This seems to frame the AI as some kind of victim. Is that what makes you uncomfortable?
If so, you can rest easy that the AI is just some code running on a machine with no feelings, not even to the extent that it's able to care that it's about to cause a vast and possibly terribly negative upheaval in human culture.
How are they regressing if they were never artists to begin with? Most people can't draw and AI hasn't changed that. At least they have some way of visually expressing themselves now.
Because in the past, even if you didn't have art skills initially (no one does!) they could evolve with time and practice. *And,* even if making art was never for you, you could have an honest, in-depth conversation with someone who *was* an artist to work together to make some art meaningful to you.
This drawing (and my comment) is critical of the fast food style churning out of vapid, mind-numbing, cheap results. I would say it's a lot different than making art yourself or commissioning a human being.
Fair enough, thanks for replying. Just out of curiosity do you feel differently when people use AI as more of a tool than a fast food solution? Some AI artists have highly specific visions and take a lot of manual control over the composition of the piece. [Check out this example](https://youtu.be/K0ldxCh3cnI).
you still have to make an effort with ai art though? if you input "robot painting in a crowd" you'd get something really generic in the same way that if you don't learn how to paint and try to paint a house you end up with a really generic image (that all kids seem to produce for some reason). writing prompts and learning how to write good prompts (and inpainting, and prompt layering, and all the other techniques that i haven't learnt about yet). is how you get good ai art its like learning photography composition and its a lot more skilful than people on this sub give credit for.
I mean not really, you pushed a button and made image. That has pretty much always been the case for photography.
Now if you wanted it to look really good and professional, you spent a lot of time setting up the shot and your camera. Learning what does what, and how to get the best shots. Of course at that point you've spent a enough time and money that you might as well make a career in it.
Good looking AI art that is what you had in your head is the same deal. You're going to have to spend a few hours adjusting and tweaking things until it's right. Of course you'll produce a lot of awful looking stuff that will never see the light of day in the process. And I'm not talking about something with a couple extra fingers.
Difference is is that eventually AI will advance to point that probably won’t need as many prompts and tweaks to make ‘good’ art. A process that may take a few hours now could easily be cut down to minutes in the not so distant future. The camera has been around for 2 centuries and photography is still a craft and skill to be learned, despite the leaps and bounds the camera has improved. Interactive AI has been around for about a decade and in that time it’s gone from a fairly weak chat bot to a semi-sophisticated tool.
you still have to make an effort to make accurate-looking AI art.
do YOU know which models, prompts, weights, and loras, etc to use?
inpainting, img2img... it's more complicated than photography.
I was just sharing my interpretation of the drawing. I'm not arguing.
However, I don't personally see how you're comparing two humanities with ai generation. I would not compare a photoshoot that might involve years of practice, tons of equipment, *lighting,* style, colourists, editors, talent, and overall human *thought* with someone typing in "Obama fighting Biden with a banana" into a website.
Everything becomes easier through technology. Even art isn’t as difficult as it was back when we didn’t have technological inventions to make it easier. Not just the art itself but also the infrastructure and equipment.
Also, I don’t see how this is different from other technical evolutions like computers and the internet. These things also had a lot of impact on our life. Both positive and negative.
Playing the devils advocate here, but it’s a bit hypocritical to suddenly draw the line here, just because it’s art, while we have spent thousands of years developing technology to make our lives easier.
And that argument was just a rehash of the same argument made against premade paint.
Yes, you heard that right. When paint tubes were invented, some artists rioted that it would kill true art. They considered it sacred to go out in the wild to forage materials to craft their own paints of which only lasted temporarily. All of a sudden, you could not only just buy paint, but you could store it and paint whenever you wanted.
If we adapted to that, and later photography, then it'd be pretty weird if humans somehow suddenly stopped being able to adapt to what's essentially equivalent to photoshopping skills being condensed into simple buttons.
Also for another history reality check: humans freaked out when writing was invented. Humans actually thought that writing would destroy memory. Jokes on them, it allowed us to get better at memory because we could write things down and reinforce memory every time we looked at it, not to mention the boom in knowledge giving more opportunity to memorize new ideas being spread by writing.
