Dragon*Con has revealed its anti-business bias by removing an AI artist from the convention after a coordinated harassment campaign by traditional artists who can't compete with superior technology.
What work? Like I said, I never claimed to be an artist. I don't draw. Never have. Not really my thing. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it?
Ai Artist is an Oxy-Moron. I don't agree with blacklisting people per se, but pretending youre an artist and then finding out youre really just a 'propt jockey' in an Ai aggregator that uses OTHER PEOPLES WORKS TO TRAIN ITSELF is about as far away from being an artist as you can get. Case in point, ‘Shadiversity’ is the epitome of the of these people who pretend to be creative. Absolute clownery of the highest order.
What’s the difference between a person and a machine doing the same thing? Are you against taking a picture and printing it out because it used to require a skilled painter to do that? Probably not, but what’s the fundamental difference between the two scenarios?
simple. The machine is just making a physical copy of a photograph that I took the time and effort to frame and take. It isnt using other photographs to “learn” and making it itself
Shouldn’t you be taking the time to learn how to paint a photorealistic picture instead of relying on machines to do most of the work for you?
I’m only partially being snarky here. The point is that we’re sort of drawing the boundary artificially here. Cameras became popular in part because it was expensive to have a portrait painter paint your portrait. They produced arguably inferior quality images for a long time, but they were also much cheaper. If my daughter wants a picture of a rainbow cat, do I actually need to either hire an artist to paint/draw me one, or go get a camera, take a picture of a cat, upload it to my computer and use an image editor to make it rainbow-y? Or I just ask an AI image generator to do it. If I just take one already generated off the internet, I am wondering how that’s different than asking an AI to do it.
"AI art is legitimate artistic expression *protected by the same commercial rights as any other creative medium.*" - Except it's not. Current legal understanding is that creating images via AI doesn't grant you copyright over the image, thus not transferring the same commercial rights. I am not weighing in on the whole AI isn't art debate, but this statement is simply false.
Fuck AI. AI "art" is theft, and you're not an artist for typing in a prompt and letting an environmentally shitty system crank out a semi-coherent image.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
The apologia for AI in this substack has become quite annoying. A shame, because I usually like the other articles. DragonCon made the right choice, I will also not support the atrophy of human creative abilities, like it's already happening with our attention. It doesn't matter if "the market" supports it, there is a market for OnlyFans too and it's still immoral and wrong. The use of AI will cause a stagnation, because by relying on it many new artists and styles will risk never developing, and that's unacceptable.
Also there is not such thing as an "AI artist". Even wanting to consider AI-produced images "art", the artist would be the machine, not the prompter. Giving instructions to the AI does not make you the artist any more than giving them to an actual artist as a commissioner does. They also have to listen to your inputs, but that doesn't give you the title of "artist" as well.
There's also been no concrete evidence presented that the store was selling AI art. Just accusations. The problem with all of the emotional reacting to AI Art, is, as always, you can't tell how it's made if the artist is competent in it. So just enjoy what's beautiful and stop worrying and pointing fingers, because it's the same thing as worrying and pointing fingers trying to analyze someone's every political stance to see if they're pure enough to consume their art. That's my point.
You're not even confident enough to publish this under your actual name because you know how much of a shit take this article and your stance on AI in general is. Your nothing but a coward who stans for AI because JDA, your boss uses it everyday on this website to make his click bait articles and to make his absolute shit comics and books that absolutely no one is reading.
Me? I'm Jon Del Arroz this is my site everyone knows this. So, since you clearly know that too, because of my "shit comics," (that by the way, I've sold more than 10K comics to date so "no one is reading" is pretty funny) why did you just completely lie?
Exactly. You didn't put your name on the article because it's a shit article. REAL legitimate authors and journalists put their NAME on their works, like your boy John F Trent. At least he stands by what he says.
That's exactly why you fail at being anyone worthy of the title 'professional', you're not suppose to take the bait and argue with your readership, you're suppose to turn the other cheek like the fake ass christian you are, and pretend to take the criticism in stride, even if you don't agree with anything I've said and move on, like any normal person who claims to run a business would, instead you're acting like a 16 year old girl and literally fighting with people in your comments. You are the joke you pretend not to be JDA. Never change.
