It is understandable. But what is not understandable is turning a blind eye to the nuance and choosing hate over understanding. I’m glad you have not done so and done your own research, and I happily applaud you for that. But I meet plenty of people that blindly take some art social media influencer’s misguided (sometimes suspiciously conveniently so) ideas on how AI works. Big companies aren’t all that exists, and they are not the only ones making advancements. Or the majority of it, really. It just looks that way because they get all the attention and have all the means.

Pretending it is so is gives them far more unwarranted power than is healthy, as it creates a situation where people think they’re destroying the big corporations, but in fact are destroying the means for smaller creatives that operate in the shadows to keep up and compete. AI technology will never be restricted in a way that will just harm the corporations as it currently is. Stricter copyright laws are a common proposal but I’m sure Disney et al are just downright content if that what ends up with it, as they have enough data to their own to easily train their own AI. And banning the technology as a whole would open up cans of worms that it won’t be banned everywhere, leading to economic losses to the countries that do ban it.

I’m working day to day with professional artists from smaller companies that are using it for the right jobs to speed up their work. But their voices are unheard because if they speak up they get showered with hate and people calling them fake or frauds. Again, people that have created wonderful things without AI and deserve the title of artist multiple times over. They don’t have millions of followers to back them up, so they just don’t bother with and do what artists do, which is to create. Ironically, it’s also in part artists that are silencing other artists over AI, not the big corporations.

is super energy demanding so it actively hurts the environment for no real benefit.

While I agree with that, it should be mentioned that it’s mostly LLMs that require massively out of proportion energy. Generating images is about as expensive as playing a video game on high settings. Modeling software and 3D software also drain energy and producing art is just generally more expensive than consuming it. I think just saying ‘it hurts the environment’ is slightly misguided, since you can say that about literally everything. Humans existing at all is bad for the environment, but the balance of it is what matters. I do think LLMs go over the edge and big company’s insistence to shove it into literally everything is despicable, and not proportional to the benefit.

The energy would be so much better used solving actual problems

So one thing I want to mention there is that AI is downright revolutionary in medicine. You can’t look at technology as something that takes linear paths from improvement to improvements. The lessons learned in one area can also become applicable to other areas. AI can be used to detect cancers early, solve protein folding, find tumors on medical scans. And that’s from just the relatively little knowledge I have of it. So yes, image generation doesn’t solve such issue, but the technology that allowed them to exist does solve real tangible issues, and it’s popularity and spread is inherently linked.

If some people enjoy AI generation, then that’s fine but I think it shouldn’t replace a passionate, skill-based workforce.

100% agree. No AI should ever replace humans. I would rather see people get excited to make something because of AI, and once they have some success and secure funding, switch over to competent human artists. That’s how humans should replace AI in my eyes, not the other way around.

While I kind of get what you’re trying to say, I do personally think you have some point that the expression of the AI is more generic, but that’s kind of where the value is. Certain actions, even if you are manually doing everything, are repetitive and provide a low level of artistic expression. Like coloring in large surfaces, background characters, background buildings. It’s impressive to do so yourself and you can even get very good at it, but in a regular scenario they are unimportant by design. Sometimes you just want to get to the core of where your ideas matter. You can also use AI to upscale your own drawings to allow yourself to add more detail and work on a larger scale. I personally find it horrible and demotivating to manually upscale something I’ve drawn already. You’ll be tracing lines for hours if you want to do it well.

For the more detailed things that no AI is sophisticated enough to be guided towards, that’s something I would also draw myself and leave the AI out of, exactly because I want that level of finer control there. To me it’s about using AI for it’s strengths and not as a catch all, just like you don’t use a sledge hammer to kill a fly.

I do disagree with the framing that ControlNet ‘claws back’ control over the process. I see it more as it enhancing the control you already have. Because you are specifically priming the AI with very fine parameters. The amount of information you can encode in a string of text is just miniscule compared to being able to provide a texture that could realistically be 2K in resolution where you have 2048*2048*4(For every RGBA value) = 16777216 individual pixels that you could fine tune. Same thing with image to image, even doing a couple of iterations with that creates possibilities beyond human understanding of scale, same as other art. Now not every one of those permutations will be valuable, but the same can be said about drawn art. And driving it to the valuable creations is what an artist does.

A big part of my process is reflecting on the value the AI added, and whether or not I can still call something my own by the end of it. I even compare images I’ve completely made myself to the ones that I produced with the AI to ensure that. Especially when I started out I binned some ideas because I didn’t feel they were expressive enough. To me it is a requirement to be happy with what I created. And I think that’s something a lot of people understand in their own way. So I guess we must agree to disagree on that, based on our different experiences.

With ControlNet, you can control that very finely though. It partially combines computer graphics into the mix which is definitely not easy to get into.

But it’s different from drawing, that is for sure. Different decisions with different outcomes and different possibilities. But you see similar differences with every form of art. You don’t make 200 strokes for a photograph, or for a cut out collage, or algorithmic art, or sculpting. But you do make different decisions that are similar in nature. They shape the end product, and in a way no other person would do exactly the same. You still have to be involved in every step of the process, even if some steps are no longer done by yourself, they are replaced by other decisions.

