Source (Bluesky)
Look at the alt text of the 4th panel, absolute gold.
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2025
348 points (98.6% liked)
furry_irl
1264 readers
237 users here now
"For the fur in u"
Welcome to Furry_irl, a community for furry memes, shitposts, and other relatable images or comics.
Community rules:
- Code of Conduct — Follow our instance rules.
- Post formatting — All titles should be a single word, followed by _irl. An emoji may substitute the underscore.
- Credit artists — If it's not your art, include who made it in the title or the post body. Links are appreciated, except to X/Twitter.
- Stay on topic — Images should contain or be related to furries. Images should be relatable or a meme. This isn't the place for general art posts.
- Avoid AI images — Our fandom has countless artists, please share their (or your own) labors of love instead.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The ethical sourcing of the data was your biggest argument against it, everything else is just... Classic "people of ol" arguments when technology progresses. Niche skills dying out when tech advances is a part of life and people will always always seek out and pay a premium for things that are made "with process". There are no more blacksmiths in every village, but they still exist AND charge an ass load for their skills. The same will happen with AI when things simmer down
ETA:
No actually, GenAI has been worked on for years now by researchers, we've got papers all the way back to like 2010. Companies are trying to take the technology now and wield it like that, but it certainly didn't start that way
I had this whole thing written out about how ethical sourcing is the one issue with Gen AI and that was my whole point, because Gen AI does not work without artists making content for it to train off of and how art isn't going anywhere, capitalism just doesn't think that it's a skill worth paying for.
But I realized that you're one of those people who has missed one of the key components to art that has been lost as part of the century-long campaign to devalue the arts, and there's no real conversation to be had without that component.
Art is more than just the product. Creating something is part of how humanity processes our experiences and the world around us. That's why art therapy exists. The act of creating art is as much a part of the human experience as discussions about things like philosophy. Doesn't matter what your skill level is or what you use to make art. It could be AI or a burnt stick. It's the process of creation that we like.
Nobody wants to spend their days toiling away to make some soulless corporate art for an ad. If artists were free to make art for themselves all day, every day, you'd be able to hear the cheering from all over the world. But they can't regardless, because they need to make money to put food on the table. So they leverage those passions and skills into a job.
This isn't a "photography will ruin oil painting" situation. It's a situation where the demand for artists is very much still there (and probably increasing as these programs demand an endless stream of non-AI art to learn from so they don't eat themselves and become useless), but nobody is willing to pay to meet the demand. People are demanding artisan level products at hobbyist level wages - if that - and in the meantime, outright stealing the labor to meet the demand.
TL;DR: Pay artists to create training data and stop stealing it. That is the one and only issue anybody with at least half a braincell cares about. Everything else is just AI assholes thinking their generative programs make them better than other people.