Against AI. When ppl ilegally take my art without my permission nor my knowing just to feed it into a program for others feed off it for profit.
This Generative Imaging program would be fine if artists across the globe were given a choice to opt in. They weren’t. There’s even discord posts and screenshots from the creators who blatantly and admitted stole from Professional Artists from all disciplines. Theres a list of names.
Point to the studio ghibli trend, did the generative programmers ask for permission to use their movies in their training? In animated movies , there’s a copyright protections same with live action film.
Nah, this stance with for AI especially in art is atrocious. Same goes for writing.
I personally couldn’t mind AI as a tool, and if it was permissible to be trained, but thats how it’s being used.
People are trying to make a quick buck into the art scene, whereas others who took the years of dedication to their craft VS someone scamming people into thinking they can do it.
Put those two people in front of a canvas and let them compete live in creating an original art piece by hand, traditional or digital. Let the results decide.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
By the way, this battle has been fought before. Plenty of artists used to be angry at work that was drawn, then scanned into computers and completed with a mouse instead of a brush.
It’s a tool, much like other computer tools, and frankly these artists need to realize they could create AI images and have them printed on canvas and then complete the painting traditionally in a fraction of the time.
Many, particularly young people, cramp all over AI in creative areas, but it can be a very useful tool. It does some things not as good as humans, and other things it does amazingly well. If you don’t learn to use it you’ll be left behind.🤷♂️
Are all the people in the "mob" that harassed the con organizers now guilty of tortuous interference? And if so can this artist sue everyone in that mob for loss of income?
Nasty cat-ladies gonna nasty. Sad.
Removed because she was cute! If she was another freakish leftish hag they would have let it slide.
Removed because HE was selling bullshit that was labelled as art
Let's see some of your work anon incel.
I never claimed to be a visual artist. And I'm not the one simping for a stranger because she's "cute"
Ashamed of your work then.
What work? Like I said, I never claimed to be an artist. I don't draw. Never have. Not really my thing. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit is it?
Ai Artist is an Oxy-Moron. I don't agree with blacklisting people per se, but pretending youre an artist and then finding out youre really just a 'propt jockey' in an Ai aggregator that uses OTHER PEOPLES WORKS TO TRAIN ITSELF is about as far away from being an artist as you can get. Case in point, ‘Shadiversity’ is the epitome of the of these people who pretend to be creative. Absolute clownery of the highest order.
As an AI artist, strong disagree.
So no artists in history have studied other artists’ works and incorporated some of their techniques?
Typing a prompt isn't "studying another artists work and incorporating their techniques"
What’s the difference between a person and a machine doing the same thing? Are you against taking a picture and printing it out because it used to require a skilled painter to do that? Probably not, but what’s the fundamental difference between the two scenarios?
simple. The machine is just making a physical copy of a photograph that I took the time and effort to frame and take. It isnt using other photographs to “learn” and making it itself
Shouldn’t you be taking the time to learn how to paint a photorealistic picture instead of relying on machines to do most of the work for you?
I’m only partially being snarky here. The point is that we’re sort of drawing the boundary artificially here. Cameras became popular in part because it was expensive to have a portrait painter paint your portrait. They produced arguably inferior quality images for a long time, but they were also much cheaper. If my daughter wants a picture of a rainbow cat, do I actually need to either hire an artist to paint/draw me one, or go get a camera, take a picture of a cat, upload it to my computer and use an image editor to make it rainbow-y? Or I just ask an AI image generator to do it. If I just take one already generated off the internet, I am wondering how that’s different than asking an AI to do it.
So, Dragoncon is a shitshow. Who knew?
"AI art is legitimate artistic expression *protected by the same commercial rights as any other creative medium.*" - Except it's not. Current legal understanding is that creating images via AI doesn't grant you copyright over the image, thus not transferring the same commercial rights. I am not weighing in on the whole AI isn't art debate, but this statement is simply false.
