- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://pawb.social/post/24295950
Source (Bluesky)
You must log in or register to comment.
People get hilariously upset when you point out that sucking absolute arse at something is not a class issue nor a disability.
Isn’t it? A physically disabled person might suck absolute arse at walking, I suck absolute arse at drawing. I will never get good at it, either - I went through 9 years of art class in school and in 9th grade my drawings weren’t much better than 1st. Might as well consider it a mental disability at this point. Okay, technically I DO have a mental disability, it’s called ADHD, and it makes learning some skills so difficult I wonder how anyone can do these things, while others are a breeze to the point where I wonder how other people don’t manage as easily as I do. Yes, I see the irony.
For a while, I’ve wanted to make a few video games. I’ve actually got three in mind. I’d like to make one 3D game, one fast-paced side-scrolling platformer and one tiled top-down game. For each, I have a vision of how to make them fun (hopefully) and differentiate from a lot of existing games. But I can’t do it because I have no art skills and I can’t afford to pay an artist for the sheer amount of work it would take to produce all the assets for a full game. I am also not going to approach someone and say “Heeeeeeey wanna put in a bunch of work for nothing but a share in the proceeds from a game that may never make 20 bucks?” So my best bet, really, is to focus on either of the 2D games, have AI help me out with the art (which may well be quite difficult if I want to keep a consistent style) and then on the 0.000000001% chance that it’s commercially successful, I can commission art for the next game, or on the 0.00000000000000000001% chance that it’s very successful, hire a full time artist or two.
Note that I haven’t done it, but it’s something I’ve considered.
The ability to create art to a saleable level is not considered a human norm though. I can’t draw either - this is’t a disability, nor should it be classified as such, no matter how much you really really wish you could. Doing so really grates me the wrong way, it’s a self-involved co-option of the struggles people who live with impairment face every second in a society that’s not designed to accomodate them
To be clear, I can’t create art to a middle school passing grade level. Like there’s a chance I could’ve failed a year of middle school if I hadn’t started bribing classmates to occasionally help with my drawings for me at some point in 7th or 8th grade. My ability to draw, even by grade 9, just never improved to the level most of my peers had reached by grade 2 or 3 lol
Not for a lack of trying either. 9 years of something like 32 weeks of school per year, 2 art classes of 45 minutes per week on average, adds up to 432 hours of practice that was mostly drawing or painting (if you can call it that, using either watercolors or guache usually), only occasionally stuff like ceramics. Let’s say 400 hours of drawing or painting. And I mean this is before you consider that I actually liked drawing up until some point and did it at home too - including before I ever started school. And also at preschool where I went for a year. Of course the only two things I ever drew were tractors and houses - because those had lots of straight lines. I imagine 4 year old me must’ve been very proud of them.
Starting grade 10 we had art history class instead. I memorized what needed to be memorized and got passing grades every time.
As you can probably tell, this is something I’m really salty about. Between art and music, my average grades in middle school were brought down just enough that I didn’t usually make the equivalent of honor roll that we had here. Yes, I also suck at singing and unfortunately we did get graded on our singing too. However, while my singing skill is probably in like the bottom 10% of skill level, my drawing is somewhere in the bottom 0.1%
It’s also why I hate the proverb “practice makes perfect” and much prefer the locally sourced alternative that translates to “practice makes you someone that practices a lot”. Clearly practice doesn’t make you very good if you were never dealt the cards. Practice what you’re already naturally good at and you’ll be great. Practice what you naturally suck at and maybe you’ll be mediocre. Which is sometimes necessary, if we’re talking about life skills for an example - better mediocre than nothing
So you’re basically complaining about…not being exceptional?
That is still not a disability
I literally said I’m exceptionally bad. Like to the level that the average kindergartener is better than me.
Actually you’ve been saying you’ve repeatedly tried to get into something you unfortunately have no aptitude for, resorted to cheating it in high school, and are salty about lacking the skills.
It’s still not a disability.
Middle school, not high school and I had to cheat because it was mandatory to be able to do it and I was not. It seems your reading comprehension is on par with my art skills.
No.
An inability to function as per the human “norm” is a disability. I don"t suck at walking, i have a degenerative muscular disease that affect my legs.