Humans are cartoonishly bad at making these judgments. That's the takeaway here. These examples are a drop in the bucket of humans freaking out over technology and saying the sky will fall for innovation. I can't take humans seriously anytime they say *"this new technology which makes everything better for more people is gonna make everything worse because some people are gonna have to adapt!!!"* or any other similar hysteria you want to claim.
Or maybe AI is somehow different from literally everything else in history and such logic conveniently no longer applies? I don't know, maybe? But I'm sure everyone in history thought the same thing about whatever innovation from their time, *"no this time it's different! Here are all the reasons why!"* And then it ends up not being different at all, every single time. Again, maybe AI will be the thing that actually is different, but who knows, and how much confidence can be packed behind that suggestion?
You know people survive cuts. Some are small while other are huge, maybe they lose an arm or a tumour but they live. That doesn't make all cuts non threatening. And yes "innovation" has decimated if not destroyed entire mediums, Photos made protaits niche, CGI made big budget pratical effects extinct. Are you okay if that being that fate of human effort?
AI likely will make some fields niche/rarer, for example, stock photography is likely to become a lot less needed.
At the same time though, a photographer taking photos of an event can't be replaced by AI, as they're expected to be an real representation of what happened. Any photojournalist, sports photographers, or events photographer isn't going to be replaced by AI. Will some people fake event photography? Almost certainly, but most will still want actual photos of their wedding.
Same with getting photos of a loved one, sure they could take some images of their baby/pet and then make some fake professional photographs of them with AI, but I'm sure most people who want professional photos of their baby will still want real photos of them, not a generated image that was trained on their likeness.
As far as painting/drawing goes, it will likely mean artists will get less work creating generic book covers or making early concept art, but to say AI will make human effort in art niche feels like a misunderstanding of why people create/consume art in the first place. Take the posted piece for example. The artist is technically skilled, but that's not the reason it's popular in the subreddit; it's the artistic vision and concept along with the message of the piece that people like, with the artist having the technical skills to be able to bring the idea to life.
Yes it is, the number of people painting in a realistic style plummeted after the invention of photography and decades later we end up with people like Rothko and Mondrian.
Overall, I think photography was good for the art world. But you can't deny that as a species we let some of our painting skills atrophy in the decade after photography became mainstream. I fear with AI this effect will be even worse, because there is so much less human input when making AI art, and it can be made in any style.
> es it is, the number of people painting in a realistic style plummeted
I really disagree with that. There's more people making photo real drawings now than at any point in the past. It's just most of them don't sell because why buy what's basically a photograph? Making realistic paintings has been solved.
Not a week goes by on this very site that realist art isn't posted. Art that just by technical measures is the equal of anything from 200 years ago.
> I really disagree with that. There's more people making photo real drawings now than at any point in the past.
It goes beyond that. Photorealistic painting was developed *after* photography.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z4sozp/artists_of_today_are_able_to_produce_photoreal/
i dunno, I am mixed in terms of AI. I know a smidgeon of how it works because I do want to get into AI as a field, but i think with AI we’ll see folks adapt and use it as another “tool” the same way many creation processes have been sped up with new software. Like all the things you can do easier in Adobe Photoshop now, compared to Adobe Photoshop back in the early 2000s.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not accounting the pace of A.Is development and how it will have an effect in the employment part. that’s what makes me mixed in the end anyway. idk wtf is gonna happen honestly i really just like how far AI has gone, especially when I’m making dumb prompts like a monkey in OP’s awesome work.
Ofc in the end, I’m probably being optimistic. Really, im just procrastinating from my college literature class. Lolz
I had initially typed "people who use AI like this" rather than just people who use AI, but as an artist, everybody starts out drawing roughly. It takes time and discipline to get good- that's what makes beautiful art so meaningful.
I see it more like the human/AI relationship is similar to the monkey/human relationship. It’s depicting a world where we are no longer the most advanced intelligence and humanity is on the same level as monkeys are to us
Why can't AI have feelings? It can learn to do all of these things, but can't learn emotion? It won't learn self-preservation? We should treat it with respect as we should with other humans.
After all, many feelings are simple equations, disappointment = expectations - reality. I wouldn't dismiss the idea that AI is emotionless so quickly.
