Anonymous #2 12w

Author of the powerless trilogy

3

Anonymous #1 12w

Ohhh yikes

1

Anonymous #1 12w

Oh also adding it’s ironic she supports ai “art” bc I’ve seen her recently getting accused of her books being written by ai

4

Anonymous #3 12w

Theft of intellectual property being used to replace human jobs it’s actually serious ❤️

8

Anonymous #1 12w

AI art ≠ theft of property

-6

Anonymous #3 12w

Intellectual property, yes. Artists did not consent to their art being used to train artificial intelligence models, or be used in replications that would be used in commercial material (which ai “art” is used in, all the time)

5

Anonymous #3 12w

It is that serious when AI is killing the planet, diluting reality, and outright theft 💔

5

Anonymous #1 12w

Artists don’t consent to their art being used to train other artists. What’s the difference

-2

Anonymous #3 12w

Using references to learn and allowing Ai to use art for its own “art” is completely different. It’s like taking someone’s art and slightly photoshopping it and calling it your own

6

Anonymous OP 12w

Idt that’s what AI art even is for the most part. Chatgpt for example doesn’t even let you photoshop. For the most part they create things just based on a prompt and they may use other art for inspiration or a basis, but so do people

-2

Anonymous #3 12w

Keep ignoring all the other issues listed so you can be a thoughtless button presser while artists starve and the world burns ig

4

Anonymous #4 12w

Only other issue listed it climate but that’s a general issue with AI, not AI art. Not super cool! Only artists are scared of AI art 💔

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

i don’t support ai art but this is an interesting point actually. artists take pieces of other works and combine them into something original all the time. instinctively i feel that ai is different but i can’t exactly pinpoint how

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

So Generative AI relies heavily on pattern recognition and training. The reason it can respond to you like a human is because it has so much data on human speech patterns it can replicate it. Fundamentally, it is copying what has already been said. This is true for AI models used to generate images too. It’s a problem for the same reason you can’t submit a research paper in school without citing the source of a quote: you’re copying someone else’s work and claiming it as original.

7

Anonymous #6 12w

Use as Inspiration and Referencing are not the same as copying since most of this in art is replication of style or process of the era of work, not literally repainting the Mona Lisa and saying you did it. Generative AI art is literally recreating the exact same thing without crediting the original creator.

5

Anonymous #6 12w

TL~DR: Generative AI doesn’t actually think for itself, it responds based on known and observed patterns. Therefore, any imagery it creates is copied, not referenced

6

Anonymous #6 12w

I understand that, and i wouldn’t say people should use AI art and claim it as their own or as original. But i don’t think there’s anything wrong with it fundamentally

-3

Anonymous #6 12w

just to play devils advocate, ai doesn’t take an entire piece and edit it slightly and pass it off as its own. that’s how it’s able to create pieces nobody has ever drawn, like all that italian brainrot crap. rather it takes elements from several different pieces and puts them together. same with the regular responses, certain phrases may copied exactly but bc they are pulled from such massive datasets the overall response is original.

-3

Anonymous #5 12w

you could argue that nothing anyone writes is totally original bc it’s all been said before, the point is the combination of existing words/ideas in a new way. i’ve seen a lot of artists develop their “style” by copying the way one artist draws eyes, how another colors and shades, etc. eventually becoming something unique.

-1

Anonymous #5 12w

That’s a fair point as well

-1

Anonymous #5 12w

Yes but then those artists go back and say “oh I learned from x, y, and z, studying an and b periods of art” which is crediting and proper. AI does not do this, because unless you’re ultra specific in what you’re asking, you have no idea who or what it’s drawn its reference from because they don’t disclose that information.

3

Anonymous #3 12w

Except corporations and anyone who posts online “look at this picture *I* generated using AI,” is, in fact, claiming originality and ownership of something heavily copied from someone else’s work.

3

Anonymous #6 12w

I’m not even going to begin on the whole issue of using AI to replace creatives as a problem because if you don’t understand why people are mad and against AI art you wouldn’t understand the problem with the elimination of human-created media either.

6

Anonymous #5 12w

Another thought as well: the databases being so big is part of the problem. There’s so much information we don’t know where it came from or why it’s there or who actually said it or if someone else referenced the original thing but only the reference is captured so now it says the referencer is the original creator, etc, etc, etc.

4

Anonymous #6 12w

All of this, and also why would I want to look at something no one bothered to create? Machines are soulless and easily manipulated. What comes out of AI is not art. That’s stolen imagery out spit back out with an airbrush filter by a machine. No time and heart and soul went into making that. I don’t want to be entertained by a energy sapping program that can easily be tricked into racism. There is so much wrong with AI.

3

Anonymous #4 12w

I personally have zero appreciation for art beyond aesthetics so definitely don’t care abt this last point 🤷‍♂️

-2

Anonymous #3 12w

You must be a husk of a person. Bet your friends dread you getting the aux. if you have no appreciation for art then why are you on book club, you must love ai writing too

2

Anonymous OP 12w

Honesty if an AI wrote a good book i wouldn’t discriminate 💀 I do think writing is a lot more skillful than physical art though.

-1

Anonymous OP 12w

Also, womp womp 😪

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

You’re an exhausting person. I do hope you grow an appreciation for art though because “art” is so broad and with no soul and color and human aspects to art, this world is going to become The Giver.