Again, this is assuming they aren’t just clicking generate and calling it good to go, but if someone is using ControlNet they should be well above that, since the quality of blank generations is often not the best and demands refinement to anyone with an creative outlook.

This is why we shouldn’t confuse AI art, AI assisted art, and other forms of visual art, even if they all end up making an image as the end result. Something can be impressive when drawn, but mediocre if made with AI. Just like painting a scene isn’t the same as taking a photograph of that same scene, even if they end up being visually similar. Everything exists in context.

And yes, you are giving up some creative control for sake of convenience. But the question is how much. A painter that hand crafts their brushes will make a different painting had they used a pre-made brush. But we can agree I think that the creative control they lost by doing so is negligible. Artists generally lean on what they have produced before as references too. 3D sculptors can start with a cube too, but if they’re going to be making a person they will start with a mesh of a human figure, male or female depending on what they want. There is no shame in taking shortcuts in steps where it’s possible, even if it’s commendable if you don’t.

Art takes long and is expensive to produce, it would be unsustainable in this modern day to do everything from scratch every time. And as long as you focus on the parts where your decisions make the artistic intent happen, you can still make something unique and valuable in it’s own right.

Yes, I want it to go that way too. But that does take time. Which is why I think it’s a shame some people are really hostile to it indiscriminately. I get that the big corporations are absolutely wielding the worst aspects of it, and I hate that too. But once you go to grassroots and small corporations, suddenly there is a whole different view of it. AI is a product of humanity’s collective efforts, and as such all of humanity should be it’s benefactor, not a small group of people that just happened to have the most money and influence at the time. Especially if they had nothing to do with actually creating the technology behind it. And by making the story about them rather than the people using it as it should, it will inevitably lead to people falling behind to corporations, and widening the gap even further. Making artists even less valued than they already are. Which is something I’ve always fought against even before AI.

I’m sure it won’t bring the same results for everyone, and that’s fine. I’m glad it’s that way and not just so easy it would consume all other ways of making things, as it would cease to be a tool at that point and just become the entire process. I really just try to make what I am already imagining since before I even put anything to paper, and so I know what I want the AI to help me with ahead of time. I get surprisingly close to the idea in my mind because of that. Much closer than I reasonably could get in other ways with the finite time I have.

The majority of people using AI will not insist you use it, aside from just trying to get others a realistic look on what the technology actually is. Just like a photographer won’t preach to a painter that they should pick up a camera. But that does not mean there isn’t benefit to derive from understanding how the other produces art. And if the painter thinks the camera is doing all the work and the photographer is a fraud, it’s probably good for them to get some exposure and realize it’s not just pressing a button. Like I explain here how that metaphor works for AI.

Most people I know that use AI are *shocker*, artists from before AI was a thing. They know how to draw with pencils, brushes, sponges, but also painting programs like Photoshop, sculpting programs, modeling programs, surface painting programs, shader production, algorithmic art. They are through and through artists. Them adding AI to their toolbox does not change that.

You are looking at the lowest form of AI art and then declaring that to be all there is. There is more than just pressing generate to a prompt. If you’re actually interested, I wrote a lengthy post about it: https://lemmy.world/comment/12743504

Hi, person here who’s drawn extensively with pencil as a kid but then slowed down. AI has reignited my passion for art, because unlike pencil or even digital drawing, you can iterate much more quickly, which allows me to do so while working a demanding job and having a life besides it. You are severely underestimating the amount of micro-decisions that go into AI art, and more importantly AI assisted art. If you’ll allow me, let me explain.

Lets break it down into levels of effort and creative input, I like to refer back to photography since it has some comparison:

1. Empty canvas prompting.

2. Image to image

3. Collaboration.

4. AI truly as a tool.

Sadly, most people that talk confidently about how much they hate AI just know point #1 and maybe point #2. But I see point #3 and #4. And when I talk to artists that haven’t yet picked up on AI, but if they are aware (or made aware) of #3 and #4, suddenly their perspective also changes in regards to AI. But the hostility and the blind anger makes it quite hard to get through to people that not all art with AI is made equally. We should encourage people that want to use AI to reach the point of #3 and #4 so that their creative input is significant to the point it’s actually something produced by their human creativity. And this is also where an existing artist switching to using AI will most likely start off from.

Also, in terms of time. #1 might take seconds, #2 might take minutes to hours, but #3 and #4 can take days or weeks. Still not as long as drawing those same pieces by hand, but sometimes I wish it was as easy as people would make it out to be.

For real, it’s what I hate about all of this because infighting pretty much always leads to people being shafted. Even if there are plenty of things to come to agreements about. But this kind of one sided soapboxing is just doing far more harm than good in convincing people.

Yeah… who doesn’t love moral absolutism… The honest answer to all of these questions is, it depends.

Are these tools ethical or environmentally sustainable:

AI doesn’t just exist of LLMs, which are indeed notoriously expensive to train and run. Using an image generator for example can be done on something as simple as a gaming grade GPU. And other AI technologies are already so light weight your phone can handle them. Do we assign the same negativity to gaming even though it’s just people using electricity for entertainment? Producing a game also costs a lot more than it does for an end user to play. It’s all about the balance between the two. And yes, AI technologies should rightfully be criticized for being wasteful, such as implementing it in places that it has no business in, or foregoing becoming more efficient.

