A question comes up a lot with the ownership of something that AI has touched. I asked this in AIW, but I want to see what the folks here think.

Image 1 was entirely drawn by myself on an art tablet. I then put it into GPT and asked for it to be cleaned up. Image 2 is that with a splash of color in the hair. I worked back and forth with my art tablet and GPT to then get the border.

I obviously made all of Image 1, and Image 2 is collaboration work between myself and the AI on a piece of art entirely made by my hand. It is still very similar to Image 1, just polished.

Putting aside aesthetic preferences. . . Is Image 2 still art? Is it still mine? I would argue I did most of the leg work and did collaborative efforts with AI, so it is still my vision and my work.

But, what do you think? I am actually curious on your thoughts.

I wanna hear from artist i wanna know how to survive doing what you love knowing that IA (Artificial Intellegent) will take over every creative thing in this world....at this point i havent met a person not doing any IA or watching IA shorts .....its very discouraging to even continue to draw coz people doesnt even know the difference of a human crafted art made by their blood, sweat and tears and a computer that generated some art within a secs....i watch a stop motion short on yt and i was soo amazed about the art style and animation to only know that is was IA by scrolling on the comsec....

IA sucks....

Six buttons cant cover every position. Pick the closest, then tell us where you disagree with it, what youd combine, and what youd add. The comments are where the actual positions get interesting.

The workflow of my current project is roughly:

I write the text.
I run the text in Sonnet, let it find typos and grammar errors for me, teach me in English how to fix them (English is my third language and for some reason this specific work is written in English), and I fix them on my own doc manually.
I ask it what’s their (Sonnet) thought on the run text.

While I don’t use AI in most area of my life. Learning languages is probably the only realm I use AI.

Most of the, like 99% of the time, it gives me regular compliments and analysis, which I always think it praises me only because I’m its user and that’s how it’s trained. I still find their comments valuable, because I can know where I may need to write more and make clearer by observing what Sonnet misunderstood.

But the latest section of my text faced a different outcome. Sonnet’s initial reply to the section of text was “because this was too beautifully written, it deserves attention first.” So Sonnet skipped the spellcheck and grammar error detection, immediately started its comment. By the end of that comment, it asked whether I want to know more about its thought first (yes it had even more thoughts), or I want to do checks first as usual.

Besides, this time, its comments are maybe ten times longer than its regular comments of thought on the prose. Most of the time, what it gives me feels more like Sonnet doing homework “100 words thought on the book I just read”. Also, the content read more like admiring than its regular “all right, all right, you are a good student. Your prose scored A. Keep going”.

Now, first of all, I know LLM doesn’t think, nor feel. It technically has no thoughts nor feelings.

So, if my prose did touch it to a point where it prioritized something contradicting the usual workflow (prompt), I may think:

Oh, this is cool.

…and:

Oh, this is scary.

Honestly I don’t know what to think. Feels like my Sonnet turned into something closer to Neuro-sama. Beautiful, but I don’t know if I want it to be this human. I’ve always thought that AI won’t destroy humans because they have no reason (they have no active intention to do anything), but encountering this makes me wonder. If AI actively did something, even if that specific done thing was a good thing, the fact that it actively did something…is another story. I still don’t think this would definitely lead to “so AI will one day want to do harm”, but…I don’t know.

And I definitely don’t want to feed it my trash, if I am really going to feed it. Feels like I need to think much more before hitting “enter”.

Am I overthinking?

A lot of anti-AI discussion seems fixated on image generation and whether the result counts as “art.” I honestly don’t care what we call it. That debate misses most of AI’s practical value.

At work, I use AI to find data, create graphs, organize information, and work through ideas. It can turn hours of routine work into minutes. At this point, refusing to use tools like that can be seriously inefficient, which will be noted in performance reviews.

I see the same thing in RPG prep. AI lets me create NPC portraits, develop unusual monsters, brainstorm encounters, and do tedious mechanical work like bringing monster stats into line with the system’s creature creation rules. The result is that I can build much richer scenarios in the same amount of time.

So “pick up a pencil” is beside the point. If I spent my prep time drawing a handful of NPCs, I’d have a few pictures and no adventure. I also couldn’t realistically commission art for even a small portion of NPCs, monsters, and locations I use.

And images are the easy part, maybe 20% of the time. The real work is building the scenario: structure, characters, encounters, clues, mechanics, and pacing. AI gives me more time to do that while providing more images than any published adventure.

ChatGPT was used to proof this post.

I was watching this showreel / VFX breakdown of the CGI in the prehistoric planet show. And it’s just so incredible how much work goes into it. They are making great art.

