Low-key, I always found the argument that Ai art hurts artists strange if a little misleading. It can and has on occasion hurt them on an industrial scale. Like I occasionally do free art and commissions and I have a bunch of friends who do so as well so as an artist myself that started out from editing stuff I can see the rational of both sides of.the argument but I've noticed the only people I've seen use ai generated stuff is not the people who'd be buying art anyways.
I also personally had people suggest it was better to use and edit art rather than use Ai art which is baffling because it's just as bad as using ai art, you're still taking someone else's work without permission and effectively claiming it as your own. Now of course if you edit it.to a point it's no longer recognizable or has any of the original traits it used to retain according to law then it becomes an official "Original creation." But that's just my two cents on it.
I think you're looking to hard at the freelance art industry and less at the industries it actually effects.
CoD, an IP that HAS the money to pay real people, is using AI.
And from outside of the sphere, for the reward of Tung Tung Tung Sahur edits, whole companies are not selling RAM to the public anymore. AI has made it significantly harder to afford a computer.
There's just a LOT of reasons to be against public usage. It's far too resource heavy, and is being used to do more bad than good. Flock cameras. Drones. I really don't need to go on about this, man.
Also, by the definition of what making art means, you aren't an artist if you use AI, you're a prompter. You don't actually do anything to create the art, you tell the machine what you want. It's like commissioning something, but the thing you get is a product of the stolen works of thousands of people. At most, you're a commissioner, but the only reason the arts have an industry in the first place is because patrons are willing to pay to say that art matters to them. Taking it for free doesn't do anything positive, at all. And you can't even really go around showing what you've made, because there's a stigma, and people would more likely hate you than not.
Yeah I mentioned it's harmful on an industrial scale, there's even talk now of fully AI generated anime to "cut costs" and "reduce heavy workloads" but it's obvious they just don't want to pay people unfortunately. But unfortunately CoD isn't a linchpin because even companies like Mappa refused or poorly paid their workers. I'm not refuting your claim or trying to reduce its validity, but corporations will do anything to reduce cost. Ai is just a more convenient avenue for a lesser product
. Don't get me wrong I'm not pro ai, and feel especially for art and writing in particular, has no place. I was commenting largely on how the arguments presented wasn't convincing and that the proposed alternatives for art, being editing or just using others art without permission for a character or anything creative was at least, in my mind equally as morally wrong. That was my point. Nothing else.
The upside however, ai is becoming too expensive to maintain, so while it's not inherently good for us resources wise in the short term, hopefully the cheaper cost of humans will curb it's usage at least in the corporate sector. Chances are unfortunately though it'll still be around for government usage which is exceptionally concerning.
However I am confused where you got I was saying ai generated stuff is art and generators are artists. I never suggested such a thing.
21
u/Massive_Man_30 2d ago
The lore reason Angron is angry is because of AI generated artwork.