• usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      Ā·
      3 days ago

      It also substantially raises the ā€œqualityā€ of the low end effort which is a pretty big deal, whether you consider that a good thing or not.

      I think itā€™s great for things like a client conceptualizing what they want which in the past could be difficult and very labour/time consuming. Take that concept to a real artist and itā€™s pretty win-win.

      • stray@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        3 days ago

        Iā€™ve used it for conceptualizing what I want, because I do my own art and also have aphantasia.

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          2 days ago

          this is why i tend to think about AI images like a camera, itā€™s not creative but it can make things that look nice, and then we can take inspiration to make something creative just like when we walk outside and look at the per definion uncreative physical landscape.

          • Obi@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            Ā·
            2 days ago

            Cameras arenā€™t creative?.. Guess we need to tell all the photographers and filmmakers out thereā€¦

            • angrystego@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              Ā·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Cameras are just tools, jusr like brushes. They are not creative, the artists you mentioned are.

              • Obi@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                Ā·
                2 days ago

                Youā€™re entirely right, I should have phrased it differently.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              Ā·
              1 day ago

              yeah, itā€™s the person using the camera who is creative.

              AI is a camera without a user, thus incapable of creativity just the same as a mountain isnā€™t creative.

              • Obi@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                1 day ago

                Weā€™re in sync then, your initial comment made it sound like you thought any camera work was not creative by default. As I said to the other guy I shouldā€™ve used a different phrasing to clear out the confusion around tool/artist.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    5
    Ā·
    3 days ago

    I guarantee those AI ā€œartā€ defenders would be absolutely furious if they saw even a single of the vast amount of talented disabled artists, past or present, because it goes against their narrative that disabled people need AI art, which allows them to appear superior.

  • thirtyfold8625@thebrainbin.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    Ā·
    3 days ago

    I think itā€™s worth pointing out that I donā€™t consider myself to be very dexterous, so Iā€™d be able to produce a useful image by trying to use AI a lot more reliably and faster than by trying to use a pencil. However, I havenā€™t tried to use AI to do that, and I generally donā€™t find AI tools very useful.

    It might also be relevant that I also donā€™t consider myself to be very creative.

  • Foxfire@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    Ā·
    3 days ago

    Just think, those Neanderthals are going to be obsolete now that we can generate infinite pictures of hands on cave walls! Human condition? Self expression? Lmao no one cares old man, get with the times and consume! I donā€™t want any human interaction anymore, I have my black box that will do whatever I tell it to!

    (/s In case the Overton window is that fucked already.)

  • š“”š“¶š“¶š“²š“®@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    8
    Ā·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    All I know is that you can as well as complain at the sun. Adapt or perish, it wonā€™t just go away if you close your eyes.

    If you called furry porn ā€˜artā€™ then you are in trouble lol. The ai wonā€™t replace artists but it will crush pretenders that think they are artists.

    You would know that if you knew anything about the real art. Not some tumblr fanslop with questionable body proportions

  • YungOnions@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    Ā·
    2 days ago

    As a slight aside, why is it that anyone who engages with AI is considered a ā€˜broā€™? Why such a needlessly gender specific term? Are we really trying to suggest the almost certainly incorrect notion that there are zero women involved in AI?

    • javiwhite@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      2 days ago

      I donā€™t take bro to exclusively mean male. But rather a male dominated group.

      In the UK we use lads a lot; Iā€™d say itā€™s probably the British equivalent (tho bro does get used here too). IE: ā€œIā€™m going to the pub with the lads.ā€ But that doesnā€™t mean itā€™s exclusively men, thereā€™s sometimes a woman or two in the group, itā€™s just that itā€™s a male dominated group. Itā€™s the same with women who have a female dominated group with a male member in (going to see my ladies/girlies etcā€¦).

      All of the above still assumes a male dominated use of AI though; and According to statista that does seem to be the case. Though as time goes on, the gap will likely close.