I have recently avoided the reddate. Many people on the site feel that they have a duty to have a duty, a kind of moral responsibility, so that they can call any art they see as “a slope”.
This phrase is repeated on the platform of the advertisement, thrown on the drop of the hat, even in cases where there is no evidence of AI.
I think how these people feel. He, in his mind, is the guardian of the old order, the guards of the traditional methods of art.
Nevertheless, I also have to question whether there is any authenticity of this crusade that seems to have increased the social media platform.
I would like to ask this question first: Does every piece of every art of every art look like a “slope” in reality?
Ai Art has already reached the point where it is unacceptable to human -born art in many cases. In view of the similarities, some allegations are undoubtedly for traditional art that are made by real people. Isn’t this carelessness to harm a single artist who allegedly wants to protect this “callout” behavior? Closing eyes on innocent people has never brought positive results, and this trend raises doubts that these allegations really care about traditional artists. If they did so, they would not be so quick to accuse them for internet points.
But let’s put it aside for a moment and imagine a piece of art that we know that AI was created with certainty. As long as this art was created with intention and purpose that created it, I would have to wonder: why, of course, why is this bad thing?
I heard only one answer to this question: “Because it’s very easy.”
AI art is quite easy. This is undeniable. But I find it ridiculous that many people say that in Photoshop will give rise to the qualities of artists who create their work, apparently without realizing that this debate is being made 20 years ago, except for the Villen of the time. We were told in those days that Photoshop was cheating, “because it’s very easy,” and that “the real art is done with paint on the canvas.”
And, of course, we can go back even more and can imagine an elderly artist in the late 1800s, “Your children are easy these days. You just buy your paint at one store. In my day, we have to make our paint in the store through plants and insects and minerals.”
So we have to ask: What is the acceptable level of difficulty to be eligible for something for something? Is it difficult to explain the art, or does it have the intention and meaning? Art is becoming easier and easier since the beginning of art. AI art only pushes the next leap technically.
And it is not necessary to have something bad. There are many people who want to express themselves creatively but those who do not have time or financial means to learn traditional painting. If AI easily helps someone express an idea, they cannot share otherwise, is that not a good thing?
“But wait – if not all traditional artists would be hungry if AI art is allowed to spread?” I heard you ask. Not necessarily. AI art easily reduces the obstruction of admission.
McDonald’s reduced the barrier to opening a restaurant by replacing trained chefs from the minimum wage, yet the real chef restaurants are still there. McDonald’s is cheaper and faster, yet Gordon Ramsey and other high chefs are still around and are still doing very well. You can find both traditional and alternative ways to work as well.
And this is the case with AI art. Human -made art will always be demanded, and there will always be artists who want to create it. If the legislation is needed so that AI-influat art needs to be labeled, so if consumers choose them, they can decide to support humanitarian art, I will support it. Artists are an important part of society and should be protected. But that does not mean that AI art should not exist at all.
It is not difficult to imagine where the future is going on this issue. To see, let’s experience a quick thinking: imagine a child who is 5 years old. As a guardian, he will be bigger with a chatteg, asking the question why the sky is blue and whether chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows and where the sun goes at night. The child will make AI drawings of cats and dogs at the age of 7, and when he is 11 years old he will make films with AI video generators about fighting each other about his favorite superheroes. He will not be able to remember a world without AI. In 15 years, when he is 20 years old, do you think he will see a problem using the technology that has used his entire life to make art?
If you were 20 years old and AI was a friend, teacher, and a helpful for you until you remember, would you feel hesitant to use it? Would you be convinced of the fact that when your parents were new, they were nervous about it on the Internet? Or would you mess with how stupid and old was the mother and father of the age and would continue to use it, because nowadays the world works like this?
This technology is already here. The future generations are going to use it. We are not willing to close it and will never use it again, because humanity has never done so with a new technology. Even we did not do the same with nuclear weapons, a technology that is purely purely to cause the death and destruction of our fellow man. In fact, the first successful test of nuclear weapons took only 3 weeks until it was used in war. If we refuse to lock any technology like this, do anyone really think that we are going to do this to stop O art?
And if the use of this technology is inevitable, is there really the benefit of pushing it back?
There is a famous prayer called the prayer of Sirat. It reads:
“God, give me the glory of accepting things that can’t change, I dare to change my things, and the wisdom of knowing the difference.”
In a world that is full of real problems that we are actually Can Solution, I think it is wise to protect these problems on our own energy. Whether we like it or not, AI art is here to stay here. So let’s hug and embrace the future.
Oh, and for some reason, stop putting 6 fingers on all my kicking drawings. That too.