furry_irl

I have a pretty quick ~$500 phone (snapdragon 8 gen 3) and tried this local AI app once (just something on fdroid, you could probably find it) but the experience was pretty terrible. Like a minute per image on the small local models from 2022. I'm sure you could do better, but my conclusion is that an $800 phone is as useful as a $60 phone for generative ai because you're going to have to use some remote service anyways.

Hehe "borrowed"

What does that phrase even mean? Asking something else to make something for you is not artistic, so it can't be that. People who commission other humans to make things aren't suddenly artists. If they literally just mean consumption of images, it's not as if web searching for images has been difficult for the last couple decades at this point. If you don't care about art at all and just want content, there are lifetimes of things you could look for readily available to indulge. Just start typing and away you go! Literally the only thing that has changed is that now you are accelerating dead internet theory and removing human interaction from what you consume. Of course, if you don't care about art that is a moot point, since human self-expression and communication never meant anything to you in the first place.

At best, the phrase should be specialized, on demand consumption of niche content is more accessible, not art.

If what you need is a constant stream of ever-changing imagery that you don’t glance at for more than a second or two before moving on, I’m sure AI is great for that. So are jangling keys and those slime ASMR videos. But if that’s what you want from viewing or making art, you are an alien to me.

As much as i hate AI generated art, this is a shit argument. You can run an AI on your phone (which you would have anyway) without a subscription. You can also doodle on your phone for free.

I wish we could start arguing about the ethics of compensation for training data and requiring a concrete way to both protect opt-out, as well as compensate those who contribute, rather than argue about a product that absolutely does have a user base (as is continually proven). I don't think there's a win against the demand, but you can win the ethics battle and force better regulations.

I keep seeing this kind of argument, and I understand, but I disagree.

The comparison isn't between using an ai service and doing it yourself, but rather between using an ai service and commissioning an actual artist. I can afford $20/mo for infinite mediocrity. I cannot afford $20/image (or more depending on the artist).

Of course, there is a flaw in my argument, in that I was assuming that the techbro was being honest. People aggressively pushing dalle or midjourney or whatever aren't interested in "making art accessible". They hate art and artists, and want to force creative types to be miserable doing jobs they hate. I have to remind myself that this is the kind of person that the comic is complaining about.

Lol right, because there are no free AI art services and you need a dedicated iPhone to do AI art. OP forgot to add $400 for a leather upholstered "gaming chair".

You could run it on your own PC instead

What someone practiced can do with nothing, and what a newbie can do with nothing, drastically differ.

These dipshits are trying to communicate that this tech offers half-decent results. Immediately. For no effort. They could surely do better, themselves... if they spent an entire year trying. Opportunity be damned, most people just don't want to. Developing a skill is a process that sucks. Vanishingly few people learn to paint portraits, and code games, and play piano. But any idiot can now use a program to do a half-assed job of all three.

Experienced artists, programmers, and musicians will recognize the flaws. They can declare the results useless slop. But it's being generated by people who would do even worse without it.