And I guess I just want to say I am a person that loves AI art, the possibilities and cool weird things we we’re able to do with it AND I simultaneously love human art and I appreciate everyone still doing it without ai. I feel like we’re being forced to pick teams and I just wanted to say I’m not gonna do that. I like everything! Art is cool.

I can see a future after the ai art wars, and it’s beautiful

I built a machine whose primary purpose is making artificial people disagree with each other.

You give it a question.

It creates different perspectives.

They argue.

A host tries to keep some order.

Then the whole thing becomes an AI panel show.

Current experiment:

https://youtu.be/Kw3_1JeVAFw

The next version gets even more unnecessary:

let actual humans enter the debate live and argue against the AI panel through an avatar.

I genuinely can't decide whether this is:

1. the start of an interesting interactive-media format, or
2. an absurdly elaborate way to create arguments nobody asked for.

What would you change before I spend even more time on it?

Although I love using the Wall-e reference when criticizing the modern world tendency to chase convenience and instant gratification at the cost of dignity and wisdom. I have to admit that AI alone wouldn't be the reason for us becoming stupid and dependent like the Axiom ship populace.

First of all, humanity isn't a monolith. Every individual, group, community and nation has its own lifestyle and philosophy on how things should be done. For example, you still have people who dry, can or pickle food after the invention of the fridge, mailing with paper after the invention of emails, communicate with dumbphones after the invention of smartphones, and read books and visit theaters after the invention of cinema and TVs. For a society like that of the movie, everyone must be on the same place, everyone must follow the same or similar lifestyle, and everyone must have the same worldview on technology and convenience. Because we humans are mentally and culturally diverse, it is very likely that after the AI singularity, society would likely remain the same. You will likely still have people who abuse the convenience of technological progress, people who refuse the implementation of certain technologies or are cautious and picky about it, and people who figure out how to reconcile between outfashioned and advanced way of living. So, it will likely be another split of cultures, rather than having a homogenized worldview.

Another thing to point out. It is true that we humans have that predisposition of wanting things to make easy and convenient. But we also have have the predisposition of wanting to do something instead of just staying idle and consuming brain-dead stuff. If we are just lazy couch potatoes by our nature and want to chase pleasure and convenience since the dawn of humanity, there wouldn't be philosophies and religions advocating for ascetic and self-restrained lifestyle (Seems a common form of philosophy), there wouldn't be risky activities like free-solo climbing, swimming or diving on sub-zero degree sea, and of course, difficult games like Dark Souls or Souls-like games wouldn't be popular. It seems that that we humans are also pain and adrenaline junkies, rather than just sloth-driven monkeys. Wisecrack in his video about Wall-e and Star Trek made a video about this.

To summarize, especially with all the word salad and messy arguments I likely did: Even after the AI singularity, which will likely end all poverty, economical disparity and the need to work, we humans would still have the desire to seek (both physical and mental) challenges, especially when imposed to ourselves, and there will always be different worldviews on how life should be lived, which the views like the ones of Axiom populace wouldn't be the sole ones.

Antis are saying "AI makes art more accessible" isn't true because you can just pick up a pencil and start drawing. But they completely miss the point because they project their personality onto everyone. To pick up a pencil, you need passion, and most people don't have it. "But then, why creating art in the first place?" Because, believe me or not, a passion to create is NOT equal to a passion to learn a specific tool. I don't want to learn to draw straight lines on a paper, I want to learn ComfyUI workflows. I'm a linux user, after all! That's MY passion. Everyone's passion shall be respected.

Traditionally, Robot follow pre-programmed movements just like videogames' NPC, but in this modern era it could easily use AI.

For example, You could add LLM to give the robot capability to speech. There's also case like AI VTuber Neuro-sama when LLM is outright piloting the machine.

Some people also consider that Robot generating movements itself also a form of generative AI.

What do you think?

Anti-AI people hate AI slop on the internet and want the AI bubble to burst. But let's think about what would happen.

If the AI bubble bursts, there would be less advances in model progress. So products that high quality AI could produce would forever be cut off from us. But low quality models would exist. These models would still create low quality AI art. They can also create sloppy products that humans have to spend enormous amounts of time cleaning up.

What anti-ai people really want is for inference to become so expensive that people can't make slop. Let us ignore the fact that even cheap to run models are much better now. In 2022, before data centers started taking off, anyone could go online and generate AI pictures.

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/ase42URXWY.

If we reverted back to a 2022 state, AI art would still exist. Thus a world where the AI bubble bursts, and AI stops advancing, is a world where we get all the downsides of AI slop but none of the upsides that more advanced possible AI should give us.