Disclaimer: I agree that there is a violation of personal ownership of the artists work. I agree that it's not fair in the state that it is now. But what I want to add to the discussion is something else.


When I play around with MJ and then post it somewhere, I don't consider myself as an artist, but more of an explorer of the infinite realms where I present my findings that resonated with me.

Then we have Fractal artists. They too are just explorers but can have a skill of manipulating the different results in post to present a nicer version of the fractal or maybe combine more of them together to create a piece that is more than sum of its parts.

Then we have the saying that art is not made, just discovered.

What is the border where the skill is actually skill, where the artist is actually artist? And are there any borders to start with?
Is Chef an artist? What about a person that cooks food from the Chef's recipe?

Maybe the right question isn't who's the artist, but who's the craftsman/artisan.

People are afraid, they have fear, I too have fear of not sustaining my standard of living in the future. If it weren't for money, then I wouldn't be afraid probably and will keep on doing what I do for free.

Like a secondary symptoms of a vaccine can have a negative effects for a few days, then this AI outburst can be something similar.

Or maybe not. We'll see. There is probably not much we can do now. We can only adapt as we did for millions of years.

My expertise is sound. I believe that I will always have an upper hand over those who don't have experience in sound when using some kind of future AI for audio. Then we will probably become some kind of art directors with AIs as the artists. There will be the end of linear simple media as pictures and normal music. The era of interactive media, of little Universes, where we can pass our ideas to more people will become normal for consuming art.
I imagine a time where one person, the Artist/Architect can use AI tools to create a complex VR/AR experience for all the senses. and I believe that those little Universes will almost always be of better quality then random Universes from people that didn't know what they are doing and were just playing around.
Then there needs to be some kind of rating system and those Universes that are nicely done and present nice ideas and experiences will pay the creators.

What do you think, wouldn't you like to be architects for your little Universes? I wouldn't be surprised if we are actually in one right now.

I don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to play with these things, although each time you do you're feeding the monster, and at the expense of someone else. Same with artists using it for reference or ideation purposes. It has legitimate art applications and is an insanely powerful tool, but I can't square that with the ethical issues myself, which is mainly why I won't use it at present. My issue is more with people who are claiming and selling the images, and of course most of all with the AI companies who are abusing this tech so badly.

My fears and concerns are not really about money. Larger implications aside (such as the potential for use in propaganda, among others), I just feel like this is a death blow to art culture in general. Like Miyazaki and Guillermo Del Toro, I feel that it is "an insult to life itself", and devalues all human experience.

And I can tell you how I feel regarding your made vs. discovered question: it makes me deeply uncomfortable that someone might feel entitled to use an AI to appropriate my style. As I said before, it's mine; it was both made and discovered, but my ME, and it's not up for grabs for anybody.

I think this fits in here quite nicely

Yeah... I'm just gonna go ahead and say fuck this guy, his weird looking eyebrow and his tiresome stock rationales.

It's just the same five arguments over and over again.

1) "What about Photoshop? People whined about that too".
2) "People and machines are exactly the same. Are you saying you don't have influences???"
3) "Why don't you stop trying to hold back humanity and just get better and faster?"
4) "If you post something online, you should expect to have it stolen".
5) "What about people who are born with no limbs?" (This one is my personal favorite).

There must be a guy at Midjourney Central who hands out brochures at the door. They all have their nincompoop talking points all ready to go at all times.

Now you're starting to sound like the conspiracy nuts

The way i heard his points, only one of your five is even remotely made by him (#2). His main point for graphics seems to be that the generators don't really compete with commission artists, but with stock images that remain often cheaper (as in free) and quicker if you know what you want.

Anyway, he's not a visual artist, he's a musician. So probably take anything he says about graphics with a grain of salt. It's merely the intro anyway.

I'm not saying anyone has to agree with him. I'm not even saying i do. But since i been a viewer of his channel for a number of years, i can assure you his point of view has nothing to do with "midjourney central", and predates the current controversy.

