Art exists to bypass the human ego and unlock layers of reality that are hidden from us. It's a mirror meant to make us feel and understand something real. Capitalism broke this relationship by hyper-individualizing expression, slapping a brand name on it, and locking it behind intellectual property laws.We were taught to see songs and images as private assets rather than a shared human language. But no creator works in a vacuum. Every chord, motif, and line is stolen from the pool of culture that came before them. Capitalism just put a paywall on a conversation that has been running for thousands of years already.AI strips away the corporate lock. By absorbing the entirety of human expression into a shared engine, it turns static property back into common ground. Culture becomes raw material again, free to be remixed and reproduced by anyone.The moral outrage against AI is coming from an elite class of cultural gatekeepers who got comfortable extracting rent from humanity's collective heritage. They are furious that society finally built tools to easily reproduce what they tried to hoard.If you call yourself an artist, AI is a wake-up call to stop acting like a landlord over old forms, adapt, and make something genuinely new that AI cannot yet reproduce.
>>132031625AI is a threat to art craftsmanship, but not to art. Those are two different things. In fact, AI can benefit art by giving artists new tools to express themselves.Even in the past, many great painters didn't create their paintings entirely on their own, from start to finish. As they became more established, they often had trained assistants working for them. The master would, for example, create the initial sketches, explain exactly how the painting should look, and supervise the process, while assistants would often handle much of the detailed, time-consuming work.
>>132031625Sam Altman will be the first tech CEO to livestream his suicide.
>>132031625AI is only great for art if you want all art to be fundamentally indistinguishable for some reason
>>132031625Completely correct. AI is a breath of fresh air for the arts. Only seething trannies and Patreon users are mad.>>132031670Take this sad malding faggot for instance. Completely wrong and niggardly
>>132031625YuE2 on a local ComfyUI build to cover songs is the best
as some literal who fuck that makes music online, you’re damn right I’m using AI art. I don’t know any artists and I’m not paying $50 to some other literal who stranger to make something I don’t even end up liking when I can get the same or a very similar result from messing around ChatGPT over the course of 10 minutes
>>132031670It’ll probably come down to a combination of original ideas and AI technology being used to bring them to life.I mean, a guitar always sounds more or less the same, and the ways you can modulate its sound are actually pretty limited. Yet thousands of artists still manage to create something unique with it.
>>132031699I don't think you know what the word niggardly means
>>132031713Amen. The "yOu sHouLD hIrE aN aRtIsT" crowd can suck niggerdick. The one time I ever went for a commission she tried to charge me more because I'm white and wouldn't surrender the final resolution image, only a 1400x1400. Now I steal art from her page for AI prompts. Not because they're good, but because I know she hates it
>>132031719I don't think you know your dad
>>132031670Just tell me you didnt read my AI generated text.If that was the case then it wouldnt be the fault of AI, but the fault of people using AI, wouldn't it? REAL artists can still create new things, and AI can even be used for that because AI doesn't just have to be prompt -> output, it can also be used for some detailing or idea-finding, for just small aspects of a bigger piece of art, like how a digital software synth is easier accessible than an entire analog synth collection.A non-AI ""artist"" who is doing the same art style without AI, that has been done the same way for 100 years, is also not doing anything fundamentally indistinguishable. And it's always the artists compaining about AI who are already basically AI in human form: doing something completely indistinguishable from any other artist. Doing retarded ass coming art or whatever, drawing anime girls.So AI is in fact revolutionizing the role of artists, by turning the role of the artist back to its essence: doing something that CANT be reproduced by anybody else, by a computer, by AI so easily and actually creating something that offers a NEW insight into reality.
>>132031743Not reading this, you sound uppity
>>132031743>>132031745Actually I take that back, I read it and you are right.
>>132031625>>132031652AI-generated content is slop, but with the right user at the helm, it can produce something compelling. For instance, Guccimarx's content is hilarious:https://youtu.be/r90QPPRO_jghttps://youtu.be/8QcNyogPfWUhttps://youtu.be/fknYbn_WJmwhttps://youtu.be/eSAfr-U36REhttps://youtu.be/EeTDf6AnakgThis whole thread feels like déjà vu. Are you the same OP who made a thread about Breaking Rust? If so, I'll just repeat myself.When you flood the zone with AI slop, you're actively killing the very resource needed for it to generate content. Human-made music requires investments of time, labor, capital and mental energy to produce. Imagine what would happen if all we listened to was slop built on stuff made in the least 50 years or so. It would stagnate rapidly because there's only so much stuff you can train it on until you reach the point of exhaustion. Because streaming platforms distribute royalties from a shared pool based on market share, this massive volume of automated filler directly siphons baseline revenue away from independent human creators. When you dismantle the financial incentives for human musicianship, you dry up the very ecosystem that generative models rely on for training data, ultimately resulting in a stagnant, derivative culture.
