Alright... this post it's gonna be lengthy and deep, basically i want to talk to you about my opinion on the matter of AI image generation. I'm NOT trying to put myself behind any of the sides of the controversy here, I'm just trying to flesh out my opinion on several aspects of it, in hopes you have more tools to form your OWN opinion. The post is gonna be LONG, but it's just because the controversy is hot and the topic is VERY complicated, Anyone who tries to simplify the issue on a single tweet is lying to you.
So here we go...
To me, AI and related technologies are stuff that i could say is as important as the invention of the microprocessor or the internet itself. AI related technologies are finally what i would expect to see in an age that's supposed to be "the future" we all dreamed about some years ago, and it's finally here and at the reach of our fingertips.
However, always that something groundbreaking comes along, it shakes things ups enough to mess up stuff for a lot of people, and stuff like AI image generation causes itch left and right where it shows up, a lot of people are not pleased with it and lots of people starts getting angry and worked up about it whenever it is partially referenced, and you get posts with snark remarks like "Pick up a pencil, bro".
(Here's a picture of a pencil before you post one. And yes, the picture is AI generated, btw.)
I think we, both sides of the argument, would reach a better consensus and accords on the matter if we spent a little bit of time trying to understand the other side and stopped trying to blow the fuse on petty online arguments.
On this post i'm gonna try to lay out some of the arguments and issues that AI image generation faces right now on the opinion of the people on the net, and offer my honest opinion about it. This article only pretends to state my opinions on the matter, something that it's hard to do on places like twitter, first because of the character limits and the pushback these kind of opinions receive.
Let's start up with a tiny bit of history.
AI image generation is not something new, in fact AI generated images were kind of a meme back in the period of 2016-2018 because the results were pretty funny, it looked like a bad LSD trip, there was barely anything recognizable in those kind of images.
Things got progressively better and by 2021 in the middle of the pandemic we got a company called "Neuralblender", which was, that i remember, the first page that offered creating images based on text prompts that you wrote on their web page. The results were pretty inoffensive and were akin of representations of your prompts made by a 3 year old kid with a box of crayons. I thought it was a nice toy but nothing to be awed at. Here are some examples:
I am not gonna extend much this part, i just want you to witness how we got progressively better Ai image generations, starting with Dall-E Mini, around mid 2021, to what we have as of mid 2024, with the Flux model. I'll leave this imgur collection so you can check it yourself, in all the cases the prompt text was the same, "A futuristic car in a futuristic street, cinematic view at night":
https://imgur.com/a/9qdgQny
I know that AI technologies are more than just AI image generation, but at least to me, something like this is a technological miracle. The fact that you can tell a computer exactly what you wanna see, and the computer understands you enough to provide an image that, at least to the best of it's abilities, represents what you asked for, it's mind blowing.
Of course, not technology is perfect, and while, algoritmically speaking, these technologies don't stop getting better each year, the technology still receives a lot of pushback from artists who, understandably, see their way of life in danger due to the relative easy way that it's easy to produce illustrations of reasonable quality.
It's hard to talk about these topics in regular social media, first and foremost because how had the pushback is to these kind of topics from some people, and second, because the topic is so nuanced and complicated that you can't just take a black or white stance if you know all the perks of it, but that's because how new the technology is and who unprepared we are to it.
So, this personal microblog is actually a good platform to chop and analyze this topic and offer my particular and personal view of it. I want to split this theme in several topics that are worth talking about:
Everyone Uses Technology Already, So What Gives?
This is not an argument that necessarily has to do with the issue at hand, but it's nice to remember that a very good part of the art we see on the social media streams these last years has the support of technology in general. I do this because while i'm sure a lot of artists know how to do art by analog and traditional mediums, it's true also that a lot of newcomers in art, particularly those who have a self-education on art are greatly aided by technology. A lot of artists would not be able to live without the commodities that things as basic like Ctrl-Z, layers and brushes selection give them, not to mention that some of the most professional software also gives some kind of trace assistance, allowing them to do more smooth traces.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS A BAD THING. I think it's phenomenal that technology like this lowers the entry barrier for artists trying to express their creativity, and i think it's neat that technology allows so many people to self educate themselves to be very proficient in graphic art learning just by themselves.