What i do suck at is knitting.
But do you think you would improve over several years of practicing knitting a couple of times a week? Would you be able to outperform a kindergartener? If yes, I don’t think it works for this analogy.
deleted by creator
This feels like it was drawn in one of those $200 drawing tablets
It’s not about accessibility moneywise - it’s accessibility skillwise. Many people do not want to put any effort into learning a new skill, so asking AI to do it for them is just way more convenient and “accessible”.
This is part of a large shift in society where “failure” is seen as something extremely negative. You either do something and are immediately good at it, or you should just stop altogether.
You either do something and are immediately good at it, or you should just stop altogether.
I bet this line speaks to a lot of fellow lemmings who are middle aged nerds with ADHD and were “gifted” in school.
AI hallucinations are the modern equivalent to clip art from the 90’s, change my mind.
- Clip art from the 90’s was made with passion
- It didn’t threaten the environment as much
- There wasn’t any attempt to outdo real artists
- You don’t have it as a business model
- There isn’t an uproar about it
- Nothing was stolen to make the clip art
I think it seems to usually be more about disabled people, who ai bros tend to consider either too stupid or physically unable to make real art, which is bullshit. There are amputees painting with their feet, who knows how many artists who have prosthetic hands or chronic pain. And don’t even get me started on mentally disabled people.
The game Katawa Shoujo, which was actually made by a cooperation between people who were on 4chan, depicts amputees and disabled folk, one of which is an artist which draws with her feet, with many of them having traumatic experiences that you hear of as you get to know of them more personally
It’s good. I like it.
I’m sure all disabled people love hearing “Oh this other disabled guy showed extraordinary willpower and overcame his disability against all odds why can’t you”
Gotta say, most disabled people i know - myself included - would happily hold AI underwater until the bubbles stop
What they mean by that is that they have no artistic ability and no interest in learning anything about how to actually make art, they just want a product to spec for free.
The part I hate most is the “$800 phone” part. At least get a proper PC where you’ve got a fighting chance at being able to create stuff instead of a smartphone/tablet with an interface designed purely to consume, damn it!
$30 a month so far, will be a lot more if their plan of forcing artists out works out.
It makes it more accessible to the lazy and talentless.
There is literally no fucking such thing as talent.
Talent is just the excuse of the ignorant and stupid to downplay training and hard work.
Generative ai tho DOES make art more accessiable to people with physical disablities, people who already spend their time learning and training in other skill sets.
Such as poor coders being able to make simple art for their project. No artist would be hired reguardless and it can provide a reasonable and useful method of obtaining art.
The current glut of companies running ai, training them and stealing copyrighted work should all burn in hell. Go bankrupt and have their ceos sent to jail for enabling and profiting off theft.
But lets be angry at the right thing here. Generative ai is a tool, asshole people stealing is the problem.
Sorry the concept of “talent” really just sends me.
People have aptitudes. The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive. But yes, even with talent a person has to work hard and practice. The word “talent” implies that the person worked hard to develop the skill. I agree we shouldn’t downplay the amount of work that goes into specializing, but let’s not pretend that means there’s no such thing as talent. Some people have a knack for things that others don’t, I’ve seen this firsthand on so many occasions. These knacks are what can be turned into talents.
So let’s not downplay a person’s natural aptitude by saying “well you just worked super hard, anybody can do that.”
In my work place we hired an intern who was pivoting careers and wanted to learn a new skill. The company was doing well, so we kept her on so long as she was trying. We patiently worked with her for years, but the skill NEVER clicked. She came from a robust background, so she was clearly capable, but we eventually figured out that she didn’t have the talent for it. She eventually decided that career wasn’t for her and left for another company - and in her new position she picked up on the different and required skill super quick. Our brains are elastic, sure, but they’re also hardwired in all different ways.
The idea that a you could put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and they could all become excellent artists, is hopeful but naive.
Put 100 people in a room with the best teacher, and the 1 student that likes the subject the most will be the best student.
There’s different levels of interests between the students. A student that is very invested in the subject is going to learn more than a student that wishes they were doing anything else. That’s what happens when something “clicks” - when a student goes above and beyond the taught material because they’re always thinking about it. “Talent” is indistinguishable from enthusiasm.
