Brilliant Poles and Polesses - presentation

Are you one of them? One of creators??? No, as far as I know. So what is your problem?? You aren`t a creator but a recipient of other creators` work. Currently, you have to pay them a lot in royalties. When AI creates sth artistically valuable, you won`t have to pay so much as now. Simple. :):):)


:):):) The same with industrial revolution. Earlier, artisans and craftsmen manufactured goods like pieces of art and only rich people could afford them. Machines changed that slow tedious process into assembly line efficiency. Suddenly, it turned out that a commoner could buy himself or herself a car like FORD T in the US 100 years ago. :):):)


It is irrevocable. Are you going to destroy AI like factory workers used to destroy their machines??? :):):) And how is it going to change anything? :):):)

Whining and moaning about AI is as fruitless activity as protesting against cars which started replacing horse cabs in late 19th century. :):):)

Paulina, imagine an AI celebrity singer concert the ticket for which will cost you 50 PLN instead of 500 PLN.
How many people would like to attend a concert today but can`t afford it??????

Cheapness for the provider, increased profit margin.

CDs had a massive margin compared to vinyl.

Downloading music and those appalling talent shows have only made things worse however the companies that push them make a higher margin.

There's nothing good about it.


Very


And the next thing is a hologram of the AI in your home.

Yuk

I guess you missed my comments on this forum in which I wrote that I've graduated from an art school and that I make art?

You think that wouldn't make me understand and care about art, artists and creative people in general? o_O


And they deserve to be paid. Like everyone - for their work, time and effort.


Wow, you're one cheap, selfish a$$hole.


Firstly, my guess is that many artisans and craftsmen probably enjoyed that process. Secondly, the stuff that factories produce often have to be simplified for the mass production, like furniture, for example. So there's still room for craftsmen, like people making furniture, to make something more complicated, "na wymiar" and original. And even in case of those simplified furniture - someone has to design them. So there's some room left for human creativity.

AI replaces that human creativity completely. AI bros and big corpos has sniffed money, so I'm guessing that AI will be getting only better and better and at some point human creativity won't be needed at all. That's not the future of the humankind that I'd like to see.

Stop whining about sth which is inevitable. You can`t turn the tide back. Don Quixotes never win with windmills. :):):)


Exactly!! Thank you for reminding us about it at Easter time. hahahaha buhahaha


If you are talented enough, you will be still valued as an artist. If you are a poor cheap imitator of sb else`s ideas, AI will make you change your job and do sth more useful for the society at last. Isn`t it fair and simple??? hahahaha

Like child p0rn. I wonder how we are going to prosecute AI child p0rn that since no child would be "harmed".

I'd guess it'll be prosecuted in the same way. There are already 'virtual' images of child abuse and these are certainly illegal.

Some countries' precise laws may need a little tweaking however that is normal.


Remember, AI is only a step towards something that will follow it.

Yes, I am! Because if I save on a ticket for the concert of AI celebrity singer, instead of paying 500 PLN I pay 50, it means I will have more money to myself smoked eel and salmon fish eggs which are my comfort food which helps me deal with my winter depressive moods. !!!! hahahaha

Another guy/guyess who hates smoked eel or caviar will invest this saved resources into educating their kids. Or buying their own apartment or building a house!!!

It is really strange that some people don`t understand certain basic connections in life.

Only in the world of sickos, a computer-generated child p0rn is a felony but actually killing a child a day before birth is not.

Yes, I know - certain wise guy once said there are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy. He did it about 500 years ago. And?? Did mankind collapse because of those undreamt of things???? :):):)

What "concert"? lol On the internet?? ;D


Concerts are usually attended by fans of singers or music bands. Do you think their fans would like their favourite music idols to be put out of work?

There's another issue - that of copyrights - so the ethical and legal aspect. The way AI art generators, for example, came into being and how they work nowadays is unethical and against the law. The AI companies that created them claim that AI was just "trained" on human art available on the internet and that it "learns" to make art like humans do. From what I've managed to gather and from what critics are saying - that's a lie. AI art generators are simply advanced "collage making machines". They didn't "learn" to make art (since it isn't a real AI anyway) - they are using existing artworks of artists published on the internet in order to make new ones. It gives an illusion of creating something new and original only because AI is scrapping billions of artworks and photos (including child pornography, btw), many of which are copyrighted and hence stealing from millions of artists. That's why it needs such "calculating power" and it has to be connected to the internet. Artists didn't agree for their art to be used in this way.