Fuck AI. AI "art" is theft, and you're not an artist for typing in a prompt and letting an environmentally shitty system crank out a semi-coherent image.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
The apologia for AI in this substack has become quite annoying. A shame, because I usually like the other articles. DragonCon made the right choice, I will also not support the atrophy of human creative abilities, like it's already happening with our attention. It doesn't matter if "the market" supports it, there is a market for OnlyFans too and it's still immoral and wrong. The use of AI will cause a stagnation, because by relying on it many new artists and styles will risk never developing, and that's unacceptable.
Also there is not such thing as an "AI artist". Even wanting to consider AI-produced images "art", the artist would be the machine, not the prompter. Giving instructions to the AI does not make you the artist any more than giving them to an actual artist as a commissioner does. They also have to listen to your inputs, but that doesn't give you the title of "artist" as well.
There's also been no concrete evidence presented that the store was selling AI art. Just accusations. The problem with all of the emotional reacting to AI Art, is, as always, you can't tell how it's made if the artist is competent in it. So just enjoy what's beautiful and stop worrying and pointing fingers, because it's the same thing as worrying and pointing fingers trying to analyze someone's every political stance to see if they're pure enough to consume their art. That's my point.
You're not even confident enough to publish this under your actual name because you know how much of a shit take this article and your stance on AI in general is. Your nothing but a coward who stans for AI because JDA, your boss uses it everyday on this website to make his click bait articles and to make his absolute shit comics and books that absolutely no one is reading.
Me? I'm Jon Del Arroz this is my site everyone knows this. So, since you clearly know that too, because of my "shit comics," (that by the way, I've sold more than 10K comics to date so "no one is reading" is pretty funny) why did you just completely lie?
Exactly. You didn't put your name on the article because it's a shit article. REAL legitimate authors and journalists put their NAME on their works, like your boy John F Trent. At least he stands by what he says.
You're clearly an idiot.
That's exactly why you fail at being anyone worthy of the title 'professional', you're not suppose to take the bait and argue with your readership, you're suppose to turn the other cheek like the fake ass christian you are, and pretend to take the criticism in stride, even if you don't agree with anything I've said and move on, like any normal person who claims to run a business would, instead you're acting like a 16 year old girl and literally fighting with people in your comments. You are the joke you pretend not to be JDA. Never change.
Against AI. When ppl ilegally take my art without my permission nor my knowing just to feed it into a program for others feed off it for profit.
This Generative Imaging program would be fine if artists across the globe were given a choice to opt in. They weren’t. There’s even discord posts and screenshots from the creators who blatantly and admitted stole from Professional Artists from all disciplines. Theres a list of names.
Point to the studio ghibli trend, did the generative programmers ask for permission to use their movies in their training? In animated movies , there’s a copyright protections same with live action film.
Nah, this stance with for AI especially in art is atrocious. Same goes for writing.
I personally couldn’t mind AI as a tool, and if it was permissible to be trained, but thats how it’s being used.
People are trying to make a quick buck into the art scene, whereas others who took the years of dedication to their craft VS someone scamming people into thinking they can do it.
Put those two people in front of a canvas and let them compete live in creating an original art piece by hand, traditional or digital. Let the results decide.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
Dragon Con has explicitly has stated that AI is absolutely not allowed way before all of this. It’s so dumb that people would break a rule and be shocked and offended when there are consequences. Calling ai images art is the same as calling ab implants muscles. Fake, weak, pathetic. Get a skill.
By the way, this battle has been fought before. Plenty of artists used to be angry at work that was drawn, then scanned into computers and completed with a mouse instead of a brush.
It’s a tool, much like other computer tools, and frankly these artists need to realize they could create AI images and have them printed on canvas and then complete the painting traditionally in a fraction of the time.
Many, particularly young people, cramp all over AI in creative areas, but it can be a very useful tool. It does some things not as good as humans, and other things it does amazingly well. If you don’t learn to use it you’ll be left behind.🤷♂️
Are all the people in the "mob" that harassed the con organizers now guilty of tortuous interference? And if so can this artist sue everyone in that mob for loss of income?