The ethicality of AI is also something that is a deeply nuanced topic that has no clear consensus. Nor does every company that works with AI use it in the same way. Court cases are pending, and none have been conclusive thus far. Implying it is one sided is just incredibly dishonest.

but do they enable great things that people want?

This is probably the silliest one of them all, because AI technologies are ground breaking in medical research. They are seemingly pivotal in healing the sick people of tomorrow. And creative AIs allow people who are creative to be more creative. But they are ignored. They are shoved to the side because they don’t fit in the “AI bad” narrative. Even though we should be acknowledging them, and seeing them as the allies they are against big companies trying to hoard AI technology for themselves. It is these companies that produce problematic AI, not the small artists, creatives, researchers, or anyone using AI ethically.

but are they being made by well meaning people for good reasons?

Who, exactly? You must realize there are far more parties than Google, Meta and Microsoft that create AI right? Companies and groups you’ve most likely never heard of before, creating open source AI for everyone to benefit from, not just those hoarding it for themselves. It’s just so incredibly narrow minded to assign maliciousness to such a large group of people on the basis of what technology they work with.

Maybe you’re not being negative enough

Maybe you are not being open minded enough, or have been blinded by hate. Because this shit isn’t healthy. It’s echo chamber level behaviour. I have a lot more respect for people that don’t like AI, but base it on rational reasons. There’s plenty of genuinely bad things about AI that have to be addressed, but instead you have to find yourself in a divide between people cuddling very close with spreading borderline misinformation to get what they want, and genuine people that simply want their voice and concerns about AI to be heard.

You’d be surprised how many programmers don’t know who Torvalds is if you ask them. They might be aware of his impact or some of the things he did, but the name Linus will not ring a bell for them. So yeah, might be a whoosh, might not be, but there is enough plausible naiveness imo.

Wrong Linus, That’s Linus Sebastian.

I’d hope so, and not just a lucky streak from an AI that makes it seem extremely coherent. I’m not trying to take the piss out of them too much, but their responses do really make less than normal sense. But there are some minor signs they’re human, hence my stated uncertainty :P Let’s hope they get back to it soon if they are indeed human yes.

I rate your odds of being 99.5% AI, 0.4% a kid, 0.1% a misguided person, 1*10^-∞ % a scientist.

As long as you actually support getting funding to these people and actually support implementing when their solutions are proven to work. Starting with the solutions we already know currently work. If you’re not a scientist, it might feel the same as just praying for something good to happen. Just understand the people in white aren’t going to come out and say “we solved it all”. Have realistic expectations.

There will be new technologies yes, but none of them will perform miracles like you seem to think they will.

Many problems can statistically be resolved, that’s not the problem. The problem is that it needs to be solved realistically. We can’t magically grab a giant ice cube out of nowhere like in Futurama, even if that would statistically solve climate change.

1. Solar fusion isn’t a thing that exists as a technology (If anything, you’re referring to the nuclear fusion in the core of a sun).
2. Nuclear fusion is a technology that does exists, but it’s only just barely able to break even in highly experimental test setups. It does not reverse entropy.
3. You just simply can’t reverse entropy, not matter what technology you use. It would violate the second law of thermodynamics. You can decrease entropy by moving a place with less entropy to a location with more entropy, but somewhere entropy would still increase more than you decreased it in the other place. Everything lost to heat is permanently lost.

You’re not making any sense unfortunately. Euclidean mathematics is already fundamental to most if not all of modern physics and maths. It’s by no means a new concept that hasn’t been explored yet. As @Krauerking@lemy.lol put it in their response, science isn’t magic. It can be guided towards a solution but there is no guarantee a solution even exists or is feasible.

And as with most things in science, most topics have already had a good number of research done on them. And the future does not look great for a breakthrough. Let alone one that can reverse all of climate change’s effects. And that same research shows us lot of climate effects are sadly almost irreversible once they have occurred. They can only be mitigated.

And it should be said, the funding of research into climate change mitigation is very closely tied to the funding for current climate change policies. So if one isn’t taken seriously, the other one most likely will not receive much either. It makes it very easy for politicians to pretend they are working against climate change too, by under funding climate change mitigation research and then saying “well the scientists should fix the issue and they aren’t!”

And even with that base set, even if a computer could theoretically try all trillion possibilities quickly, it’ll make a ton of noise, get throttled, and likely lock the account out long before it has a chance to try even the tiniest fraction of them

One small correction - this just isn’t how the vast majority of password cracking happens. You’ll most likely get throttled before you try 5 password and banned before you get to try 50. And it’s extremely traceable what you’re trying to do. Most cracking happens after a data breach, where the cracker has unrestricted local access to (hopefully) encrypted and salted password hashes.

People just often re-use their password or even forget to change it after a breach. That’s where these leaked passwords get their value if you can decrypt them. So really, this is a non-factor. But the rest stands.