His eyebrow is like this because he used to box, btw. It's not gonna grow back.

If intellectual property is not a thing anymore i wonder how these companies make any money.

Oh, but #2 is the one. That's the one they bust out most often for maximum gaslighting effect. I was just giving you the Big 5 so you can be prepared for them in future.

It's hard to deny he makes one very good point. We should be creative because we enjoy it. If we dont enjoy it without being paid then something got lost along the way.

I can't argue with that.

I don't think it makes sense as a point. No one has ever talked about enjoyment, but about sustainability. Every activity that you decide to entrust with your main monetary income (since we are forced to have it, unless you want to starve) must be sustainable over time. If you don't get paid for your art, or you are not commissioned art, you simply won't be able to do it, because you'll be forced to go work somewhere else. And it's not easy to immerse yourself in the artistic bubble after 9 straight hours of breaking your back. Being an artist is not a part time job.

Yes, but there are things like student debts, costs of materials, time invested, etc.

I know plenty of music or visual art that would have been nearly impossible to make without at least compensation for these costs.

This is exactly how I do it.

I've never sought a production job, because I want the freedom to make whatever I want to make and be beholden to no one. My art is the one thing in my life that is mine and nobody else's, so I'm super protective of it for sure and arrange my time accordingly. I work a fulltime job and then some, and then I come home at night to do this. Rinse and repeat, over and over, for many years on end. I've sold my work but have never earned my living exclusively through art. I guess I'd just as soon keep my day job than sculpt rocks for Disney all day.

So, I'm not railing against AI because I think it's coming for my job. It's not. But it is coming for a lot of others', and there's still plenty at stake for me.

I base my entire identity on this thing I do. I want to be recognized for it and I want to be remembered. But 5 years from now when art and culture have effectively been reduced to nothing more than disposable Instagram content, I will be completely invisible, and the chances of leaving anything behind that says I was here and that I mattered will have been swallowed up by an endless sea of mind numbingly empty knockoffs.

Right.

Why do you want to be recognized and remembered?
Why do you want the world to remember that you were here and that you mattered?

I don't understand the question. Because I was...? And I did...?

Or how about because I spent a massive amount of time, energy and emotional capital bringing something unique into the world out of nothing at all? Or because unlike the millions of Midjourney mopes out there currently showing off participation trophies, there will only ever be one of me?

Or, maybe it's just because I'm 56 and closer to the end than the beginning, and it's important to me that when the times comes I can go easier into that good night believing my life had meaning.

Your question suggests to me that you're either young and lacking in perspective, or vapid enough not to be burdened by existential concerns.

Im just a bit lost in terms of why the world remembering or not changes the fact that your life had meaning.
Or does your life have meaning right now and you are concerned that it might go away before you die?

I mean, kinda sounds like AI is taking the value of your effort, your value as a person even, your immmortality in a sense, away from you, Id be pissed about that too tbh.

Sure, Im probably closer to the beginning than I am to the end, Id be happy to hear what sort of existential burderns you feel are at play here if you feel like sharing.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm feeling. It's a slap in the face to all creative human endeavor, AND it robs me of all those things personally.

Regarding existential burdens, I think I just laid it out. Time is short (which is why clocks are everywhere in my art). My heart could explode tomorrow (and likely will if I have to explain to one more fucking person the difference between machine learning and human learning, or why I consider this a debasement of art and culture).

I feel that burden everyday of getting shit done before that happens - of making something totally new in hopes that it might outlive me. It wakes me up in the middle of the night to make tiny changes to whatever it is that I'm currently working on. It's with me always, making me leave scads of money on the table from an already successful career, because this is where my head is at; it is forever my top priority. I engage in the process, revel in the process, because the struggle itself gives me meaning, and because when I'm doing it and doing it well, I am who and what I was meant to be.

