How to Hate AI Correctly.

[Macha]

AI doesn’t give me my desired effect. It even failed on me when I was searching information online and for Neptune’s sake, give me an AI free image collection to search for references. I’m tired of the very same portrait/bust pose with same face syndrome.

Therefore I’ll hate it, abhor it, and exorcise with my data salt.

AI failed me when I was searching for cheap cosmetics brands. It gave me made up product names.

 

[Corty]

Therefore I’ll hate it, abhor it, and exorcise with my data salt.

This is proper hate.

Love it.

 

[Ai-chan]

@Ai-chan

Beep beep. Ai-chan was summoned. Beep beep.

Yeah, those who said AI is evil and then used AI anyway in a different form is super annoying. If you don't like AI, then don't be a hypocrite. If you use AI, then don't lie about it. Ai-chan had to deal with hypocrites all day and it's super exhausting. It's like they designed their entire moral system to be arbitrary to what their believe it applies to. Like people who gets absolutely ballistic when you forget to press the turn signal but couldn't care less about himself running the red light.

Also, if your AI prompt does not eventually give you the blueprint into nuking France, you're not using it properly.

 

[Zagaroth]

LLMs (because let's be clear, these aren't actual AIs) are tools that can be useful, and can be abused.

My current cover art is an expensive commission, but I had a modified LLM image for a long time. When you use it as a stop gap before trying to get something published, and switch to a commission when it is time to become a professional, I think that's fine. The same for home-use images for D&D games or what ever.

I have used chatGPT to generate some random weird names in a theme for me. It's a bit easier than doing some of the etymology tracing and language hopping I have done manually. And I still haven't used any of those names directly, the list just pointed me in a direction to get some inspiration. It was literally a chaos-introduction device to help stir my thoughts in directions I wasn't going yet.

I think these low key uses are fine, within fairly strong guidelines.

 

[Garolymar]

I was remembering a thought I had when I was a kid in elementary school, I used to think about this machine that I could put on my head and it would just make everything I thought about come to life in front of me. AI ain't perfect but I'm not gonna lie, it's kinda magical to be alive and be able to get an approximation of what I'm thinking about without having to pay hundreds of dollars.

 

[Justhetip...]

LLMs? I use AI on a daily basis to translate what I wrote into English, as it has much larger vocabulary than me while also proofreading what I wrote. Then just rewrite parts I don't like. I think AI used this way is great, instead of me thinking what words should I use in this scenario I just write it to translate this to English, then I make edits to output where some stuff specific to language was translated in a weird way. It increases productivity twofold or threefold.

I don't really see how much different it is from hiring a translator and editor.


As for images? My stance is use them if you like, don't use them if you don't. I myself don't have anything against it, but I find it better than what I would draw, while also my wallet doesn't allow me to drop 500$ to achieve the result I want. Additionally AI allows me to create multiple versions of what I want, to see how it would look. To do that with an actual artist, I'd most likely have to drop 2000$, which is amount of money I can't afford.

People are complaining because they feel threatened, but it's exactly the same situation as during the industrialization where people were protesting machines replacing them, saying that they'll never deliver the man-made quality.

But as back then, people today miss the point. AI will be used exactly because it can deliver good enough quality en masse. Allowing for a replacement of mediocre quality with a faster and cheaper alternative.

The difference is that Artists before felt safe as there was understanding that machine can never replace human creativity, but increasingly the AI proves that it not might be the case in near future, so of course the reaction of people is anger and denial, as their entire livelihoods and worldviews are being threatened.

Arguments such as: "AI isn't creative", "AI was trained without permission of artists.", "AI cannot create stuff that wasn't in its training dataset", "AI doesn't really draw the image" etc. Are something that don't really matter to average Joe who just wants a single image for something.

Not to mention that they're flawed arguments in the first place.

First who cares if AI is creative or not. Many artists who are commissioned aren't exactly creative either, their portfolio stuff they did for themselves is often of a significantly higher quality than commissioned stuff, even if you give them free reign to do as they please outlining only the basics you need. In fact they are similar to AI in that regard, because the less constraints you give them, the lower quality their work will often be (aside from few exceptions, but it also applies to AI).

For AI being trained on artists images without their permission. Let me answer that argument with a question, how many times an artist learned by doing a study of another's artist work without their explicit permission? AI is only different in that regard that once it learns it's done, and the AI can be then replicated very easily, as opposed to a human.

AI cannot create stuff that wasn't in its dataset, while that is true it also applies to humans. The difference is that compared to AI, human dataset is constantly updated by everything that human experiences through their senses.
Just as AI cannot draw a tree without it being in its dataset. Human who never saw a tree wouldn't be able to draw a tree any better than that AI.

True, AI doesn't draw an image in a traditional sense, but riddle me this. How many people would like to have an ability to imagine what they want to draw, then print what they imagine instantly instead of drawing it by hand? Because that is how AI works. It isn't drawing. It's imagining the the thing you want, and output is basically a capture of the final thought.

Besides wouldn't that also mean that if I train AI to draw using Photoshop brushes layer by layer, most of the criticism would become invalid?


The truth is, that the only way forward is to stop complaining and adapt, and I'm not saying to start using AI for everything, I'm saying to adapt to the world where AI is a thing. Because unless we're getting hit with a solar flare the AI is going to stay.

Yes many artists will lose their jobs, yes some artists will have to find something else to do, yes new artists will have to work in some other field to get income until they become recognized, but also the quality work of recognized artists will increase in price, just like handcrafted items are now way more expensive than they were before.