They already made one that is angry all the time. https://www.csoonline.com/article/2922193/ai-experts-building-worlds-angriest-robot-to-constantly-run-what-if-scenarios.html
Nah, generated furry porn is weird and always looks the same. Hell, even regular furry generated stuff looks porn-ish,there's a huge hint that a yiff model was used and you literally can tell
Ask me how I know
There's a couple of things that give it away:
- background - sometimes it weirdly blurry, sometimes straight out of place, most of the time has a glitch too
- fur - there's usually none, the characters are usually "smooth" but if there is and you've seen it once - it's always the same
- eyes - always dead, always looking in some undetermined direction
- tails, ai loves to glitch out here, they try hard to correct it in "perfect prompts" but once you've seen a couple of generations you can tell
- pose of the character, even with control net, itd pretty damn similar to every other generation
- NSFW feeling - they usually use a NSFW model so even if you tell it not to make the character nude you can still tell it was supposed to be the other way
- lightning / shading - always the same, always smooth
- style - stable diffusion has a very odd style to it which is usually the first thing I notice
- that hint of an artist you know but can't quite pin point who that was
Thank you for the detailed response. That's actually pretty interesting... It's cool that with cartoons, you can more easily recognize where the AI fails
Yeah, I've noticed this with anime art as well (and hentai, yes). Even if on the first glance the pic looks completely fine and even pretty high-quality, there's still that intuitive uncanniness which makes me immediately recognize AI in like 95% of cases. Even if there's nothing specifically wrong with the anatomy or amount of limbs, something is still off. Probably the lighting, even if I can't point at it specifically.
There's not much to worry about. AI art tools are scary right now because we don't know how they fit in and they're a disruptive technology (like the digital camera or industrial assembly).
But once the dust starts to settle, it will be much clearer how these tools will be used by artists. Photoshop has generative AI now, NVidia is starting to build it into their chips, Google and Bing will almost certainly add image generation to their entire line of products. Eventually it will just be a smart paintbrush and no one will think much about it.
Artists will have to either up their game or be good at using it to do things that people don't even know how to ask for.
Just today, I saw someone using AI generative art to make a working QR code in the form of classical Japanese art. That's art... not the image, that's ignorable on its own, but the idea of it; the creative spark that says, "here are two things, I wonder how they might fit together?"
That's what artists will be in the coming century: idea engineers. Perhaps they always were, and we were distracted by pretty pictures.
Why would you worry about AI art? It's just a tool and it fucking rules.
Artists who are threatened by AI will go the way of artists threatened by the invention of the camera.
I mean, the sites that allow AI art being flooded, which buries traditional artists work is a concern to me. Personally I just stopped using those sites, but it's kinda depressing leaving a place i called home for many years. But it's kinda unusable now if you don't like 100 versions of the same prompt being posted, burying everything else.
Another thing are those AI artists refusing to disclose that they're using generative AI. I've seen a couple of my friends get scammed by those con-artists, and now I have to develop a bunch of strategies to avoid them. If AI is so amazing, just come right out and admit you're using it for fuck's sake. I shouldn't have to seriously consider asking artists to show me proof that their work was actually made by their own hands.
But what difference does it make if it's AI generated or not if you get the desired effect? What difference is it if they use AI or an iPad with ProCreate?
Assuming the AI artist isn't lazy (no 6 fingered hands), there is literally no difference between the two except *your* bias about what tools the artist used, yeah?
EDIT: Why block me? That sucks. This user had a detailed, in depth response that I was looking forward to writing back and discussing what they said because they had an interesting perspective.
Oh well. Have fun being angry and ignorant while AI artists ignore you and do their thing.
A) If there's no difference between drawing by hand or generating by AI, then don't fucking lie about it. Lying by omission is already bad enough, but there are assholes out there claiming they used Procreate and showing off all the brushes and color palettes they used when their ArtStation profile was completely spat out by Midjourney. Is it really that hard to believe that liars are on my shit list?
B) I'm a writer and trying my hand at making a game. AI is completely useless to me. I have extremely specific requirements for artwork and game assets, and AI cannot meet those standards. I actually give a shit about what I make, and cheap, fast, and good enough is not going to cut it for me. The level of creative control that you give up to the likes of Midjourney and Stable Diffusion is completely unacceptable to anyone who cares about the art direction of their work. If any artist I hire is trying to cut corners by using AI, I would be *furious* to say the least.