Sure, there are literal cognitive differences between people, but 99 times out of 100 “talent” is just passion imo
As someone with the fine motor control of someone made of all elbows, who couldn’t hope to ever draw anything and who leaves that up to people with talent and work ethic for money, all of the cool things in my head that die there because they’re better in my imagination than I could ever express through words or art.
I feel seen.
Give digital art programs a try. There’s plenty of free alternatives to the big subscription model vultures out there, there’s GIMP for image editing, Krita for drawing, Blender for 3D, DaVinci Resolve for video editing, Audacity and Pro Tools Free for sound recording and editing, you can even make modular synths using VCV Rack. And if you like rum and eye patches theres versions of the big players out there too.
I am absolutely shit at drawing, but professionally I make 3d animations, having drawing skills helps, but it’s not necessary to learn any one of these.
I am even more terrible at those than I am with physical media.
Everyone is terrible when they start. You can get better if you practice over time.
You might not ever draw the next big masterpiece, but if you practice you will get better.
All it takes is 15-30 minutes a day.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
Creative skill and imagination. It is inherent to art.
Even the shittiest executed art is art. Your perception of art is skewed by the commodification of it through capitalist societies. I sincerely implore you to take up any kind of art that does not require AI if you’re truly interested in expressing yourself.
You’re not alone. Sorry all these pricks think you just haven’t tried.
I wish to formally apologize for offering friendly advice on the internet, maybe I should have been even more of an apparent prick than I apparently was and told op to give up forever on their desire to be more creative and told op to eat shit and die.
Or you could not think less of someone for using a tool that you don’t need to express their creativity.
I don’t think less of OP, if I did, I wouldn’t be be giving suggestions for freely accessible digital art programs of all different kinds and not even limiting myself to just visual mediums.
All I want to do is offer words of encouragement to go and try some of these. They’re free programs, what’s the harm in encouraging someone to give them a try?
There’s someone close to me whose near entire existence is basically pain. They still draw.
They hate the idea that their works got sucked by billionaires into giant plagiarism machines that are enriching them further. Pro AI people and tech bros think they should just suck it up and start using fucking AI horde or something, despite the fact that this trend makes them sick and the proposed solutions don’t tackle real issues, but spread or ignore them.
One of my main gripes with GenAI is the tech industry’s usual disregard for consent. GenAI users saying we should get rid of it altogether doesn’t endear their ideal future to me. Saying the same thing as Sam Altman, but totally in a leftist way, just grosses me out.
With the Ai Horde you just need a browser on a potato.
To draw, you just need a sharp rock and a bigger smooth rock(or any other smooth surface)
And time
For AI “art”, you also need internet connection and knowledge how to use a computer
How much time you need to draw something depends on the reason you are drawing. You dont need to make good art for a lot of reasons you might be drawing
and tons of power and cooling somewhere.
stop acting like the compute comes from nowhere lol
Not really, the ai horde runs in volunteer PCs, so less power and cooling than running an aaa game
For an instance who bans people for being an “Anti-AI troll”, you’re pretty loud with your “Pro-AI trolling”.
How am I trolling?
Same way people disliking or pointing out flaws in “AI” are “trolling”.
The difference is, you don’t get banned here for discussing things.
People were banned for going to unrelated topics and complaining acerbically about GenAI art in a meme (the meme not being about GenAI Art). I made a comment directly related to the meme and was not toxic about it. But if you feeling smug is what you need today, sure, go on.
That is factually incorrect, and there are modlogs to back it up.
volunteer PCs
oh those run on pixie dust and fairy farts huh?
in fact, because they’re distributed amongst thousands (presumably) volunteer pcs, they’re eating up cycles that aren’t optimized so are much less efficient at their task compared to specialized gpus and asics.
there’s no free lunch.
There’s no asics and specialized gpus for this sort of thing. We’ve also developed foss workers that are indeed more optimized. Also a lot of our volunteers use solar power.
I any case, yes of course it consumes some electricity, but all digital entertainment does and as I said we’re comparable to AAA gaming , so I don’t see why you’re singling that out.
so I don’t see why you’re singling that out.
