Your reminder that the “AI boom” is extremely convenient for tech companies and corporations, and “AI art” is just an incentive for them to control and devalue human creative labor. The NFT bros and AI tech bros arguments and attempted criminalizing of artists for being “privileged” makes it obvious - they want to…

Maybe creating AI tools like this was a fucking mistake.

By that definition, there’s no “democratization” here at all. There is animation software out there that is completely free, and plenty of free tutorials on how to use it. The only thing stopping you from creating animation is refusing to put the time into it.  Everything you need is already cheap & accessible.

Thinking of AI as a highly skilled amateur is exactly what the scammers who want to replace real artists with algorithms want you to do. It is also entirely incorrect.

• “There’s the plagiarism issue, which is an issue with how the tech can be used (ie. how models are trained) - that’s the bit that regulation would address, as you note”
  
  

“Highly skilled amateurs” don’t illegally scrape hundreds of thousands of works from other people without their knowledge or consent.

I like how you just slide right on over and past literally one of the most important and biggest sticking points in this whole discussion, which is the rights of the artists on whose backs this derivative, hacky garbage is being spit out.

They did prove their point though: The point of this AI is to *not hire artists in the first place*

It’s working exactly they way they want.  And that’s the problem.

Have you taken art study classes? You don’t just look at the paintings, you talk and hear about their context and the techniques used, and things like perspective and where’s the vanishing point and WHY the painters did these things.

Overtly defining AI-generated images as “plagiarism” seems like a slippery slope that could lead to any art provably influenced by another person’s art as plagiarism.

The end goal of all of this *IS* the reduction of artistic labor...as in literally using this technology as an excuse to hire fewer people and pay them less. This has been the playbook since the first textile machine for chrissake!

Why on god’s green earth would they pay a team of 20 animators, when they can instead…

Oh my God. If you’re going to parrot leftist rhetoric, at least try and understand it.

It’s the same exact narrative that crypto bros were using to hype NFTs.  Anyone who was against NFTS were old or part of the elite and trying to keep “everyone” from making money.  The stuff for AI sounds similarly the same.

““one step toward true creative freedom,” that would democratize the animation industry.”

Man this sounds suspiciously like some of the stuff that crypto bros would often say on Kotaku.

I think this is all I need to say.

It’s not really changing animation though, it’s just a different style/technique. It’s basically a more automated, different style of rotoscoping.

At least you acknowledge that it will make artists obsolete.  Why you think it’s a good thing is beyond me.

Oh, did I say that? I meant “steal from passionate creators who built their own skills and call it your own work”, hence the “War on Artists - because they’re ‘privileged’”.

To prove a real point they should have hired their own artist to draw reference art, and not take it from an existing anime.

Told you that these corporate/tech bro shills are trying to turn creative human labor obsolete through AI. There’s a reason they’re trying to criminalize artists in general - they’re forcing an ‘easy’ and ‘ethical’ narrative that benefits only them. For instance, they call artist “privileged” because they built their…