I think that's what it is to be an artist. If it's missing, I don't think you are one - and it's something that no Midjourney jockey will ever come to know.

Just a holiday reminder that this is how Emad Mostaque, founder and CEO of Stability AI views all visual artists.

This demented worm sees a world in which evil artist overlords have long oppressed the unskilled and the talentless. Why is art only for artists, he argues. "Skill segregation", he calls it. Just look at his bizarro comments equating the unregulated use of AI to class struggle, in a typically transparent bad faith effort to rationalize data theft.

To be clear:

Art is for everyone who wants it. But this is not art.

He's not an artist, or an ally to artists by any stretch of the imagination. He's a hedge fund manager. He doesn't give a shit about anything other than corporate profit, and his product is intended as an artist replacement, not a tool (as suggested by the constant gaslighting from him, other AI CEO's and every end user in existence).

This is the death of art. That is the intention, and that is the effect. It's the Great Dumbing Down of Humanity.

What an idiot. There's no monopoly by artists... that's patently false and absurd since most artists are independent. Effectively, he's saying all artists are in cahoots with each other. Wonder how many lemmings are falling for these poorly formulated arguments.

One love

These are the very same talking points that are constantly parroted by all end users, so my answer to your question would be... all of them?

These are their arguments. You will see them over and over and over and over and over and over again:

1) Artists are gatekeeping parasites who get what they deserve. This is our time now.
2) Anyone who posts anything online automatically consents to data scraping.
3) People who study/are influenced by previous artists are doing the exact same thing as AI.
4) What about the limbless?
5) It's already here and isn't going away, so why don't you all stop whining about it?
6) If you're so worried, why don't you just get better and faster?

I say what about brain surgery? This is also skill segregation. Why shouldn't I get to perform your brain surgery? Who are you to tell me otherwise?

Here is another very informative and articulate 13 minute video to break it all down more diplomatically than I'm able:

I'm going to have some fun.



Gatekeeping what?! Prerequisite for skill and practice to be an artist who can make a living? That's like saying pro sports are gatekeeping. Anyone can get a pencil and paper... they just need to be willing to put the time in, and most, especially this day in age, are not willing to do that.

I'd also ask who are they to dictate who deserves what? Just because you're rich doesn't give you that power, and don't tell me that "everyone has their price" because I sure don't when it comes to my principles.



False, that's why policies are now in place on almost all websites regarding this (those that collect and store data), because most people did not implicitly consent to this through their use of the internet.



Not the same. A human is influenced, and AI copies. AI art is completely mechanical in its procedure, whereas no matter how hard someone tries, no one ever can perfectly mimic the Sistine Chapel, or The Last Supper, or Descent from the Cross, or any other such piece that is considered great.

Influence also entails that an artist that is being influenced is still doing things how they wish to. Many artists are influenced and inspired by more than one artist.

3 is a cop-out to addressing the issue.



This is an appeal to emotion and is a fallacy. It's also a red herring. That's not what the issue is about. But this is an attempt to bolster #1.



If I were an artist: "Well, Mr. Skill-less, I won't stop whining about it because what I do and how I do it took years and years of practice. Hours and hours of painstaking work. Mistake after mistake. Lesson after lesson. Piece after piece. I've put huge amounts of valuable, irretrievable time in to hone this skill. That time spent was in order to make my living using my skill. Now, I am not only being made obsolete, my work is now threatened as being used without my permission. My entitlement to my pursuit of happiness is threatened by this. If part of that pursuit means that I have to be able to make a living producing quality art, then that's what I have to do, because I still have to eat. In other words, if I want to be able to spend all my time creating art because that's what makes me happy, then I have to also make an income doing it."



As compassionate and kind as I try to be, I don't think I'd be able to hold back laughing at someone if they said this to me. There's a clear lack of understanding of basic computing operations performed by a computer versus a person; "getting better and faster" when competing with an AI in this context is humanely impossible. But I wouldn't waste my time explaining why.

One love