I didn’t single out anything, I despise the entire spectrum bud. There’s no free lunch for AI.
disengage
I think you should, it’s fuck_ai, lol,
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024
Did you wander in here to advocate for your energy gobblin AI thinking we’d go “oh it’s distributed consumption SO THAT’S OK”?
Honestly?
Devils advocate here. There’s open source services that offers AI gen for free, as long as you have an internet connection.
So a potato phone could be used and that’s all that’s required.
-# Doesn’t make it more accessible than actual pen and paper but the gap is not that big either
I would argue that ‘free’ just means the cost is hidden and you might end up paying it anyway through the societal effects that the energy demands of LLMs cause. That is, there’s a cost and it will make it back to you somehow or other because that’s how tech oligarchy works.
Aight, here’s the thing.
All art is, at its base, about translating a person’s inner concept into an external form. Sculpture, painting, poetry, dance, whatever.
To do any art form, there is a barrier to entry. If you want to be a dancer, some part of your body must be mobile, right? Even if it’s just your eyeballs, dance by definition is about the human body moving.
But, what if you can’t move your body? Is that, and should that be, a barrier? Why can’t a person get an exoskeleton device that they can then program to either dance for them, or to respond to their thoughts so they can dance via the gear? Well, in that case the technology isn’t here yet, but pretend it was.
Obviously, it wouldn’t be the same as someone that’s trained and dedicated to dancing, but is it lesser? It still fulfills the self expression via movement.
That can be applied to damn near every form of art. I can’t actually think of any that it doesn’t apply to at least in part.
There is a difference between a human sitting down (or lying or standing) to write a book and just telling a computer to generate a book. But it doesn’t completely invalidate using a computer to generate fictional text. The key in that form is the degree of input and the effort involved. A writer asking an llm for a paragraph about a kid walking down the street when they’re blocked isn’t the same thing as telling it to write the entire book. There’s degrees of use that are valid tools that don’t remove the human aspect of the art form.
Take it to visual arts. A person can see things in their head that they may never develop the skill to see executed. They may not be physically capable of moving a brush on canvas, or pen on paper. A painter of incredible skill may be an utter dunce at sculpture, but still have vision and concepts worth being created.
The use of a generative model as a tool is not inherently bad. It’s no worse than setting up software to 3d print a sculpture.
The problem comes in when the ai itself is made by, and operated for the benefit of corporate entities, and/or when attribution isn’t built in. Attribution matters; a painting made by Monet is different from a painting that looks like Monet could have done it, but it was made by southsamurai. If I paint something that looks like a Monet, that’s great! If I paint it and pretend it was made by Monet, that’s bullshit.
A “painting” by a piece of software that’s indelibly attributed as generated that way isn’t a big deal. It comes back to the eye of the beholder in the same way that digital art is when compared to “analog” art via paints and pencils. It only really matters when someone is bullshitting about how they achieved the final results.
Is ai art less impressive? Hell yes, and it’s pretty obvious that it isn’t the same thing as someone honing their craft over years and decades. An image generated by a piece of software with only the input prompts being human generated is not the same as someone building the image with their hands via paint/touchpad/mouse/whatever.
This is still different from the matter of using ai instead of paying a human to do the work, which is more complicated than people think it is.
But, in terms of an individual having access to tools that allow them to get things inside their head out of their head where it can be seen, it has its place. It just needs to be very clear that that’s the tool used.
And yeah, I know this is c/fuckai, and I’m arguing that ai has its place as a tool of self expression, and that’s not going to be universally satisfying here. But I maintain that the problem with ai art isn’t in the fact that it’s ai art, it’s the framework behind that that makes it a threat to actual humans.
In a world where artists can choose to create art for their own satisfaction without having to worry about eating and having a roof over their heads, ai art would be a lot less of a threat.
You haven’t demonstrated what place image generators have in your example, though. There are blind and paralyzed painters that can create incredible works, because they practiced.
Maybe these chatbots have some place (I think they’re fine for creating memes and forum slop) but I think it’s sad that potential artists are robbing themselves the opportunity to build skill by outsourcing their artistic impulses to a chatbot.
It isn’t about that, not really. It’s about what art is and isn’t, and how the tools are made more than how they’re used.