You're welcome.


No, AI is already capable of creating art on the level of the best human artists. So even the best in some fields are already being replaced. I'm afraid that as it progresses the best artists in any field won't be valued anymore and will be replaced.

And, btw, AI is capable of making such good looking art only because of scrapping copyrighted art. The creators of AI art generators admitted themselves that AI wouldn't be so good if it didn't scrap copyrighted art and photos and used only open source stuff instead.

Now you are playing Poloniusz producing such a long post. Can you make it shorter or summarise in a few sentences what you wrote? I don`t have time to read all of it. :):):)

@pawian, then read it in parts when you have time before making ignorant comments.

A very short summary - AI art generators are violating copyrights of millions of artists and photographers by scrapping copyrighted art and photos from the internet without the permission of the said artists and photographers.

That's why there are law suits in the US against those AI companies - law suits put forward by visual artists and photo stock sites.

One of the artists taking part in a group law suit of artists is a popular and successful Polish graphic designer and painter Grzegorz Rutkowski - his art style was prompted in AI art generators more often than that of Picasso, Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci:

technologyreview.com/2022/09/16/1059598/this-artist-is-dominating-ai-generated-art-and-hes-not-happy-about-it/

wyborcza.biz/biznes/7,177150,28933287,smierc-autora-jak-technologia-zabija-sztuke.html

No, even if I have time I won`t read it. I acquired this tradition by dealing with Poloniusz and other guys like that. You have just joined the team. :):):)


That`s much better. Try to use this shortened style next time when replying to me. No need to compose tedious essays. :):):)


Funny. You claim that certain Rutkowski created his own style which is more popular than Picasso`s and others. So why have I never heard of Rutkowski before?? Has he been already proclaimed the most influential artist of all times???? :):):)

The truth is that his art is equally repetitive as hundreds of other creators before him. Check this comment on Rutkowski with which I agree:

Whilst I sympathise with artists who may be upset about their styles being co-opted for, say, untasteful works ... I ultimately don't believe you need consent to copy another artist's style. I think it goes without saying that new artists are influenced by artists of the past - no artist creates in a vacuum. Was it wrong for artists to mimic Picasso's cubism? Or Rembrandt's romanticism? What about the artists that inspired Picasso and Rembrandt themselves, did they give consent (was it required)? It's not plagiarism since no direct work of theirs is taken - it's just influence.

He mostly deals with fantasy topics like heroes and dragons. Wow! A completely new style and approach in art!!!
artstation.com/rutkowski

• 
  gregrutkowskishiva.jpg
  

Then you will miss out on other important points that I made. And my post isn't THAT long. I think you don't want to read it for other reasons.


I didn't. Btw, do you also don't read articles, because they're "too long"? lol My post is actually a convenient to read summary of all kinds of issues raised in many articles.


That's not what I wrote. I wrote that his art style is the most popular among users of AI art generators. And those who are interested in graphic design are likely to have heard of him (like I have).


It doesn't matter how "repetitive" you find it. Even if a student of Leonardo da Vinci would paint a painting similar in style to his master, it doesn't mean that you could go to his house and steal it from him. And that's how AI art generators work - they don't "learn" to make art, they literally steal existing copyrighted works.

And I agree to a significant degree with Rutkowski - copying someone's art style is lame, but not illegal. However, using existing artwork or photographs without authors' consent is not only unethical, but simply ILLEGAL.

I won`t regret it for sure. :):):)


I read long articles written by authors who don`t abuse readers. :):):)


Another comment:
He became famous only because people are new to SD and just copy the same prompt and tweak it, he will slowly fade into history as people get more creative.

This issue is more important than my abuse of you. I called you an a$$hole before and you read my posts anyway. So, I think it's just a lame excuse made by you - similar to those made by Novichok when he's losing an argument.


AI users won't get more "creative" ;D They will simply prompt art styles of other artists. They already do.

AI art generators aren't capable of inventing new art styles. There's one typical, generic "AI style" that those AI generators usually produce, but because it always looks the same people instantly recognise it and get bored by it. That's why they prompt art styles of existing arists. They can't create anything new on their own.

