https://preview.redd.it/aiwbs86sfrzd1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=36244330dc4a79c8d6a05bc5f43e17e50467c931

Many websites are using genrative AI to generate adult content such as pictures and chats. Is this ethical?

https://preview.redd.it/mfig8lp3mqzd1.jpg?width=2496&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d33645d431604afa23575929039514a525e72f8e

Others here have already worded this take far more intelligently than I can, but I'd like to reiterate it anyway.

AI would have been accepted as the inspiration tool it's meant to be for artists. A way for common people who can't draw, or don't have time for it, to bring their ideas to life. Or even a simple "what if" exploration of various concepts, from historical alternative timelines to silly fandom designs.

Instead we're shamed for the greed of companies and the bunch who abuse a well-meaning tool, like it's never happened before throughout history. I can't wait for all this to be over, just like the Photoshop/digital art hate.

https://preview.redd.it/xukn2ej23jzd1.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b326ac1e185d9ea0cd23a29004571dfa8572fc8d

https://preview.redd.it/mf222rwx5dzd1.jpg?width=1792&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=025c170f836caf8e858da7affa1236f8e5db9fc1

i love A.I Cover so much they are my favorite

https://preview.redd.it/k5mefe4z5czd1.png?width=826&format=png&auto=webp&s=1f20a9d3dd03a79d29e9ab62f4ddddf6f91e4946

Does anyone know if there's any non-profits to donate to, for pro-AI causes?

https://preview.redd.it/j2ozqlrx76zd1.jpg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9afcdbdc708ca10add29818fe82c647c1f8bb644

The concept of art nowadays is used very loosely to cover pretty much anything that fits the criteria for any recognised art discipline. For example, create a very simple beat and babble a couple of phrases on top and voilà. Now even this could be considered art if there is a ganuine creative intent from the part of the artist, however subtle. But how to we carry out the same appraisal for AI generated content? Easy, we know the answer, and the answer is NO. AI by definition is designed to think inside the box, that is, to pass as a belieavable version of already existing art. No creativity, no innovation, in short, no art.

A better term is AI Content. And l'm all for AI generated content. It can be useful, it can look/sound good, etc. It's just not art. The insistence of using the term by AI algorithms is a bit pompous and should stop at some point.

When I see an AI generated image or video, I often see someone write "I.A." in the comments, presumably to let people know it's generated and not actual footage. But what does it mean? Is this some sort of trend to mock AI perhaps?

So, some context, I was drinking coffee this morning and looking at art section on a discord where I am being 'attacked' for supporting AI art by using teh attached images - both generated by me. It is discord, and folks link images - anyways, I am pro - AI art. I ended up asking the people about why they hate AI art. The big two responses, in an art discord, are "AI art is not art." and "AI art is theft". So, I made coffee and simply did some drawing while using voice to talk to Claude. Here is what Claude said....

Let's analyze this statement step by step:
The statement "AI art is not art" can be broken down logically as:
Subject: "AI art" (which itself contains the word "art")
Predicate: "is not art"
This creates a logical contradiction because:
If we accept something as "AI art," we're already categorizing it as a type of art
Then we're simultaneously saying this type of art is not art
It's similar to saying "blue chairs are not chairs"
A more logically consistent way to express concerns about AI-generated images might be:
"AI-generated images are not traditional art"
"AI-generated images are not human-made art"
"AI-generated images should not be considered equivalent to human-created art"
This appears to be a case where the language used creates a self-contradicting statement, even if the speaker's underlying sentiment (perhaps about the nature, value, or authenticity of AI-generated images) might have merit worth discussing.
Would you like to explore what specific aspects of AI-generated images you're interested in examining?

So, Art is Theft was talked about, next. I asked if traditional artist copying a master to learn art theory was theft.

Let's break this down further:
The "theft" argument raises interesting parallels:
Human artists have historically learned by copying masters
Art students routinely copy famous works as practice
Many famous artists have directly referenced or appropriated others' work
Examples: Warhol's soup cans, Picasso's studies of Velázquez, countless Renaissance painters copying classical works
Where the parallel gets complex:
Human artists copying work:
Generally develop their own style through the process
Typically understand the techniques they're learning
Usually create derivative works with intentional changes
AI systems:
Train on massive datasets
Don't "understand" art in the same way
Combine elements in ways that may closely mirror source material
The logical conflict in the argument:
If copying/learning from other art is "theft," then much of human art history would be "theft"
If copying/learning from other art isn't "theft" when humans do it, then the issue isn't really about copying
This suggests the real concern is about something else - perhaps:
Attribution
Compensation
Creative intent
Understanding of craft
Economic impact on artists
You raise a good point - framing it purely as "theft" oversimplifies what appears to be a more complex ethical and economic discussion about how we value and attribute creative work.

So, I asked if a LORA counts as learning a style. The whole derived work bit...

That's a fascinating logical progression! Let's analyze this:
A LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) model's behavior:
It learns specific stylistic elements from a smaller dataset
Creates a consistent, recognizable "style"
Functions somewhat similarly to how a human artist might develop their style after studying others
The parallel with human artistic development:
Human artists study others → develop unique style
LoRA studies specific works → develops consistent style
Both are derivative but become distinctive
However, there's a key philosophical question:
When a human artist develops a style, it's through conscious understanding and choice
When a LoRA develops a style, it's through statistical patterns
Does this difference matter for the "theft" argument?
The logical resolution:
If the core issue is about having a unique, consistent style that's different from the training data
Then yes, a LoRA could potentially address some of the "theft" concerns
It's more like an "artistic descendant" than a direct copy
This suggests that LoRAs might represent a middle ground in the debate - they're clearly derivative (like much human art), but also develop their own consistent characteristics (like human artists do). What do you think about this comparison between human artistic development and LoRA training?

Anyways, the part that makes me want to share this delightful conversation with my phone. These seem to cover the trolls, upset artists, and ill-informed anti-AI folks. I feel the AI seems to have covered all their rage.

"Attribution, Compensation, Creative intent, Understanding of craft, Economic impact on artists"

https://preview.redd.it/a8osf5wqxpyd1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=a093c612a4592c9f6775b15d7a4a0a14689e8916