3

Anonymous #3 12w

Book club member of contrarianism and despair

1

Anonymous #6 12w

$5 mil, take it or leave it.

0

Anonymous #3 12w

I sprinkled an extra but of soul on this one 🤞🏼

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

Ah yes, the classic “modern art is so dumb and expensive and I don’t get it to so I’m going to make fun of it” response.

3

Anonymous #6 12w

Not just modern art 💔

0

Anonymous #3 12w

Please find curiosity and whimsy, good night

3

Anonymous #6 12w

I have it but I apply it to what i believe are more useful aspects of culture, like science. Gn bestie 😇

0

Anonymous #3 12w

Sure, if you’re limiting “art” to painting only…

3

Anonymous #6 12w

I only appreciate physical art (painting, drawing, sculpting, etc), for aesthetics, like I said. Abstract art is especially silly imo.

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

I doubt you really care about science. Stem girlie here who is also an ARTIST. You should know that the arts greatly affect how a society thinks and what it values. Ethics and critical thinking go hand and hand with the arts and you’re incredibly naive for thinking that bringing up science will support your ignorance.

3

Anonymous #3 12w

Clearly you don’t, since you support the use of ai

1

Anonymous #3 12w

What is writing if not a form of abstract art…

3

Anonymous OP 12w

I agree, arts do effect how societies think and what they value. But i think they shouldn’t, for the most part.

-1

Anonymous OP 12w

And i care about science so much that I’m dedicating my career to it 😀

0

Anonymous #6 12w

I wouldn’t call it that but i’ll be more specific if it pleases you. Physical/visual forms of abstract art are especially silly.

0

Anonymous #3 12w

I’ve taken so many classes about ethics and critical topics in stem and you have absolutely no idea how much media literacy and art affects those things. It’s how people become educated about certain issues and influence people’s values. (For example, how film and the arts affect my particular field of study and why social license to operate is important.) I’m sorry but your such a contrarian it’s insane

1

Anonymous #3 12w

One of the key tenants of writing for an audience is that the audience will never understand exactly down-to-the-exact-thought what the author meant, which is why interpretation occurs especially in classics. That is abstraction…

3

Anonymous OP 12w

I promise it’s not that deep. I already said i agree it’s important for communication and education, but that’s only because humans are irrational beings. Your opinions are valid, i’m just telling you my opinions

0

Anonymous #3 12w

That’s nice but you’re far from being well rounded as someone in a stem field and it concerns me greatly. You have no idea or care for why it’s harmful and very counterproductive/destructive when introduced into the arts. Your lack of critical thinking skills and ethical reasoning is worrying. Please reflect, gn

1

Anonymous #6 12w

Ok fine. Doesn’t change my opinion or argument lol

0

Anonymous OP 12w

I think i’m decently well rounded. I don’t think i have to like random globs of paint on a canvas to be so. I have many other hobbies and interests. Anyhoo, you’re kind of funny so please don’t go bald. Gn

0

Anonymous #3 12w

You’re awfully anti-intellectual for a someone who is on book club and also claims to be in stem. I’m saying your opinion is counterproductive to fact and to your field of study and this dangerous thinking is why we have ethical standards and classes

1

Anonymous #3 12w

I’m already bald so

1

Anonymous OP 12w

My opinions are contrary to fact. Art is important as we both agree. I simply think it should be far less so (visual arts at least). This doesn’t effect me or my field though :(

0

Anonymous #3 12w

Also this has nothing to do with ethics idk what you’re waffling about at this point 💀

0

Anonymous #3 12w

My opinions aren’t contrary to fact*

-1

Anonymous OP 12w

That’s actually wild if that’s true 😭

-1

Anonymous #3 12w

It absolutely does. And the fact that you don’t understand that means you haven’t paid attention in any of your ethics classes, if you had any. This is exactly why they’re important

1

Anonymous #3 12w

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does. Social license to operate is important and openly believing things like this is dangerous thinking and you should understand why. Your willful ignorance is going to bite you in the ass in the working world and I’m just being honest. This is like saying that books and written media need to be less important. It’s absolutely absurd and people will question your educational background and ethical reasoning when you believe things like that.

1

Anonymous OP 12w

All bc i believe this shouldn’t be worth more than a few bucks btw 💔

0

Anonymous OP 12w

Ur so extra op 🥀

0

Anonymous #3 12w

I’m being extra because of your take on Ai in art and not modern art. Completely unrelated

1

Anonymous OP 12w

The past 20 msgs in this thread have been about modern art😭

0

Anonymous #3 12w

You made it about modern art because you were embarrassed about getting clowned on for supporting ai art. You tried to make it about modern art. No one is listening.

1

Anonymous OP 12w

I’m not embarrassed about any of my takes in this thread and i’ll likely stand by them for a very long time

0

Anonymous OP 12w

There is nothing wrong with AI art aside from the climate related issues Gn😤

-2

Anonymous #1 12w

lol allegedly, she copied a whole scene from red queen to a T. Which is insane that she got away with it. If I was Victoria Aveyard I would be going straight to a lawsuit

1

Anonymous OP 12w

Her fans even attacked Victoria Aveyard claiming she stole from her….I guess people are too dumb to check publishing dates?

3