I just think it's nice to think about this when people snarkly comments with things like "Pick up a pencil" when someone posts AI images, which takes us to the following point:
How AI Wakes Up Creativity in People Who Don’t Have Time to Develop Artistic Skills
I believe that everyone, artist or not, has intriguing ideas, whether they involve pictures, movies, songs, or stories. However, many people go through life without seeing their ideas become reality due to a fundamental factor: time.
Developing any kind of artistic skill takes time, in the case of graphic arts, probably would take a couple of years to reach a proficiency level enough to have works that surpass the level of mere sketches.
A lot of people work very hard and long hours just to make ends meet, and allocating time to properly train any kind of artistic skill is sometimes out of the question. I know this because i know several people who are in this kind of predicament.
I think that for a lot of artists, the point of art is not exactly the final product but the journey or constant growth that comes from seeing your pieces come to life, and how with each piece you grow and learn more, but a lot of people downright don't have the time due to the time constraints of work life.
What I appreciate about AI image generation technology is its ability to unlock hidden creative urges and expressions in people. It provides a platform that lowers the entry barrier, enabling individuals to see their ideas come to life with relative ease. These individuals may not be deeply interested in the artistic journey itself but simply want their visions realized without much hassle.
That's why, despite sometimes being so sloppy, it has become so popular, and that takes us to the next point:
AI Images Get Popular Because They Resonate With More People.
I've seen some artists complain that AI images sometimes get more attention from the public than the pieces created by artists. I get the feeling of frustration that comes from a piece that was created without effort gets more recognition than one created with true skill.
Like i said before, everyone, artists and not, have ideas for artistic pieces, and sometimes the ideas from artists are more elaborated and symbolical, so it's no surprise that sometimes the concepts and ideas from an artist, while more detailed and rich, are harder to grasp for some people. (And i know some artists even like this to be the case).
People that came to master the tools of AI image generation are a lot of times not artists or have any kind of refined artistic sense. This of course causes their images to have more simple and less refined concepts that are, in consequence, a lot easier to grasp and relate to the "ordinare joe" so it resonates better with them.
Is this a bad thing? Probably some people people would say that there's not inherent art on this and people are just staring at pretty pictures with no substance because it wasn't a trained artists making them, and i would say that probably it's true, but art it's more subjective than that, and this takes us to the following point:
Are AI Images Art? It’s More Complicated Than Just a NO
Despite being a fan of this technology, on an elemental aspect, talking only about the output images, and from a purely technical an PERSONAL point of view, i would say that AI generated images, talking about the final product, are NOT ART PER-SE. Hold on, let me explain:
After having my feet wet in the shores of AI image generation communities from quite a time now, from the way and intention that a lot of these images are generated, they are NOT meant to be taken as art, but just at an outlet for an idea or a concept that the author wants to see for itself. It's like singing at a Karaoke, the prompter generates an image first and foremost for himself and his personal amusement, sharing it on the net is a secondary objective.
For example, i actually like to generate images a lot, and i have an account where i post my gens frequently. I have never adopted the "AI Artist" moniker, and i also don't consider the images that i post any kind of "Ai art", which is a term that i also reject. I generally avoid tagging my images as such mostly out to respect to artists, which i absolutely admire. I know that this is not the case for other people but well, it's the way i roll.
HOWEVER, personal opinion aside and leaving a bit the road, i could ask: What is Art?
The concept and definition of art varies from people to people, so much that we could say that there's a definition of art as many people are in the earth. Everyone more or less agrees that art must have an human factor in a work or art to be, well, art, but for example a photographer can be merely at the correct place at a correct moment to snap a picture that wins a prize. Sometimes all it takes for a photographer to win a prize is to catch the subject at an interesting angle, which we could say is the "human factor" in this, but it's also not always intentional.
Some would argue that this "luck" is part of being a human, because a machine wouldn't recognize a good opportunity to snap a picture.
If we go by the variable of effort, stuff like bananas strapped to a wall or urinals placed on the back have been given the status of art because the artist has given them a "meaning" so... there's a lot of subjectivity and interpretation as to what an image needs to be "art".
Despite my initial stance that AI generated images as a final product are not art per-se, i would argue that there's still artistic intent behind them. Ai images don't exist in a vacuum and they don't generate themselves. There's someone behind crafting a prompt according to their vision, and careful choosing the Ai models and LORAs that would provide him the output he wants, so there's still a lot of variables to take into account when generating an image (at least if you go to the more technical side of things).
Probably not in the same way an artist paints a picture, but more on how a movie director tells other people what to do to or how to move have a vision become reality in the screen.
