Cool Guides

Do it then. Start by describing ten thousand images, so your local ai can learn how to recreate them.

Ten thousand isn't nearly enough btw

I've worked and researched with ai and trained a model. I like classificators and CNNs, I don't like chatbots and image generators.

Sure, if you built an AI on your own machine, trained it entirely on public commons and voluntarily obtained data with the active consent, and powered it entirely on solar power and wind turbines, to do jobs without intrinsic value to human development, people would have a lot fewer objections to it. But you didn't. And you won't, because it would take resources that exceed anything you have available to do so. Much like genetic modification, there are motives and methods that potentially have real value, but they don't tend to have significant return on investment and so are simply not done, and what is done ranges from suspect to objectively exploitative. You cannot create an ethical AI in the current environment, if such a thing is even possible.

It may very well be the former; but I don't believe 'ethically trained' and 'useful' is an achievable combination in AI models, particularly within our capitalist world/society.

Even if such a thing was created; it'd be impossible to verify and distinguish among the flood of media produced by those that just don't care about the broader picture and those effected. The detrimental effects of global AI infrastructure has greatly overshadowed the potential for 'ethical' AI implementation; and now we just don't have the means to sort through 'ethical' vs not, leaving no option but to reject it outright.

You can't train your own though. You can't make your own AI that knows what a cat or Picasso is without it using works that are not yours. You'd never be able to tell it to write you a novel because it wouldn't have any to work with.

If saying it's "lazy" really hurts you that much then sorry. My point is that, and your example is actually perfect, if I stencil or photoshop 1, 2 maybe 3 into a single art at the least I have put time and effort into it. There's intent behind it and let's say hypothetically I then went around saying hey, look at my effort and what I created initially you can see the inspiration assuming proper credit is given. If I then go and try to sell it or take full credit then EVERYONE knows it's source and can scrutinize it since now money and/or reputation is involved.

Now go to AI all LLM bar none are unethical or at least dubious in nature when it comes to what I described due to its black box like behavior. Now tell me as a layman making the millionth Ghibli "art" it does two things. Normalize and dilute the original and then commodify and create extremely stringent rules on sourcing without AI. Basically like how deepfakes and the likes are, which is definitely another VERY inexcusable and utterly garbage side effect. And for high visibility stuff like Ghibli, at least you know what's up but the silent and even more painful side is the damage done on the smaller scale artists as AI "artists" flood the market without a care to make a quick buck. Collages, Photoshop and the likes exist for those less artistically gifted (I can't draw either btw) that still left a semblance of human effort but even that is now gone.

So no it doesn't matter the materialistic nature (graphite vs digital), it is the human side of it, the intent. If you tell me that that's not what I consider lazy or more kindly, opportunistic and only that then tell me what's been good so far. For every 1 break through in health or astronomy for the greater good, there are 10x or more number of societal issues that crop up due to it as we continue to feel the pain with no solution in sight.

Assuming you actually read and understand what I say and not just not pick words that might feel too blunt to you, tell me about your art part of my comment.