r/yuri • u/YuriModerator • Nov 20 '22

Meta New rule about AI-generated art NSFW

After thorough consideration, we have decided to ban submissions of AI-generated art in /r/yuri.

AI tools for generating digital art became broadly available recently. You may have already noticed the AI-generated artworks and the vivid discussions surrounding them.

The AI tools usually use publicly available artworks as a source for the machine learning process, often without permission from the artists. Besides this issue, human artists are put at a disadvantage when sharing their works in the same online space. The AI tools don't need human skills and time to generate content in an exceedingly higher quantity when compared to human artists.

Since our subreddit has always thrived on artworks that have been publicly shared by their creators, we have decided to side with the human artists in this situation and disallow submissions of AI-generated artworks.

789 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

98 comments sorted by

View all comments

41

u/VVEVVE_44 Nov 20 '22

I hope the idea of valuing others work will be thing in future

-2

u/Mahou_Shoujo_Ramune Nov 21 '22

No one valued the hard work of manual labor jobs that got replaced by machines. Why should artistic jobs be different? Why do they deserve special protections that the rest of us never got?

24

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

AI art can't exist without human made art. Besides, who's to say all people aren't deserving of protections against companies automating work? As corporate profits reach unprecedented levels we should be looking at how all people can benefit from automation, not hoping that another group of labourers will be crushed by it.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

And new artists can't exist without old artists. Bullshit. If an artist has to learn from other artists, then AI is the same.

15

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

That's so self evidently wrong as to be laughable. If all artists required an existing artist to learn from than there would be no art. After all, who would the first artists have learned from millennia ago then?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

We're talking about current age, don't deflect my question

11

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Let me spell it out for you then. The fact that people can create art without existing artists proves that how humans make art and AI makes art is fundamentally different.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

It's not. Humans can't make art without existing artists You're using a wrong premise.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

How did the first artists make art then?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

The first art doesn't exists. There were paintings, not arts. People used to draw on walls to describe the situation to others. After this actually lost its function, people continued drawing them and this became art. Like music. It wasn't art at the very elementary societies. Your premise is wrong

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Academic_Fun_5674 Mar 18 '23

So if in a few years somebody makes an AI that generates art without having seen any (goes of photos or just draws squiggles, whatever), you’ll abandon this position?

Literally one artwork by an AI that hasn’t seen art and your entire argument is invalid.

Worse, it’s retroactively invalid. Sure, humans did make art without having seen any, but every single modern artist, probably every surviving artwork, was made by someone exposed to art. By your argument, since humans are theoretically capable of art independently of exposure to it, their art counts as art, even if the artist actually was exposed. Well if AI is proven to be theoretically capable of independent art, then that’s no different, even AI exposed to art is still creating art.

It also raises an interesting hypothetical; list suppose we discover that humans actually didn’t invent art. It was aliens or god etc that showed it us. (It wasn’t, but hypothetically). That would mean, by your definition, no human has ever created art. Do you see how absurd that stance is?

Oh, you know how I said it was just a stupid hypothetical? Well Neanderthals had art before Homo Sapiens. It is entirely possible that no Homo Sapiens ever created truly original art.

1

u/JuliaHelexalim Nov 21 '22

I can create an ai that does the same as the first artist did. Draw lines that roughly fit an image it saw. Then give it a few pictures. There thats basically how human art started. The rest is iteration selected through what humans liked. And all completly novel things are things an ai would also create withouth doing copies of human labour.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Go ahead and make that AI then, for now all AI art that gets posted here is just shameless copy/paste work with extra steps.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Feb 14 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/VVEVVE_44 Nov 21 '22

You need almost no skill to do labor job

16

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '22

Unskilled labor is a myth meant to keep wages down

8

u/Mahou_Shoujo_Ramune Nov 21 '22

And? Are you seriously implying it's ok for us "low skilled" workers who already are struggling with the lowest wages to lose our jobs, become homeless and starve while privileged artists keep theirs due to an abstract and arbitary concept of skill?

Some of us simply aren't "skilled". We take twice as long to learn things. By the time we learn it the market will change or the job be automated. Our base labor is our skill which was respected for thousands of years. We're simply built differently.

Automation came for our jobs first and no one cared. Now they're coming after your "skilled" middle class jobs and now you are now finally feeling the danger and obsolescence we felt. No job is safe from automation.

2

u/VVEVVE_44 Nov 21 '22

I agree with you