Are AI Images Copyright Infringement? It’s More Complicated Than Just a YES
THIS is one of the things that have given artists the itch more about this technology. Bringing back the metaphor of the previous point here, some would say that using AI generated images is like a movie director using people to finish a movie and taking all the credit, while not paying your actors, extras and cameramen a cent.
This is another thing that shows us that stuff like AI image generation is a thing of the future: We were not ready for it subjectively and legally. It's appearance opened enough rifts on things that were already set in stone and we are still trying to catch up with it.
Normally, Copyright Infringement is a straightforward concept: You cannot take something that someone else made and claim it as yours. You cannot take a 100% recognizable IP or trademark, like the logo of Batman or the face of Mickey Mouse and trace over them, say that you made it, and try to charge people for copies of it. We can all agree that it's pretty simple to understand and it makes sense. Even if you place a paper over the drawing of someone else and you trace it and you try to sell it, we all agree that it's asshole behavior and you will be sued for it even if you "drew it". You can't also profit of concepts or ideas that someone else has registered because that is taking something that isn't yours.
When things complicate is when people try to accuse AI image generation as "stealing" art, because it's not that simple if we know how AI image generation works.
I've seen people (mostly artists) trying to argue that what these algorithms do what is basically a "collage" of other people's work. They claim that basically the AI takes pieces of the art of other people and "mashes them together" to create the outputs, or that it takes the picture of someone and makes slight changes to it based on the prompt and, that's NOT how it works.
Let's say for example that i have a robot that can learn to play music. I make my robot listen to music and i tell him that what it just listened was "Jazz". Then i label each piece of music as the artist it was performed and feed that info to my robot. The robot classifies the info and finds patterns in what it heard to know what are the patterns that exist in the music of Coltrane, Moog, Armstong, in the music of Miles Davis and so on.
The robot hasn't recorded the music in some kind of "magic tape recorder". In this case, when i ask it to "Play a piece of jazz that sounds like a song by Miles Davis" it doesn't have the songs it heard stored, and it doesn't chops and tape them together
The robot just learned patterns of how jazz music sounds, and the patterns of the music of several jazz composers. You can then ask it to play a piece of music that "resembles a song of Louis Armstrong" and the robot will use a keyboard with synthetic instrument samples to play a piece that, while it resembles something that would have played Louis, it never was.
AI image generation works more or less the same way. The algorithms don't store full images or even pieces of images, it just stores knowledge of patterns of the images that it sees, then the algorithms are given an image of pure noise that it's then re-arranged to resemble the concepts of your prompt.
The controversy is still going on and the laws are not prepared to deal with the issues that arise when artists feel that their art has been ripped-off. It is stealing when you are feeding publicly available images, put out for everyone to see, to a robot to learn from it? Should an artist attach a "license" to it's art to prevent "bad use" even if it limit's it's reach? Should artist try to hide now they art in fears that it is gonna be used to train image models? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered in the following years.
A lot of people think that the AI technology should be regulated, but the problem is that regulations are more times than not put into effort by people that isn't familiarized with the technology, using laws that were not prepared to it, so the regulations always end up too draconian.
I'll leave the legal discussion to the people that knows this issue, but my personal opinion is that, due to the nature of how these models are trained, all the AI image generation models should be free and open, forbidden to profit directly with, and all the images generated directly by them should fall under the public domain.
I would personally argue that while there are ethical considerations about feeding images without permission to AI algorithms, at least these algorithms are free and/or open (if we talk about things like Stable Diffusion), are available for everyone to use, and because of the way that these models are trained i personally would consider any image generated with Ai as public domain. I strongly feel is kind of asshole behavior to try to sell these kind of pictures, but at the same time i recognize that there are people willing to pay for them so... Is an issue that is worth of study.
The Inevitable Consequence of Posting Your Stuff Online as an Artist
I understand the concern of artists here, because like i said above, they feel their property has been ripped of to be used in ways that were not intended. However, i have to say that unfortunately it's part of the consequences of the modern life that we live in now.
There's just so much stuff going on in the internet at all times, that to have a chance to be noticed by people you have to expose yourself (your art, i mean), as much as you can. For some artists, exposing their art on as much channels as possible gives them more chance to be noticed and appreciated by more people.
But this over exposure of your content is a double-edged sword for artists. Normally it would mean that your art is appreciated by more people, but it also means that with this visibility comes the inevitable risk of losing control over how that work is used or interpreted.
