Kesha goes viral for AI usage

[itshyolee]

5 minutes ago, mike_int said:

AI is part of technological growth, just like photoshop and all other PC softwares for editing were years ago.

Exactly.

 

Weren't people also very skeptical and critical of photoshop when it was first released? Now look…

[mike_int]

8 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

This is bull. Real artists are concerned about having their art used without their permission so that major companies can profit off their hard work.

 

In other words, companies like Adobe are exploiting their userbase to feed an algorithm inteded to replace said userbase.

 

That's the problem. Not AI itself.

THIS I understand, but it is completely different discussion and doesnt apply only to AI but in protecting "art" in general in every field.

 

There is difference when companies copy and steal designs (no matter if they use AI or not) and when for example in this case AI is used to "bring alive" certain vision.

 

If Kesha or some creative came up with the idea of the single cover having bunch of Birkins lay down on a street with  with "delusion" sprayed all over them of course she wont use Birkins in total worth of hundreds of thousand and also there is no need for someone to create the image step by step in photoshop when the vision can be created with AI.

 

It is the same like with every technology, when you bake you can use your hands to knead the dough but you can also use kitchen robot for it.

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by mike_int

[PopKills]

Why you so, why you so, why you so artificial? 

[The7thStranger]

16 minutes ago, mike_int said:

It is the same like with every technology, when you bake you can use your hands to knead the dough but you can also use kitchen robot for it.

If this is what were happening, I could absolutely get behind it. But what's really happening is that more like this:

1. Two bakers each bake a cake.
2. Somebody else comes along and steals those two cakes. The original bakers are not compensated.
3. That same person then stacks the two cakes on top of each other.
4. And finally, they then claim this new combined cake as their own work.

AI is amazing. Just not how we're using it. It's going to harm several creative industries indiscriminately if laws surrounding its usage are not enforced.

 

  

20 minutes ago, itshyolee said:

Weren't people also very skeptical and critical of photoshop when it was first released? Now look…

Adobe is one of the core reasons why image-regurgitating AI is so powerful. People's concerns turned out to be true in a way.

Edited 6 hours ago by The7thStranger

[mike_int]

10 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

If this is what were happening, I could absolutely get behind it. But what's really happening is that more like this:

1. Two bakers each bake a cake.
2. Somebody else comes along and steals those two cakes. The original bakers are not compensated.
3. That same person then stacks the two cakes on top of each other.
4. And finally, they then claim this new combined cake as their own work.

AI is amazing. Just not how we're using it. It's going to harm several creative industries indiscriminately if laws surrounding its usage are not enforced.

 

  

Adobe is one of the core reasons why image-regurgitating AI is so powerful. People's concerns turned out to be true in a way.

I would appreciate if you didn't quote just one sentence from my post, then it is taken completely out of context.

 

I agreed with you when it comes to protecting art but in general, it has nothing to do with AI.

Copying art in any field, from music, paintings, fashion designs etc. was happening with or without AI.

 

As I said before, it is completely different discussion.

 

[The7thStranger]

25 minutes ago, mike_int said:

I would appreciate if you didn't quote just one sentence from my post, then it is taken completely out of context.

Just for clarity's sake, I didn't disagree with the rest of your post, so I didn't feel the need to include it. I think what you said before is accurate. But I don't think we should take AI as a garden variety advancement in technology. It's more on the level of the Internet and TV than it is, for example, a new Kindle or a 3D printer.

[mike_int]

22 minutes ago, The7thStranger said:

Just for clarity's sake, I didn't disagree with the rest of your post, so I didn't feel the need to include it. I think what you said before is accurate. But I don't think we should take AI as a garden variety advancement in technology. It's more on the level of the Internet and TV than it is, for example, a new Kindle or a 3D printer.

I think it is better to quote whole post in case others are reading the discussion, because when you quote just one part then the context get lost very easily and people will react only to that one line you quoted.

 

I understand your point, personally I never used AI and I do create art (music,photography,paintings) and I discussed with many people people in the field and most of them dont see AI as an threat and how it is being portrayed as evil and people jump on a bandwagon commenting the same thing left and right on forums and social media.

 

In general my first post was to comment on this particular "issue" of Kesha single cover

 

 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by mike_int

[hallucinate]

some of these not even being spelled correctly

[rhaenyra]

6 hours ago, Album Leak said:

Can't wait for Kesha's new song Dellusonal.

Or was it Delusonal. Or Delushml. 

 

Deelishis

 

Give it up deelishis

[Loca]

Eh, she is an independent artist right now. I don't know if she has the income and budget to hire every specialist needed. Y'all need to focus on the real problems. 

[JO1s]

Her dehlushinal could mean anything.

[Loca]

And the misspelling has to be intentional, no? There's no way she wouldn't notice, lol. 

[Booyah]

Al is a part of life now.

[ToMmY]

Yeah, making her promo post go viral will surely teach her a lesson!

[Keter]

People keep talking about this stolen art boogeyman and yet I haven't seen any clear outline of what has been stolen, how it was reused and when, and what the damages are. In at least one case, "stolen" elements and damages could not be identified. And if an AI using existing images to train is infringement, then is learning to paint or draw and being influenced by the style of another also infringement? the court agrees "in the style of" type prompts could infringe on copyright, but it's a complex issue. I love AI and ATRL's soapbox grandstanding ain't bout to do **** but serve me up some cackles. 
 

https://www.lawinc.com/court-allows-copyright-claims-ai-art-lawsuit

[St. Charles]

I think AI has a long way to go before it can be used for something like this without looking a bit off. And also, I don't really like when it's used in place of an actual artist.

 

That being said, AI hate is so overdone. People don't just hate the AI that replaces artists, they hate everything to do with AI and the backlash is very extra.

[glitch]

Idk like we've had low effort album and single covers forever. If you want a higher end product you've gotta pay for someone to do the work. If you want something cheap you fire up paint and change the background to green, type "brat" and lower the resolution. No one would argue Charli was putting designers out of work with that cover.

[Trent W]

Using AI is just tacky and in very bad taste

 

I can't even understand why a real musician would use it for their cover, do it yourself or hire someone that can do an actual good job

[gettsleazy]

Proud of her fans for holding her accountable. A certain other singers fanbase should take notes

[campelo]

I am sure it wasn't on purpose, she is just uneducated about art

[ImpressMeMuch]

page two and we already have numerous takes missing the nuance of the issue with AI, sigh

[Venice B]

I refuse to believe this is not some sort of commentary on how bad IA is or something because girl... 

[manuelalex9810]

This is so embarrassing to the music industry, going that low to use AI in your music 

 

[Kern]

1 hour ago, glitch said:

Idk like we've had low effort album and single covers forever. If you want a higher end product you've gotta pay for someone to do the work. If you want something cheap you fire up paint and change the background to green, type "brat" and lower the resolution. No one would argue Charli was putting designers out of work with that cover.

that's not the point tho. AI art is just random. If you won't edit it, then it's just whatever stuff computer will give you, there is literally no artist vision in that. Even a green LQ square that was made intentionally will be always better than the same thing randomly generated

[Kern]

1 minute ago, manuelalex9810 said:

This is so embarrassing to the music industry, going that low to use AI in your music 

 

Kesha is using AI in her music? Source?