To reframe it, the problem with the generative models isn’t really people using them, it’s how they were trained in the first place, and how we handle differentiating between ai output and human output.
All of the corporate ones stole the training data. And that includes works by living artists. It was, and is, entirely possible to train the software without shitting on people. It would be slower, but i don’t see that as a negative because it would also end up better in the long run because it would also be more selective.
I also don’t think that anyone will deprive themselves of any skill that they would have put the effort into to begin with. There is a big degree of laziness/unmotivation in humans. People that just want the end product and not the journey there. I don’t see a problem with that tbh.
Anyone that would use ai as a way to skip over years of practice to get a specific image/piece out of their head into visibility isn’t the sort to have done it to begin with. They’d give it a try, see that what they want isn’t going to be realized in what they think is a reasonable time frame and just quit
They never would pay someone else to do it either.
The ones that would, they would anyway, though they might use ai while they’re learning.
Lemme give an anecdote that might be interesting, though not as some kind of proof or whatever. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything, I’m just babbling my thoughts.
Used to work for a guy. Quadriplegic, with limited arm/hand control. Details don’t matter much for this, but it all depends on where the spinal injury is.
He enjoyed working with wood. Had a lathe, saws, vises, all kinds of tools. He’d work for weeks on some things, getting it all just how he wanted. The same things, I could turn out in a day, they weren’t exactly complicated things.
But he would still go buy something like a chair. Why? Because his guests needed a seat, and it would take him a month to make.
Ai generation is pretty much the same use case. It fills gaps. Someone that’s driven to create is going to create because the process is part of that. Without a drive, a need to create, most people will just buy the chair. Divorced from a capitalist system where artists have to lose to ai products rather than just create for the sake of creation, the ai problem isn’t much of a problem. Remove that from the equation, and then artists can create only what drives their passion instead of having to worry about commissions and sales to pay the bills.
Slap a permanent kind of marker on ai output, and you’ve got a swathe of the other issues knocked out. The cat is out of the bag. The knowledge exists. When that happens, you have to adapt society as much as you have to adapt the technology itself.
We were talking about accessibility, and you still haven’t actually demonstrated how chatbots make art more accessible.
The fact is, they don’t. Anyone can make art.
Creating chairs isn’t accessible to your uncle because he just wants somewhere to sit. A chair is functional first, so, a chair must be able to serve that function. Not everyone can do that or have the tools to do that. There’s a firm limitation on access for making furniture.
Art isn’t functional like that, or if it is, function comes second. You don’t paint merely to create a picture, you paint to express yourself. The point of art isn’t merely the end product, it’s the journey of creation and the feeling of “I did that!” Everyone can do that and everyone can get the tools to do that, even if they aren’t good at it - and everyone can get better!
The question of accessibility is firmly against chatbots.
I wasn’t talking about accessibility, that’s just what you latched onto out of all of it. I’m not sure why, other than it being a part of the comment, but it was never the primary subject of the comment.
That’s the primary subject of the OP! Did you even look at it or did you just jump into arguing?
I’m not arguing. I’m expressing my internal responses.
I’m not trying to convince anyone, change any minds, and I’ve said so at least twice.
I’m just talking about the general subject matter. It applies to the OP concept, but isn’t exclusively so, or directed at that as a primary goal.
I mean, you get that it’s okay to be tangential, right? A post can be a springboard rather than the sole topic of discussion or expression. Hell, every response to a post is at least a tiny degree off since it’s filtered through a human brain before being responded to. It’s a matter of how far, or how broad.
The OP image even purely about accessibility of art, it includes capitalist motivations for ai generators, which I did directly address.
Not every comment has to be a debate. People can just talk, say their little thing and that be that.
So you’re just derailing the thread. Cool.
Damn, certain historical artistic architects and furniture makers would strangle you with a 2×4 for that statement.
Imagine being that much if an art purist asshole.
Buildings and chairs can be artistic, obviously, but they are art second and they don’t even need to be artistic at all.
In contrast, art doesn’t even need to be functional to be art. Architecture and furniture without function aren’t actually architecture or furniture. In fact, once you take away function, art is the only thing that remains. After all, a chair no one can sit in or a building no one can enter may not be furniture or architecture, but they can still be sculptures.
So much typing to say fuck all.