Leaving legal stuff aside, i would say it's hard to say how much an artist maintains sovereignty of one of their pieces of art once is "out of the canvas". Aside from the issues of multiple meanings and criticism that a piece can receive, once an art piece is "out there" it's also hard to prevent it's use for other purposes.
ANY piece of content put on the internet can be used for whatever purpose the receiver finds fit, i say this not as a justification to the use of art in AI image models, but because unfortunately it's the cold, hard truth about it. It is wrong? Probably, and everyone has suffered from it. From the small artist doing amateur drawing pieces to the big fishes posting copyrighted material, noone has been able to get away from this.
I say this not to be defeatist, but because it's how the way things are now, i think artists should adapt to the way art is perceived and consumed in the age of the internet, and in the age of AI.
The over abundance of AI generated images
Continuing from the last point, you can ask me: "so what artists should do about it? just give up and allow their stuff be taken for free?". If answer with a "yes", you will throw yourself and me and strangle me to death, so don't worry, i am not gonna say it... yet. Please keep reading.
One of the things that AI image generation bought, with the mass adoption of it, was the over abundance of images generated with these algorithms. This HAS been a problem, because lately wherever you go on the internet, you can find an abundance of poorly generated AI images, (which for the sake of brevity i'll adopt the common moniker given to them: AI slop), which are not great, and people with low threshold for artistic taste are generating ad-nauseaum.
It is a problem. If i give a follow up to the first point i gave here about AI lowering the bar for artistic expression, the downside of it is that: AI image generation algorithms aren't yet as advanced as we would like them to be, so the generation of AI slop is prevalent, and some people gets really into the idea that they do not need graphic artists because now they ARE graphic artists thanks to the AI, which is laughable but a lot of people do really think like that.
This is yet again, other of the signs that show that we were not really yet prepared culturally for AI and are still adapting, because while a lot of AI slop is ridiculous to look at, for most of the people it's "fine enough", and we can find AI slop everywhere, not only in the form of images, but also text an video.
The problem is that we do not gain ANYTHING by shaming and attacking people who use it, first because it's not gonna work, second because doing it so in a bad way will make your argument perform poorly, and third because people will gonna keep doing it anyway.
So what is need to be done about it?
It is time for evolution in Art
I want to say it again, i am NOT putting myself behind any of the points that confront in this controversy, i still stand by my point that i am glad that AI has given people without time and with other constraints, a way to untap their creativity. However i also sympathize with the notion that artists see their ecosystem watered down by the over abundance of less-than-stellar AI generated images.
My opinion regarding this topic is that: We are not living in the same world that yesterday, so art NEEDS to evolve. Rather than fight with the definition of what makes art and if art is only considered as such, i think artists NEED to start imbuing humanity in art.
You are gonna say "But Ryuichi, REAL art is already being made by humans", and i will say YES, it is, but you need to see that things are changing fast, and while it's true that there is a lot of AI slop in the net, there is also a lot of room to improve within AI image generation technologies and things WILL get better. If you take a look at the part where i did a quick history of the technology, you will see that it gets better by several leaps each iteration so "putting out nice images " will not cut it anymore.
Having seen and generated a lot of AI images these years, i would say that one way of imbuing humanity to your art is by doing things that that AI algorythms and prompters still have problems doing: make your art have personality.
I am not talking about only art style or shading or other technicalities, but on how your art catches the interest of your audience, by giving your art context, interaction and making your art tell a story. I like the art of @khyleri a lot because it's precisely this, art with a lot of humanity in it's detail, in it's context, it is art that tells a small story through it's details and has a lot of personality and it's art that interacts with it's audience due to the context it is created.
Creating art that tells a story and that has personality is one way. What other ways are to imbuing humanity in art exist? Well... getting NAKED.
Artists should get naked
There's this erotic comic by Satoshi Urushihara called "Ragnarock City" that was in fact one of the first things that came to my mind when this whole controversy about Artists vs AI came to the net. In this story, the prevalence of life-like cyborgs and robots was so big, that humans, particularly women, started uncovering their body and leaving stuff like their breasts outside, to flaunt the fact that they were in fact real humans, since cyborgs and other robots don't have these things.
When i'm saying that artists should get naked to show their humanity is precisely this. Normally one finds things like getting naked in public embarrassing because "you are seeing things that nobody should see", but in the context of the story it made sense because only humans had these "bits" and people were eager to demonstrate the they were not robots.
