon.
I havenât bought into a membership with them. It is truly disheartening to learn of this considering that dA was the go to site for getting your work seen. 
2 Likes
I canât tell if Core is also affected, but there is a reason that dAâs membership dropped tremendously after they added this âoptionâ to their TOS. After they did this, many users also pulled their works from dA to avoid being fed into dAâs AI.
I, for example, use dA only as a source of resources.
Michelist
1 Like
I apologize again. I seem to have a horrible luck with words these days. I assure you I also think art is valuable. I wouldnât be on this forum otherwise. I have been drawing for as long as I can remember, and do understand the impact art, and the collective curiosity of the human race has accomplished. I donât think you might believe this, but Iâm having a conversation with you right now only because humans dared to dream. Human ingenuity is right before my eyes as we speak (or type ig).
what I meant was exactly as you said. Art cannot be compared to any immediate need of humans, like food, shelter, water, etc. or in this case, horses.
also by no means do I think art should just be a hobby, just in case you were thinking that. the whole human race would certainly be doomed if it was.
I am definitely not gonna argue that art is important for the functioning of society. when I said art is not something a human âneedsâ, I meant exactly that. Art isnât something which is required for the survival of individual humans living in a community, which is why it should be treated differently from other goods and services. Art definitely is useful in building said community and improving it, but this doesnât factor into the argument Iâm making.
I canât help but feel like we are nit-picking the s*** outta my argument instead of discussing the core message.
the thesis of my argument is, yes this stuff is bad, yes it is harming artists, but it is also unprofitable in the long run, which is why it will stop at some point and we will reach a point of equilibrium that is not too unfavourable for actual artists. it is a long-run scenario (I donât know how long exactly, which is why I posted this in the first place) but I posted it because I wanted to place a possible alternate scenario to all the doom-n-gloom scenarios which I am seeing a lot, which I think are over-exaggerating the LONG-RUN-IMPACTS. Again, I think image scrappers are bad. I think the wholesale disregard for an artistâs right to their own work is appalling. but it canât last that long because it is also not gonna make that much money.
In my opinion, AI art is a bubble market. It will burst someday, I suspect sooner rather than later.
this is the sum-total of my argument. sure, you can call me rosey-eyed or overly optimistic if you want, but that is what I think.
this is definitely not to discourage the warranted outrage of artists either. of course, fight for your rights as an artist. just know that you are not fighting an up-hill battle. this is a battle that can be won (at least that is what I think).
@B_Venom Please, by no means take my response to your standpoint or arguement the wrong way. You brought a highly compelling subject to the table which begged to illicit responses and engage thought. Those are the earmarks of an artist!
1 Like
The fact that within a very short time many artists have lost their jobs, because the film and game industry now let their work be done by these AI monsters, is the counter-evidence for your theory of the worthlessness of AI-generated âartâ (for me, it is still only computational results without a soul, but which can look good). The value is on the one hand their lost income and on the other hand the profit from the savings of the industry. Even artists of this forum are among those affected.
If you were supporting your family by creating art and were now on the street, you would probably think differently, especially if you never learned anything else.
Michelist
5 Likes
Thatâs not how the law of supply and demand works, and itâs also a very simplified model that assumes complete market awareness by all participants and rational decisions at all time. This is not how the real world functions at all.
You assume the price of a product decreases because the company needs to pay less for itâs production but that is almost never the case. A profit oriented organization will almost always keep the prices the same unless decreasing the price will maximize profits more than the money saved by using cheaper materials and labor (like AI). This can lead to things like Shrinkflation, when the products are visually the same size and price but the contents is less or lower quality.
Companies also have a lot more power to skew the market in their favor by influencing regulators and policy makers, compared to the consumers or workers.
What will happen though is that the earnings of artists will decrease since they have to compete with cheap AI, to the point at which they canât afford living from their job and get pushed out of the market. This is where your supply-demand-function comes into play. This will of course not hit all artists the same but all the people doing entry level jobs, things you do before you are higher up in the career and do things that canât easily replaced yet by machines. There is no doubt that AI image generators and similar technology will heavily transform the creative industry. Itâs still hard to tell where tings are end up but it evidently already affects many people negatively and the only ones profiting from it are the companies that can maximize their profits even more.
6 Likes
The âbig hittersâ have started to fight back:
6 Likes
I donât think thatâs been true for a long time. Actually - DA has always been a bit of an enigma; frequently regarded with disdain in other art communities, but popular with the masses. It has outlived all those other sites though. A few years ago they made it more difficult to browse if youâre not logged in, so I very rarely go on there now.
Artstation is the main site for digital art these days. But that has had problems itself with the response to AI resulting in a massive backlash from users. I think things have resolved to some extent now but the landscape has been changed for sure since the AI floodgates opened.
2 Likes
@AhabGreybeard That makes me happy (the lawsuit, that is).
Best line of all:
The plaintiffs want âdamages for the lost opportunity to license their works, and for the market usurpation Defendants [OpenAI] have enabled by making Plaintiffs unwilling accomplices in their own replacement; and a permanent injunction to prevent these harms from recurring.â
5 Likes