What is your opinion on the use of AI art in kpop comeback teasers? (1 Viewer)

[athenaaa]

I don’t think it’s an issue as long as people are checking them over. There is an artist for Billlie who recently started dabbling in AI art, she is still their artist and in this case AI is not taking jobs away from artists. When it does take away jobs is the issue. It should also be analyzed for inconsistencies such as broken lines as AI does sometimes make mistakes.

I have also noticed sometimes some AI art features are unrecognizable as everyday objects. For example, this weird rat thing in Kiss of Life’s taesers.

 

[eclipsoul]

well my opinion is fuck that shit and AI "art" isn't art if i say more i'll get warning points so yeah

 

[snsd2beg]

well my opinion is fuck that shit and AI "art" isn't art if i say more i'll get warning points so yeah

I concur
It still steals from real artists, even if it isn't replacing them so fuck that

 

[Villains]

personally, AI is not real art... i don't think you can call yourself an artist if you're using AI to do your job

 

[eclipsoul]

I concur
It still steals from real artists, even if it isn't replacing them so fuck that

exactly, all AI "artists" do is type commands on the keyboards and that is as far from creating as it can be. it is based off stealing actual artists' work even if it doesn't take their jobs, because it wouldn't exist without pre-existing artworks made by humans that AI merges to make that crap. also it looks ugly as fuck most of the time which is why i don't get why anyone would ever defend that (tho i hope people in this thread do not)

 

[Ahsoka]

I view it the same way I view other technological advancement. Does it take away jobs? Yeah. Is that inherently unacceptable? No. After all, why is using tractors, food processors, phones, cars, or literally everything technologically related okay, when it takes away opportunities from people? The only answer I see is that it’s okay because we’ve been using them for a long time, but if we don’t let people use knew technology, how does it reach that point? Do we need to stop all advancements now? That would be beyond absurd imo, and everyone would agree, even if they’re anti ai being used in art.

 

[Willow]

personally, AI is not real art... i don't think you can call yourself an artist if you're using AI to do your job

I feel genuinely offended

 

[ChiaraStar169]

Creativity should come from the mind, not some random computer commands! Now, I do have to admit that I have used ArtBreeder before, but this was before I realized that it's taking away from real artists. I don't even stan any AI K-pop groups bc they're taking away from actual aspiring idols.

Edit:P sorry @Willow but I agree with @snsd2beg and @eclipsoul

 

[Day]

I don't support any AI use

 

[ChiaraStar169]

.

 

[x_x]

regardless if it's the original artist or not, generative AI is incredibly harmful to the environment with mass of energy it consumes to power it.

just for insurance: before anyone says there's already things humanity is doing that is bad for the environment, yeah so why do you wanna add more to the list.

 

[catonkatonk]

I view it the same way I view other technological advancement. Does it take away jobs? Yeah. Is that inherently unacceptable? No. After all, why is using tractors, food processors, phones, cars, or literally everything technologically related okay, when it takes away opportunities from people? The only answer I see is that it’s okay because we’ve been using them for a long time, but if we don’t let people use knew technology, how does it reach that point? Do we need to stop all advancements now? That would be beyond absurd imo, and everyone would agree, even if they’re anti ai being used in art.

The difference is that this is the first time people outside the working class are affected by automation, so apparently now is the time we should care.
Even though up until now, every school in the western world has taught that capital-labour substitution leads to universal increases in living standards in an economy. With two-hundred year stats of growth through the industrial age as proof.

That Billlie album cover is sick btw.

 

[magali]

in this case AI is not taking jobs away from artists. When it does take away jobs is the issue. It should also be analyzed for inconsistencies such as broken lines as AI does sometimes make mistakes.
​

the problem is that AI feeds off of other people's art via inputs, either from the developers or other users. by using AI you are taking away the work from other people because it's easier to just generate it instead of looking for and commissioning an artist that can do the exact same work, more polished and accurate, while giving them a job and a pay!

 

[magali]

personally, AI is not real art... i don't think you can call yourself an artist if you're using AI to do your job

^^^^^^^^^
artificial intelligence is just mimicking human work. everything an AI does, there were 500 people before on fiverr doing it for 7 bucks

 

[magali]

I view it the same way I view other technological advancement. Does it take away jobs? Yeah. Is that inherently unacceptable? No. After all, why is using tractors, food processors, phones, cars, or literally everything technologically related okay, when it takes away opportunities from people? The only answer I see is that it’s okay because we’ve been using them for a long time, but if we don’t let people use knew technology, how does it reach that point? Do we need to stop all advancements now? That would be beyond absurd imo, and everyone would agree, even if they’re anti ai being used in art.