>>132031652>AI is a threat to art craftsmanshipTrue, that is a perspective that I would actually respect if the outrage was directed against the loss of craftsmanship. I'd still disagree mostly that it is a bad thing, but the discussion would at least make sense. As you have already also shown the entire human history has in some way been the loss of craftsmanship. Why aren't the Laptop, DAWs, software synths, plugins and downloadable soundkits attacked in the same way that AI is for that? I was able to create proper music without any knowledge of instruments or music theory 10 years ago just through a free version of FL Studio in my childhood bedroom. That wasn't very crafty of me either. But people aren't attacking that because it is that millenial generation that already uses all of these digital tools that have killed craftsmanship to a huge degree that now just wants to gatekeep their prefered method of creating art.
>>132031796>This whole thread feels like déjà vu. Are you the same OP who made a thread about Breaking Rust? If so, I'll just repeat myself.Nah, no idea what that is about. But regarding your comment..>When you flood the zone with AI slop, you're actively killing the very resource needed for it to generate content.Doesn't matter though, because we have already fed it with the entire history of human expression until this point. So if AI can now only reproduce that and thus is stagnant we haven't lost anything, we just don't gain anything anymore. But even that is wrong, because my entire argument is against AI slop. I am saying that artists now actually have to try again instead of being landlords for their easily reproducable human slop. And if real human artists now create new art again, and we later feed that into AI too, then we can still have progress on that front.
I'm a bit lazy to read it right now, but remember these scary times are heading to a very dangerous end
>yet another undisclosed advertisement for ai garbage absolutely nobody wants
Depends on your definition of art. If you think anything that's evocative is art then it is. But it as a form of self-expression it's very poor, for now.
>>132031625>t. jeet
>>132035303>being illiteratethe topic isn't "is AI art art" you moron
No
I am seeing Ai fail & fail again at the workplace. It's a joke
>>132035535When the Ai overlord comes... I showed a lot of patience to build you
>>132031625Welcome back Walter Benjamin."Intellectual IP" is inherently a bourgeois concept so all the 'leftists" putting up their little blood and soil, luddite rants really are the true reactionaries. Objectively so.
We write lyrics and outsource musical talent. This song is off the hook: https://youtu.be/1B76xJmLCYg
>>132031625On the money side Ai could kill session musicians in the studio as a profession. Dilutes the streaming pool and the amount you earn per listen and more competition when releasing artists were already raped by the internet and streaming. Probably the only way to make money as an amateur is gigging which i think is now the case anyway since the internet. It isn't like programming because you probably have to check the code so you probably need people that actually understand the code whereas in music it's alot more flexible then that. But people would probably still want session musician for authenticity since artist generally probably care about that. And I guess beat makers mixers and masterers are affected.
>>132031625Yeah cause you dont need to have any capital to use AI at any level that isn't dogshit. AI is for people who don't care about art.
>>132038360Someone gets it. People here really can't read otherwise, see people like>>132040136Who argue with a complete strawman that wasn't even the topic.
>>132031713>>132031732drink this
>>132043864See, I literally said I wrote that with Ai in like my second post. Keep proving my point that none of you can read.
>>132035433OP’s point hinges on the assumption that it is, and such an assumption can be questioned and be relevant to the thread
>>132044646How does my argument need that assumption? Explain
>>132043864lmao. typical AI psychosis behavior. they've lost the ability to even articulate a thought without asking an AI. they don't even have any original thoughts, they just ask claude to tell them what to think.
There is no such thing as AI (artificial intelligence is a misnomer, there must be a mental state for there to be intelligence, you're referring to computer generation, nothing new).Good can be subjective, art is objective, has a fixed set of parameters (not contextual), and can only be made BY mammals.Music is not art, performance is not art, this thread is off-topic.Art cannot be digital, it must have form. There must be an artifact. Your thesis on why art exists is wrong.You typically cannot see a song.Image is not synonymous with art.Creating music does not require theft.Instead of saying, "AI strips away the corporate lock" why not say personal computing strips away the corporate lock?Why do you people keep saying AI when you could and should just say computing? All you're talking about is computer generated material. >>132031652AI is a threat to the humanities and design, but not art, not even architecture (a type of art form). >>132031625AI doesn't exist, and is not a wake-up call. What are you going to, "Make?" >a digital image>an audio clip>a movieHow is this anything new? I can already generate these things with COMPUTER PROCESSING.
>>132045409First restate your point in your own words. I'm not debating an AI.
>>132046131*"AI" is a threat to the humanities and design, but not art, not even architecture (a type of art form).
>>132031625AI is literally dependent on capital. Everything you do is enabled by big business and big tech.
Might be true
