In a post-scarcity solarpunk future, I could imagine some reasonable uses, but that’s not the world we’re living in yet.
AI art has already poisoned the creative environment. I commissioned an artist for my latest solarpunk novel, and they used AI without telling me. I had to scrap that illustration. Then the next person I tried to hire claimed they could do the work without AI but in fact they could not.
All that is to say, fuck generative AI and fuck capitalism!
Sure, my auntie will use a generator instead of paint for her yard sale poster. But we're assuming Llms are going stay free and accessible to all at zero cost. That's just not a reality we live in.
But comparing the current garbage that comes out of llms with "big name company's ads" is purposeful misinformation from a person, who is likely never done graphics design professionally.
"AI" tools will not make the world a more artistic place. Art has never been limited by tools.
I could agree that the generated stuff could make the world slightly more pleasing visually, at the cost of environment.
But easily accessible graphics weren't even the limiting factor. There are many tools online that can help you mock things up in seconds without "AI". Canva, mockups, simple websites that generate decent templates.
It's people's willingness to put in the effort, and comprehension of aesthetics, and IT literacy that are the limiting factors.
Art has always been limited by access. Either to the tools, or to the ability to learn and practice. AI, at least in its current form, with open source models readily available, is only allowing more people to create who never could before. Getting into any art is expensive, both in money and time. Anyone with a half decent rig can get something set up and add a touch of art to their world, and begin to express themselves in SOME way.
Hard disagree.
So are poeple are doing the creating or the machine? Because even the techbros are saying that it's the machine.
Tell that to the poeple who did cave-paintings
Google "Mona Lisa" and print it out. That's about the same amount of art as entering a prompt and receiving an output.
AI generated art is fundamentally different from printing a reproduction of something that exists 1:1. I'm not interested in going on depth on a technical discussion on AI, anyway. I'd rather discuss the philosophy.
As far as the role of man versus machine, using AI as a tool is more like being a director or composer. You determine the composition. The setting. The subject. The style. Let the machine do the labor of simply outputting, and then you tell it what you don't like about this output.back and forth, until you arrive at whatever finished is. It's as much art as a conductor in a symphony, or a director on a set, simply giving direction to a machine.
The issue that people have, or should have, with AI isn't with AI art, it's with it being shoe horned into everything that can make a buck. Open source generative AI running on my own machine has allowed me to express myself in ways I never could before. The point of art is expression, and regardless of the tools used to create, that output is still an expression of me. More people should have access to tools to express themselves, in whatever way they can.
Now replace "AI" with an artist, and yourself with any mouth-breathing supervisor, that micro-manages artists.
You are employing something to do the art for you.
Amd my fucking god, comparing entering a prompt to a conductor. Techbros really are high on their own farts.
The fact that you think the only thing you're doing is entering a prompt says enough. There's faaaaaaaar more to the process than simply prompting. You clearly don't want to engage with anything other than the strawman you have in your head, so you have fun with that.
@Prandom_returns @Ookami38 The "I use AI as a tool" people are coping the hardest