Short ones. I stopped reading your longer posts long ago. I am no longer interested. :):):)


Today. Tomorrow they will. Don`t underestimate AI! hahahaha

AI is going to improve this world in multiple ways. Artists shouldn`t complain coz thanks to legal action brawl, they are making a name for themselves. HA!!!

It is practically impossible to invent new art styles in the 21st century coz everything which could be invented has already been. Now it is only mimicking and imitation of the previously created art. So, whining about AI not being able to create sth new is completely useless.

Then don't lie that you didn't read my post, because I called you an a$$hole.


If AI would be capable of actually inventing a new art style that would mean this is real AI and not an advanced, thieving "collage making machine". That would be at least interesting and first and foremost - legal. But that's not what current AI art generators are.


You don't know that.


No, they aren't. It seems that few people care about this, the ethical and legal issues and, as it looks like - about visual artists themselves. Human greed is clearly more important than ethics and empathy.

But we won't go without fight.

Exactly!!! Sue them all AI generator human owners! I fully support you in that. Suck them dry! :):):)

However, when you try to sue AI, remember to hire AI lawyers for that. They are true experts in the matter. hahahaha buhahaha

After this inspiring debate about AI, let`s get back on topic. :):):)

I read an article which mentioned the beginnings of Polish chess master Jan Krzysztof Duda. The text featured the photo of him as a kid. Judging by his posture and facial expression, did he already realise he was going to become a chess genius??? :):):)

An interview with his coach who played for the Polish chess team:

przegladsportowy.onet.pl/szachy/polak-przezyl-szok-poczulem-uderzenie-odwracam-sie-a-to-fidel-castro/wsf9fnw

• 
  jerzykostroimlody.jpg
  

Of course it is possible lol I've seen plenty of new, individual, original art styles in my life. You don't seem to know or understand much about art.


Sorry, but no lol


Of course not :)

Besides, I pointed out that AI isn't capable of creating a new art style, because you quoted a comment about people getting more "creative". And because one of the AI creators' lies is that AI art generators "will boost artists' creativity" LOL 🤦

Wow! You are so perceptive! :):):)


Only lousy artists are afraid to admit obvious truth. :)):)

That is why even an averagely sane, intelligent person should accept the fact that modern artists, either human or artificial, copy from other artists of today and the past. Soon we will live in the times when AI engines create new art on the basis of previous AI works.

You can`t stop it, it is unavoidable. Fighting it as useless as trying to teach a penguin to fly. :):):)

I guess I am, but first and foremost I think I'm simply more interested in art and I've seen more of it than you.


I'm just sharing my observations. What you stated is simply not true. I mean - I've seen new, original, individual art styles of artists with my own eyes lol 🤦


First of all, it's apparently debatable that he said that. Popular quotes are often attributed mistakenly to famous people.
Secondly, getting inspired is something different than stealing. And that's what the current AI art generators are doing - they're stealing.

Impossible! You don`t display Black Madonna picture in your living room like we do!!!! I see it dozens of times every day! Ha!!!


Impossible. You were daydreaming like johhny who dreams of growing veg in his garden. hahahaha


They are imitating the style. It isn`t stealing.

Show us two pics for comparison - artist`s original creation and its AI stolen one.

Well... :) I'm not an expert on this, but according to research it's apparently possible that at some point AI will start "eating its own tail":

popularmechanics.com/technology/a44675279/ai-content-model-collapse/

"Another recent study, similarly posted to the pre-print arXiv server, studied AI image generators trained on other AI art. By the AI's third attempt to create a bird or flower with only a steady diet of AI data, the results came back blurry and unrecognizable."

So, it looks like AI needs to continuously steal human art in order to work properly.


Cloning humans was banned by law in many countries because it was raising ethical issues. So this kind of "progress" could be stopped. The AI companies could also be banned by law from scrapping copyrighted artworks and forced to use only open source art and photos and art and photos that author's would contribute out of their own will (for money, for example - at least they would be compensated).


No... I don't know how to explain this to you... Do you know what collage is? You know, when you take pieces of different photos or different artworks and put them together? That is, to simply put, how art generators work. They don't "imitate", they use actual art and photos. AI generators don't even know what is imitating. They don't know or understand anything, because this not real AI. They don't even know that humans have five fingers and not six or four lol Even kids know how many fingers people have :)


I've seen such an example. I'll post it when I find it, but I'll have to do some digging.

Btw, there have been reports about AI artworks containing signatures of existing artists and watermarks of photo stock sites.