The other way artists would imbue humanity in their art is by showing that their art was, in fact, being created by a human. How? probably sharing stuff like timelapses, source files, "early sketches" and so on. I know a lot of artists show this kind of stuff with proud since they are seasoned enough, but also a lot of smaller artists are afraid fo showing this exactly because they make a lot of mistakes and probably have a unrefined way of creating art.
But these mistakes and "unique" approaches to art is what makes your art more humane and what connects you to other people on a deeper level than just putting out nice images. It even allows the community to grow because it allows all the artists from each other.
Then, it is now when i will say, YES, artists need to imbue their art with personality and give away their art to the masses to show how human they are.
Artists need to eat
Now, after you have finished strangling me to death after i said that artists need to give away their art for free. You are gonna say "But Ryuichi, artists need to eat!" and yea, it's true.
Most people thought that doing a career in art was a thing of the past now that AI allowed everyone to create images "out of thin air", but like i said above, the truth is that there's a lot of sub par and "bland" stuff being generated everywhere, that while it is true that it wiped out the possibility of living out of art creating "bottom of the barrel stuff", it gives more strength to the argument that art AND artists needs to evolve to keep their business being profitable in this age.
For example, in my previous point i talked about having extras to your art like "alternate takes", sketches, time-lapses, and so on, but...I never said that you should give any of this away for free! :)
I think one of the way that artists can still get money for their stuff is by doing GREAT art, filled with humanity, give it away for free, invite people to use it and spread it as much as they can without being too restrictive on it, and sell a lot of extras that people WILL want to consume because they extend on your idea and your concept.
I see a lot of artists already doing this and they seem to be getting a lot of good response.
Ai will never replace art
A lot of people in art circles had a very doomer attitude towards AI because they thought that it was gonna replace artists altogether and people would be more interested in AI images instead of art, but i think this is a very reductionist way of seeing things.
While it is true that it changed the social dynamics on how art is perceived by people, and it's true that it's over abundance has watered down the perceived value of "more average art" on the net, I think it is because of this that human art is gonna come to be more appreciated by it's audience.
Having used AI all these years, i can tell that while AI generated images are impressive to have, it still lacks in a lot of places, and at least with current iterations there's still a lot of things that AI cannot do. I think learning about AI and it's limitations would give artists a better understanding on how to equip their art to create more engaging pieces.
All in all, i think this over abundance of "Ai slop" will make true art to be better appreciated and recognized in the long run, because having said all of this, there's still real skill and mastery behind a piece of art created by humans, but i still think artists need to evolve and explore further their ideas of art and how they develop their techniques and ideas.
Do Artists Have a Reason to Be Concerned? Probably, But There's More...
YES, of course. We're talking about a technology that can produce content in minutes, content that some people have spent years, if not decades, trying to master. So, it’s crucial to empathize with this concern.
The sheer speed and scale at which AI can churn out images might feel like a looming threat to traditional artistic careers. Plus, there’s the worry that AI could dilute the craftsmanship and originality that make art so valuable and unique. And yes, these worries are valid, but hold on, I want you to consider more things.
First off, let’s not forget that the technology, even with its impressive advancements, is far from perfect. It can definitely handle some of the more basic tasks, and yes, this might replace some entry-level jobs. That's a legit concern. But if we look back, people have always had to adapt to new technologies that come along and shake things up, think about the printing press, photography, or even digital software. Adaptation isn't new; it's just part of the game.
And let’s be real, because this tech has its flaws (and it’s going to have them for the foreseeable future), there will always be a need for the human expertise in this field. It's one of the reasons why i think artists need to step up their game to survive.
While there's definitely a reason to be cautious, there's also a huge opportunity here for artists to harness this technology, use it to their advantage, and possibly elevate their art to levels they hadn't imagined before. Let's not just see the threats—let's also see the possibilities.
AI Image Generation as a Companion for the Artist
Having said all of this, i still think it's wrong that artists consider AI a threat. Like i said on my first point, a good deal of artists are helped by technology when creating their pieces, and if it's true that can spit out pieces that on other time could have been considered finished pieces, artists can also use this technology in their benefit.
My opinion is that AI can help speed up the process of creating a piece of art, AND also help the artist their art to be different, richer and more engaging.
Giving that AI image models are trained on "all the knowledge" of a lot of artists, you bet that it has several ideas that artists can use in their advantage. An artist could, for example, get ideas from AI on colors, composition, angles, etc, things that would enhance and improve their own art, but also their technique, giving them ideas that probably they hadn't explored before.