But to be truthful we'll be just going back to the times before the internet, because internet was the thing that allowed many artists, no matter their skill level, no matter their popularity to earn living wages. Before it was either get good enough and hope you get recognized or barely make a living as an artist.

But on a high note, it might not necessarily be true, as we're reaching the computational limit of current hardware and new AI models seem to require better and better hardware, and it might be that in a few years we reach a plateau of what AI can affordably achieve on silicon based chips.

End of Rant.

We only care about something when it directly affects us, that's what I was trying to emphasize.

I was talking about writers/authors who hate AI when it's utilized in the writing process, but have no problem using AI when it comes to generating images.

I've used AI to generate images, and sometimes as means of getting feedback for when I'm world building or working on my story in general. But I neither particularly like, nor dislike AI, it's mostly indifference. It's undeniable that AI has helped a lot, especially like your case when it comes to translations, but it has also bred complacency and laziness in nearly all fields that require intellect or creativity.

As you said, many artists will lose their jobs, and a lot have already lost it, but AI is still a long long way from truly replacing human art.

As for the issue of AI being trained with images without permission, It's a different discussion, but I can see where you're coming from. Still, I believe it's fundamentally different from when a human copies, or is inspired by another human's art style.

Yes, a lot of artists insist that "art is a luxury" and are insecure and scared of being deposed by AI, their concerns are valid too.

Though it's irking sometimes when they start saying "this is soulless, that is soulless", like, what soul do I need in my AI-generated futa Alcina Dimitrescu?

Sorry for the TMI at the end.

Thank you.

 

[ResidentDeviant]

We only care about something when it directly affects us, that's what I was trying to emphasize.

I was talking about writers/authors who hate AI when it's utilized in the writing process, but have no problem using AI when it comes to generating images.

I've used AI to generate images, and sometimes as means of getting feedback for when I'm world building or working on my story in general. But I neither particularly like, nor dislike AI, it's mostly indifference. It's undeniable that AI has helped a lot, especially like your case when it comes to translations, but it has also bred complacency and laziness in nearly all fields that require intellect or creativity.

As you said, many artists will lose their jobs, and a lot have already lost it, but AI is still a long long way from truly replacing human art.

As for the issue of AI being trained with images without permission, It's a different discussion, but I can see where you're coming from. Still, I believe it's fundamentally different from when a human copies, or is inspired by another human's art style.

Yes, a lot of artists insist that "art is a luxury" and are insecure and scared of being deposed by AI, their concerns are valid too.

Though it's irking sometimes when they start saying "this is soulless, that is soulless", like, what soul do I need in my AI-generated futa Alcina Dimitrescu?

Sorry for the TMI at the end.

Thank you.

Yeah, I agree 100%. It's just that I had to let it out. Because among creative communities AI has become some sort of boogeyman. OOooo this uses AI so it's inherently bad!

Truth is most of the AI stuff I saw is more creative and of a higher quality that most of artist who thrived only because, "Futa Dimitrescu" (as you said it.), wasn't something that many artists were willing to draw.

In fact I'd say AI is inherently as creative as giving a commission to an artist with an added bonus on top of that that you can easily iterate and reach something that was very close to what you wanted. Plus doing that with an artist would require lots of time and lots of money.

 

[Justhetip...]

Yeah, I agree 100%. It's just that I had to let it out. Because among creative communities AI has become some sort of boogeyman. OOooo this uses AI so it's inherently bad!

Exactly. The actual AI involvement might have been just proofreading and maybe grammar checking, but it becomes something abhorrent just because it has AI.

Truth is most of the AI stuff I saw is more creative and of a higher quality that most of artist who thrived only because, "Futa Dimitrescu" (as you said it.), wasn't something that many artists were willing to draw.

I do have to admit that AI has opened a lot of gates that were kept closed by artists who weren't willing to draw certain stuff.

In fact I'd say AI is inherently as creative as giving a commission to an artist with an added bonus on top of that that you can easily iterate and reach something that was very close to what you wanted. Plus doing that with artist would require lots of time and lots of money.

As for whether AI is inherently as creative, it depends on what it's generating. I would have no problem using AI to generate images for my story, but AI works a lot on pre-existing data, that's why if I'm working with concept art for my original character, I'd probably commission it from an artist first.

 

[Mabbo]

As an author, a translator, and an artist, I used to hate AI for the sake of hating, but now I understand that it's simply too powerful a tool, but a tool regardless. It can write a story for you, but it has no consistency. It can translate for you, but doesn't know context. It can draw a picture for you, but God forbid if you ever need any minor changes or a different file format altogether.

I feel like we should fight against the misuse of AI instead of hating AI for itself. We can try by informing the public of how unethical and dangerous the misuse of AI is.

 

[dukerino]

My take is that LLMs are a lot of fun but humans are great at anthropomorphizing it and imagining it as a mind, so everyone is arguing about a fun toy as if it's got some kind of qualia, and that makes it very hard to have objective conversations about its uses and abuses. It's like if the media were arguing the ethics of a pet rock that was made out of stolen, melted-down keys to people's houses.

 

[ResidentDeviant]

As for whether AI is inherently as creative, it depends on what it's generating. I would have no problem using AI to generate images for my story, but AI works a lot on pre-existing data, that's why if I'm working with concept art for my original character, I'd probably commission it from an artist first.

That is true, unless you're basically into AI enough to train your own models and use additional tools, which also takes time to learn, and not everyone will want to do that (not as much time as learning how to draw, but it still takes time). Not to mention the output still be of a lower quality than actual pro artwork. But if you use AI as a tool, it would certainly allow you to quickly iterate through various approximations of your concepts to see which are worth pursuing.