- cross-posted to:
- autism@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- autism@lemmy.world
EDIT: It’s honestly hard to believe how intense and personal some of the hostility in this thread is. I understand objecting to something when there is a valid concern, especially about ethics or consent. But this is something else entirely. It feels less like people are engaging with the actual work and more like they are reacting to the mere presence of AI in any form, regardless of context.
I don’t think LLMs are universally good or bad. I think they are very very bad at a large number of things, especially when people try to use them as shortcuts in places where care, originality, or expertise (or human understanding and subsequent empathy) are required. But they are also extremely effective in other use cases when used with skill, intention, and thought. That is the position I hold. It is nuanced. It does not dismiss the criticisms people have raised, but it also does not treat every use of the technology as automatically unethical or invalid.
What I did was not a random one-line prompt into a generator. I gave deliberate, specific instructions about pose, anatomy, style, and tone. I gave feedback. I adjusted the inputs. I guided it through a process that produced something unique and original. The result is not a collage of stolen images. It is not a copy of anything that has ever existed. That is important context, and it is constantly ignored in these arguments.
There is a real difference between raising concerns in good faith and launching personal attacks at people who use a tool in a considered way. The people jumping into these threads with moral outrage are not engaging in objective analysis. They are repeating talking points as if AI art is some kind of singular personal enemy. It often feels like they are reacting based on something they heard someone else say, rather than thinking critically about what is in front of them.
And this is happening in a community that is supposed to be supportive of neurodivergent people. That is the part I find most maddening. There is room here for discussion and for disagreement. But instead of debate, we get judgment, condescension, rabid hostility, and attempts to shame people for trying something different. That is not the kind of environment anyone should want to foster.
countless hours? find three .pngs in google, a pangolin, a chair, and a desk. put them together in something barely more advanced than paint (so opacity is preserved), and it’s done. time to learn that skill: 10min max, time to use that skill after the initial learning time: 2min per image
it doesn’t have to be good, it doesn’t have to be drawn, it can be 3 pictures smushed together that’s okay, what it does have to be, in my opinion, is made by a person. Not a glorified plagarism water boiler
the shittiest handmade rage comic is better than the finest AI made meme
Your advice is to take three things directly created by other people and combine them together? That’s literally plagiarism.
No it’s not. Not if you synthesize them into something new, which is what this comic would have been.
That is exactly what the LLM did, only to a greater extent. This pangolin has never existed anywhere else. It was created based on my specific prompts and my instructions about which styles to draw from. That is the same process humans use when creating images in a particular style. Inspiration is not plagiarism.
this pangolin is dozens of artists’ pangolins. describing the prompt doesnt make it source magically ethical
You’re acting like you made a collage. You didn’t. You typed a few words into a prompt, and an LLM used the work of other artists without their permission to spit something out.
Just make a collage next time instead, it has actual artistic value.
You didn’t understand anything I wrote
the difference is that the people who make pngs of singular objects/animals mean for those images to be used by others.
AI companies force feed algorithms with everything they can find, permission from the creators or not
no, that’s how image macros have literally always worked. youre plagiarizing the artists by using generative images that scrapes their livelihoods without their consent. also, if you took someone elses picture of a pangolin, you can credit the artist. can your AI do that?
Good for you, you’re free to do that when you start making your own comics. Now explain why you think everybody else should share your same value set?
i am an artist, i actually create things regularly, on various levels of effort.
because plagiarism is bad. and wasting water is also bad. as it is today AI is not ethical in the slightest.
read about it before you decide to make a clown out of yourself
The arrogance is astounding. You immediately assume that anybody with a differing opinion than yours has that opinion because they are uninformed and clueless, and once they have the facts in hand they will immediately come around to your PoV.
I guessed. Most of you haters are either feeling your livelihood being threatened or resenting that you had to spend hundreds of hours learning to draw and insisting everybody else has to do the same.
Sounds like a republican.
Oh wow you’re just a tool then I guess… The most “republican” thing I’ve seen in this thread is you refusing to accept valid criticism about using garbage technology.
It’s not valid criticism. It’s openly hostile insults and trash-talking. No one making these comments is looking to have a constructive dialogue, they’re looking to cause emotional distress. Which is particularly awful given the fucking community we’re in!
youre using a tool developed by technocratic fascist companies, which uses insane amounts of water and energy. fuck your feelings, this is my planet too. you dont care about anyone other than yourself.
And how much fucking power do you think the global telecommunications industry and data hosting that enables you to post your pathetic hate on Lemmy uses? Fucking moron, go fuck yourself.