As I mentioned last time, the upsurge in anti-A.I. art sentiment doesn’t seem entirely organic to me.
People had been talking about art algorithms like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion for a while. My friend, author David V. Stewart, even did some videos on A.I. book cover design.
Sure, these algos were getting their fair share of criticism.
But the backlash seemed like it came to a head near the middle of last week.
All of a sudden, my Twitter timeline and private messages were full of people on both sides making arguments.
The last time I saw a topic this contentious was Trump’s campaign back in 2016. Before that, it was #GamerGate, and before that Sad Puppies.
In all of those past cases, you had mainstream media sources disseminating agitprop, which social media influencers picked up and spread online.
So I suspected the same was happening this time. And I reached out to a contact in the A.I. art scene who came up with the receipts.
The Concept Art Association is a San Francisco-based advocacy group. They used to focus on reacting against Hollywood’s use of CG. Now they’ve issued a fatwa against A.I. art.
Pursuant to which, they launched a gofundme campaign to fund anti-A.I. art lobbying efforts in D.C.
They posted an alleged explanation of how A.I. art works, but they had to change the wording three times since A.I. programmers kept calling out their errors.
Here’s an earlier version:
Here’s the current wording as of this writing:
Even that attempt to backtrack is inaccurate. Algos like Stable Diffusion try to mimic how the human brain works. If they’re stealing copyrighted IPs, so are any human artists who are influenced by other artists.
It’s also worth pointing out that the CAA has the exact ideological biases you’d expect from an artist advocacy outfit operating out of San Francisco. Their pearl clutching about A.I. reproducing biases and stereotypes likely refers to how A.I. keeps reflecting reality to Death Cultists’ dismay.
If you need more proof, consider the poster girl the CAA has fronting their campaign. If you followed the stable of YouTubers that covered the fan backlash against Star Wars and the MCU, the name Karla Ortiz may ring a bell.
Because as a concept artist on many of those movies, she’s had a direct hand in helping Disney desecrate your childhood.
And while I haven’t put her to the Test yet, she gives off strong Witch vibes.
To recap, a Disney-backed Pop – possibly Death – Cultist is front running a San Francisco lobbying group’s campaign to fund a federal crackdown on A.I. art.
Whether you love A.I. art, hate it, or are indifferent to it, if you’re a newpub creator, a Conservative, a Libertarian, or a Christian, the CAA propaganda campaign should raise red flags for you.
Their false talking points already proliferated on sites like Art Station and DA. Now I’m seeing people who should know better parrot them on Twitter.
Always ask, “Who benefits?”
We already know that oldpub is using these algos.
One reason A.I. art is becoming so popular is that commercial art – be it oldpub (and let’s be honest) some newpub – has been subpar for years.
These art algos give independent creators a golden chance to make an end run around the gatekeepers and beat them on quality, speed, and budget.
If you don’t think the Witches infesting C Suites in New York and LA don’t see and fear this potential, you’re not thinking long term or big picture.
Why do you think Tor and Disney are publicly denouncing A.I. art – and the latter is backing attempts to regulate it on the down-low?
Do you think oldpub and Hollywood are going to get this technology outlawed in ways that denies them such a huge competitive advantage?
Or will they fund “A.I. art for me but not for thee” laws that shackle indie creators while leaving them free to spread their anti-Gospel with help from the most advanced tech?
To ask the question is to answer it.
Don’t just take my word. Or the word of randos online. Do your own research. It doesn’t take long to learn how A.I. art algorithms work.
Plenty of artists are excited about it, since it will help speed up their workflow.
In short, don’t promote psyops by people who hate you.
More on that in my #1 best seller
Bullseye take. This goes perfectly well with David V. Stewart’s blogpost.
I think the agitprop will kick into high gear when animators, filmmakers and video game designers can use AI to cut costs and save time on their work.
Think Hollywood is panicking now? Wait about 5-10 years when the tech improves.
What a lot of people don’t know is that video game studios have been using A.I. for years. If you’ve played a AAA game since ca. 2017, you’ve consumed A.I. art assets.
This is an excellent point. I’m not the biggest superfan of AI in general, but if our enemies hate it, that’s a very strong point in its favour. And hey, given that I have precisely squat artistic talent, AI art only opens doors as far as I’m concerned.
Your opinions jibe with mine. Based on my extensive research. A.I. art is neither the panacea some claim, nor is it the asteroid impact scenario many fear. It has the potential to be as big a boon to newpub as KDP was ca. 2013. Unless The powers that be succeed in monopolizing it by legal fiat.
I got curious, so I looked up the Pastor this witch is self-testing against. The disparity between little Miss Concept Artist and the engineer turned Pastor and theologian is so profound it would be implausible as fiction.
Is normal for the witches to throw down the gauntlet to people they aren’t competent to serve coffee to?
Yes, license to usurp unwarranted moral superiority over their betters is the Death Cult’s main selling point.
“If they’re stealing copyrighted IPs, so are any human artists who are influenced by other artists.”
Shit take, still. They might TRY to mimic how the brain works, but a) they fail and b) we still don’t know how the brain works.
That ELI5 is disingenuous. The AI hasn’t learned how to generate a dog from noise. I’ve actually used these AI quite a lot, and one thing that’s clear is that it IS picking some kind of ‘base’. It can’t generate something it hasn’t seen before. No, artists aren’t stealing others work. When I learn to do art, and I am, I am learning principles from particulars. The AI can only learn particulars from particulars. Or as someone else put it: “It can’t make a brushstroke it hasn’t seen before.”
If you don’t see how your points a) and b) contradict each other, you are at a disadvantage in this discussion.
If you don’t understand that you claimed not to be stealing art while admitting to stealing art by your own standard, your standards may need adjustment.