But they conveniently leave out that it costs money to do anything with AI. It's more like "open to anyone with a credit card." The vast majority of people don't have computers powerful enough to run generative AI models locally, and even then, server farms with a billion GPUs will always produce better results

This means that people have to rely on corporate platforms where you buy tokens that you use to get pulls at the various AI slop slot machines, hoping you get something decent. The mechanics more closely resemble a gacha game than any kind of artistic process

By contrast, learning how to draw, animate or make 3D models costs nothing. There's free tutorials and tools everywhere, and you can also just pirate commercial ones if you want

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 12 points 3 days ago

I can't get even remotely close to an acceptable level of competence and it ticks me the fuck off when someone goes "aNy OnE cAn mAkE aRt" or upholds capitalist framings of intellectual property.

In that regard, I do think there’s a distinct difference between sampling (whether a still image, moving pictures, or sound) and using the AI treat generator. There’s plenty of people who can’t play a musical instrument worth a damn, but give them some loops, one shot samples, and sequencers and they can transform the samples material into something new and fascinating. Likewise with visual media.

12tone on YouTube had this interesting argument that samples, rather than being “cheating,” are turning a particular performance in time into an instrument unto itself. Whereas AI is a smudging of all past art into an average. So while sampling celebrates the greatness of a performance, AI reduces it to a Borg-like state.