i partly agree but a lot of instances where human work is replaced by machines is that we can usually work with these machines.
farmers "don't" do their manual work (many still do) but they still have to drive the tractors and manually drive them through each place.
we use phones for human work as well, it even facilitated for human work to be made internationally like art commissions
cars still need people to drive them, there's still taxis or uber drivers, bus drivers, chauffeurs, car mechanics. all of these things still find a way to employ people and use their manual work in each way, however most AI sites take away the work that visual artists do so other people can do it easily instead of employing others. of course, there's employment that comes with AI as well like developers, but those can be replaced by AI as well.
i'm not saying all AI consists of is sitting on your ass typing on chatgpt, but i'm saying it doesn't have half the human manual work that other technologies have

 

[StarrySky]

I'm okay with the concept of AI in some of its uses, but in specific for "art", AI is terrible. Its basic functions come from stealing actual artists' works to "learn". And as a fellow artist, I can't stand behind anyone using it commercially. Though it seems quite widespread these days....Le sigh....

 

[Ahsoka]

@nieve so so so many jobs have been replaced by machines though. You haven’t heard of them for exactly that reason, they’re no longer jobs that exist in any capacity for human labor, which absolutely can not be said for ai art. Anyone can type prompts into ai yeah. Who is screening those for quality? As of now, absolutely humans, and primarily artists id think, or people with artistic capacity who can recognize what’s good, what needs edits, and what’s garbage. Maybe we’ll get to a point where it’ll be 100% ai but that’s nowhere near where we currently are. And even from the examples I listed, some of them have become viewed as very menial jobs because they no longer require much work. Some of them will soon be phased out as well. So to me it currently looks like an artist is less threatened by ai than many many people are. I’d worry more if I worked in retail, for example, than if I did any form of art, given how quickly self checkout has been rolling out.

 

[eclipsoul]

I view it the same way I view other technological advancement. Does it take away jobs? Yeah. Is that inherently unacceptable? No. After all, why is using tractors, food processors, phones, cars, or literally everything technologically related okay, when it takes away opportunities from people? The only answer I see is that it’s okay because we’ve been using them for a long time, but if we don’t let people use knew technology, how does it reach that point? Do we need to stop all advancements now? That would be beyond absurd imo, and everyone would agree, even if they’re anti ai being used in art.

is generative AI really an advancement though? i feel like it's actually shifting the society backwards by harming creative workers and fueling gross acts such as porn deepfakes of minors. even the harmless AI "art" doesn't only take away opportunities, but also steals work that has already been made and presents it as something that is meant to be completely new, often making profits off such things. it's rooted in stealing and also objectively looks worse than anything human-made.

 

[Ahsoka]

@eclipsoul you can always claim people are being harmed. Is it okay to harm people who are doing jobs seen as menial? For example, it’s okay to replace people who performed difficult calculations back in the day before handheld calculators because they’re not creative? Because you can argue that just as easily, if not more easily. For the deepfakes thing you can also claim that for just about anything, including other art forms. Hell, I went to an old ass palace in Europe, where the guide informed us that the artist painted the royal couple nude, and they sold it to the male in the relationship because the male knew the female would hate it because of her beliefs. That wasn’t ai, that was normal art, and preceded ai art by centuries. And ofc it’s a thing with digital art too, I bet you could find a naked edit of just about any decently known kpop idol, because if people want to, they’ll find a way to do it, ai or no ai. So unless you’re anti digital art because it’s easier to edit people nude there than with a paintbrush, then I don’t get your argument. As for the stealing, yep, humans do it too, intentionally or not. With humans the difference is it’s called reference photos and inspiration. Very very rarely is any art new, a variation of it exists somewhere. A replica likely not, but ai is not a replica, but instead a new combination or variation, like all art. As for looking objectively worse, if that’s true then this isn’t an issue because companies want their stuff to look good. So if an artist can do a much better job and they have the funds to hire them, they’ll hire the artist. Otherwise now we have the same issue, companies won’t usually hire artists who clearly suck because they’ll get a bad name, unless they’re super poor perhaps. So if you’re right ai art looks objectively terrible, companies won’t use it anyways, so there’s no harm because there’s not profit for them. It does a lot of times because it’s newer still, but not always, as the fact that people get upset that you can’t tell ai from real photos or art shows.

I’m not an artist, and this isn’t something I’m affected by. I realize that. I just also know that these patterns have occurred in history, where people boycott or show strong opposition to technology that can replace human workers, which makes me think that this is pretty similar, and as such, will likely become pretty common as the technology gets older. Viewing that this isn’t a new belief, and just another form, and viewing how things turned out in older cases, I just don’t see his not becoming commonly utilized just as much.

 

[Selfmate]

as someone said "AI currently is the worst it will ever be"

what that means is that AI will only get better

the issue now isn't minimizing the use of AI but to mange the expectations and it's ethics and use