Think about it. AI can spit out numerous ideas about colors, compositions, angles, and so much more, all drawn from a vast reservoir of artistic knowledge learned from countless artists. It’s like tapping into a boundless, ever-evolving well of inspiration. NO ONE in history has had this before.
Imagine you’re stuck on a painting or a design, and you need a fresh perspective on the color palette or the composition. You can simply ask the AI for suggestions, and voila, you have a myriad of options to choose from. It’s like having a super talented assistant who’s always ready to help you brainstorm and refine your ideas. The result? Your art becomes more vibrant, engaging, and multifaceted.
This isn’t about negating traditional artistry; it’s about enhancing it. By integrating AI into their toolkit, artists can focus more on the core, human aspects of their work, like emotion, storytelling, and unique personal touches that a machine could never replicate. AI handles the grunt work, leaving you free to channel your creativity more efficiently and effectively.
It's hard to take a stance
The sea is still angry, the boat’s rocking like crazy, and taking a clear stance feels almost impossible in this stormy weather.
Even after writing all of this i know a lot of people will want to hang me and split me in half to rip out my guts from not taking a 100% pro-artist stance. And you know what? That’s okay. You can’t please everyone.
Right now, it’s tricky to pick a side in this whole debate because there’s bad faith flying around all over. Both sides are eager to gouge out the other’s eyes, and it’s turned into a bit of a battlefield.
Personally, I feel like I’ve got a foot in both camps. I’ve dabbled a bit in the artistic realm with my Blender pieces, so I get a taste of what it takes to create art. On the flip side, I’m enough of an AI image generation enthusiast to have a basic grasp of how this tech works and how to use it.
Over time, I think things will slowly improve for both sides as we start to understand these technologies better. Newer artists will realize that fighting against a change that’s here to stay isn’t going to solve anything.
Artists have a 100% valid concern about their work being co-opted by companies to feed into AI, essentially creating ‘competition’ against themselves. But let’s be real, it’s a bit late to complain too much; the cat’s already out of the bag and it’s not going back in without a fight.
I will recognize that I didn’t delved too much into the ethical issues of collection of data for the datasets or the issues of copyright and such, because I think the pieces “are not made for this puzzle”, the issue at hand is too complex, our understanding of it it’s not perfect, the laws are outdated and I have hope that we all will come to see a good outcome for this. I think this needs an effort of all the parties involved in this controversy, artists, technology people and law people.
Some people are calling for regulation as a solution, but I think that might end up hurting everyone in the long run. Any restrictions imposed might inadvertently stifle real artists too, especially if those regulations are made by people who don’t fully understand the nuances or are acting out of bias and anger.
It is very important to say this: We are living in a moment of inflection, not much different that was experienced at the time of the industrial revolution, and i think it's better to be analytic and cold headed when seeing what these technologies bring to us and how they change our scope on whatever our mean of life is.
We have now access to a technology that was only dreamed on by people before us, and that brings us all kind of possibilities on a very large array of fields, and i think it would help us recognize this as an never before seen opportunity to grow in our field.
Let’s take a step back and look at the whole picture. Consider what this technology could mean for all of us, not just artists. Instead of painting it as some modern evil, let’s explore how we can use it to our advantage. It’s about finding balance and seeing the bigger picture, rather than getting caught up in the storm.
End words
Well... I think I said everything that i had to say about this topic. I want to say again that it's all just my opinion, that can be flawed and subjective as any opinion out there, and far from thinking that my opinion is right i invite you to debate about it if you want so we can enhance each other's points of view. Catch me up on my e-mail or on my X profile if you want to talk about it, but please do so only if you have read this whole post.
It's okay if you don't like my stance about this theme. There's a lot of shit going on on this theme and the discourse is mostly pro-artist. I understand that, i also love artists as much as you or as anyone defending them against AI, but what i implore you is to get informed before lashing out to people regarding AI technologies, and i want you to understand that this technology is a turning point, not only for art, but for humanity itself. I think it is better if we try to understand it rather than demonize it.
AND, as a treat, i fed this whole post to an AI that digested the content and generated the audio of two people talking about the main points of this article. It's mindblowing, these are NOT real people, it's audio generated 100% with AI and was created in a matter of a couple of minutes, it's pretty awesome.
I think it does a good job of synthetizing the important points of this post, i'll talk about this AI in a further post