good dissection
"Among the loose social crowd of online artists and creative hustlers, the reaction to this new technology has been short-sighted at best. While there are legitimate grounds to criticize the way this technology fits into systems of exploitation, the arguments from the self-identified artists tend to follow a few distinct lines of thinking:
the ontological difference of human creativity / the artist's superior mind (the mild version of this take compares it to "the stupid machine", the explicitly exceptionalist and dehumanizing version compares it to other, less intelligent/imaginative humans and lazy parasites)
An ideology of arts that posits artists as uniquely more human than the masses; or that posits "creativity" as a universal right but doesn't stop to ask why only some people are allowed to make it their life's purpose, as opposed to a hobby they have limited time for.
the unalienable right for the artist to hold onto their creative output as private property, to be protected from "theft" (which in the case of AI art becomes even prospective theft, like an extension of protections against plagiarism shifting into an unconditional protection against replacement by other artists with more productive tools)
An ideology of arts that relies on the frameworks of private property and copyright, without a clear understanding of how these frameworks came to be and how much of a danger they are to both individual artists themselves and culture at large.
the displacement by more efficient AI methods of the artists' conditions of economic existence; the erosion of their market share, client pool, contract opportunities, etc. This argument is legitimate, but answers to it tend to fall back into the above reactionary pitfalls that will eventually turn against the artists that promote them, as we'll get into.
These criticisms focus entirely on the effect of the AI image generators on artists and don't really understand how they work, which is why they focus on the AI models' output and gathering of images and not on the more seedy aspects of the whole deal, which concern the labelling of the massive amounts of data they require."
it is unfortunate that English translations of her works are not more commonplace
甘い蜜の部屋 森茉莉 新潮社 装幀=池田満寿夫
Artistic freedom is part of your mental autonomy, that you have the right to communicate with people in the way you feel you need to, you can express your thoughts/feelings etc. you can manipulate ideas, that's a real freedom
property rights are exclusively designed to control people and enforce economic inequality and when applied to creative concepts this is extra true, I would even consider it a kind of emotional/psychological violence because it stops people from communicating with each other
fanfic/meme images exist in an unenforced niche, they are not legal under copyright
Post/782177006889697280/i-think-artists-not-wanting-our-work-to-be-fed-to
This is absolutely a correct statement if it was just about personal remixes, but the context here is about businesses using other people's work without permission. It has nothing to do with whether or not you're allowed to remix it yourself. If a company has the means to use someone's work in a for-profit venture, then they have the means to pay someone for the product of their labour. These companies don't even use other people's IP in a novel way that bends IP law to create something that contributes to culture; the loss of culture if sellers of Redbubble t-shirts couldn't just take pictures from the internet and sell them for 40 bucks anymore would be negligible compared to, say, losing Lasgna Cat alone would be.
its already illegal for redbubble sellers to do that though. thats already not allowed. like thats already literally a copyright violation under current copyright law and guess what: because random people posting their fanart online don't have the money to afford a corporate lawyer, it just keeps happening and will keep happening, because copyright law never has and never will defended anyone but the wealthy. like this fantasy of your art as a Small Artist being protected by copyright law is just that, a fantasy, it doesn't happen and will never happen. you are completely detached from reality!
Maurice Chédel, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
This picture of a 'shanty town' in Peru looks quite similar to the Barracks Settlement in Yume Nikki! Especially how it is located in a desert. This lines up with the other Peruvian references in Yume Nikki, namely the Paracas style art and the Inca motif on Madotsuki's character design.
the thing I actually hate abt AI art is not that it has no creative intent behind it (that's not necessary for art imo) or that it trains on ppls stuff (I don't like intellectual property) but that it has a tendency to homogenize everything and present us with what we already expect, reinforce really stupid stereotypes etc. This can be illustrated with how in Minecraft AI it never lets you get to an interesting new world like the Nether and always takes you back to the familiar overworld
If only there was a technology that wasn't predictive, but actively hostile and gave us the opposite of what we expected...
not to be annoying but its really funny watching people in an rpg maker discord argue against ai from the point of view of "hard work and labor is what making games is all about, if you don't put in the effort you don't deserve a game". ok. why are you using rpg maker then.
I'm really tempted to start posting in glossolalia, just typing in made up words
I don't actually enjoy arguing, but seeing an opinion I really disagree with in text feels sort of overpowering and makes me want to carve out a space against it. Like in a response comment. Maybe it isnt such a good idea
I'm still afraid of them
Panic