That’s why it sucks

Yes it is

@@starman4840 Um no that would be slavery.. not what art is lmao.

Pony Diffusion with negative embeddings is great at making anatomically correct hands on its outputs.

Of course it is allowed to get inspiration and learn in a museum. This makes your first paragraph absurd. Of course it is art. AI helps people express themselves. Saying it's not art is like saying someone with a prosthetic leg doesn't really walk

@@florianschneider3982 no it is not, walking with a prosthetic leg over a real leg doesn't affect anyone else's careers or their ability to walk. And you don't need an AI to make art, heck you don't need to make art with digital programs either. that's not the point. The usage of AI to make art downplays the creative process and struggles that go into making hand-made art of any quality. Ai doesn't take inspiration, it doesn't make prototypes to strengthen, and it doesn't generate ideas. It copys patterns from artwork placed in it's database(artwork put in without permission of the creator) to create something lifeless. If AI "art" makes your an artist, does a microwave make you a chef? does a plunger make you a plumber?

@@FroggBoy1 You don't need AI to make art, but someone without arms does. You are seriously saying that a tool is immoral. AI doesn't copy, that's proven. Just like the human brain, it uses experiences to produce new information. If you had never seen a human, you wouldn't be able to paint one Since chefs use microwaves often enough, the last paragraph is ridiculous

@@florianschneider3982 First of all, there is several videos on youtube of people without arms painting artwork without the need for AI. Second, those "experiences to produce new information" is artworks added to the algorithm WITHOUT PERMISSION of the original artists. The big difference being that AI is not "Inspired" as it does just copy patterns. And third, you missed the analogy. A Chef is a chef because they have experience and a profession in cooking, not because they own a microwave. The only reason the ethics of this "Tool" is brought up into question at all is because people decided to abuse it by claiming they "painted" it with no contrast from artwork painted by actual artists. If it was a tool, there would be no controversy around this at all. So yes, it is immoral to use a "tool" that threatens people's ability to express themselves through art if their individual skill is disregarded because of AI. I am NOT discussing this further, i've lost the patience to do so

​@@florianschneider3982 "You don't need AI to make art, but someone without arms does." See I disagree with this line because my bf has one arm, he struggles with his drawings (of course) but he's happy with what HE made. Not a computer. It's always so cute when he gives me his love notes with a drawing on the side. He literally only used AI for a meme once and that's it. He gets so happy when he realizes his drawings are slowly getting better each time. We even have paint dates together. Wasn't there a video of someone without arms who used their feet to make art? I've seen a makeup artist with no arms make multiple videos of her putting makeup on herself (which ngl, I can't even do it as good as her). An armless mother takes care of her kid and she does really well! Just because they're disabled, doesn't mean they can't do anything by themselves. You have two hands, these people can do it with one or none.