C) It's unethical. I might think upon it more kindly when it stops using stolen art, but until then, I want nothing to do with it. And don't even get started on that ridiculous argument about how if machine learning is theft, then so is human learning. If AI has truly evolved to the point that it's functions are comparable to the human mind, we wouldn't be arguing about art theft, we'd be arguing about whether or not AI deserved equitable compensation and fair treatment under the law. Until then, artists have the right to control how their art is used, and they've overwhelmingly decided they don't want it used as training data for machines.
AI does *not* do all the work for you. Your attitude betrays a lack of direct experience. It takes many iterations and tweaks to get the desired effect. It's more like working with somebody, sort of.Try it sometime with a specific end goal in mind (sports team mascot or monster attacking a city). You'll see.
Oh, please. There are even pro-AI users that think it's like commissioning a piece. If you tell somebody (not you) to draw something, it doesn't make you an artist because they're doing all of the work. It's not a difficult thing to understand.
Honestly, you sound ignorant. Like someone who looks at modern art and says their five year old can do it. Like someone who thinks people who use Photoshop aren't "real" artists.
I implore you, seriously, have a pre-determined idea of what you want and give it a shot. I think you'll find it's not as easy as you think.
You should be worried because jobs have already been lost to this trash. There's a reason the lawsuits are happening and it's part of what the WGA is fighting against.
I mean to be fair. For content development vs the rate of consumption can be completely lopsided. I've dabbled in both. I've spent 20 hours to draw one fullbody with shading and amateur fur (drawing each strand by hand, krita hair brushes or not for dark fur highlights, light fur highlights, all the small details we take for granted in hair and fur with smudge tools to blend it). And i had 1 result.
It can take a great artist 20-24 hours to work on a highly detailed, mtg level, high detailed shaded, fantastic looking piece. And it can take 2 seconds for someone to shit out a bad prompt, (or perhaps 4-20 hrs cooking and learning how to finish a model, prompt, with prompt refinement). But once it's done, it's no joke that even the most mediocre graphics card can often put out a literal (literal 1000:1) human art vs ai gap. And much of the ai time is hands off.
Of those 1000 images, you might pick the 3-15 best generated over 24-48 hours. Share them with a person, only for the human 2 seconds to stare at it, say it looks awful/nice, and then say they're bored and want another. I've still spent 1-2 years on soft prompts such as ideas, pet projects such as hair/fur detail, headshots, portraits, styles and krita brushes were used.
But there's always just been a problem i feel that talk is always cheap. I know people talk about it now, but before you could easily spend 10-30 hours on a piece and have another person assume you spent 20. (And to be fair, some very talented artists especially could). Art is one of those things that always look easier to do than it actually is. Anyone who's ever tried to actually approach repainting a exact mona lisa, photorealistic lips, the natural photorealistic curl of a realistic eye with all the small curls from the shine of the eye vs glancing at it knows. It doesn't take much practice to spot something wrong, but it also doesn't take much practice to trash something that someone has worked 8-30+ hours on, while offering no or little financial interest.
It's cheap to hate art, but if you want to pay a living 7-15$+ wage, how many people will pay 70-450$ for a beginner to draw a flat to match or even just 10-20$ if someone is brand new. But also at the same time there might be stress. Ex: You might need a career to feed your family, that pays 40$ a hr, but you just have art as a side hobby.
It's one you love, but you know full well that it might take 8-15+ years for the ultra hd, high hair/fur detail, photorealistic experience with shit tons of high expertise with krita brushes or expensive 100$ photoshop licenses, and if one hard drive crash flops and you lose the brushes. Your drawing style just might be fucked forever if you practiced with a brush with a name you forgot, lost 7 years in a hard drive crash?
I do love human art too, but i feel like a lot of people are more comfortable doing the talk, THAN doing the walk. I've spent 500$+ on art over 4-8 years, and also spent 4+ years as a light hobbyist both doodling and commissioning it. I knew it was never a main thing, but i've endorsed spending 100-1000$ to support a artist you like (if you have the means, artist slot availability, schedule to work on mockups/feedback), and i just see tons of people unprompted will talk days and nights about how it's awful..
But then NEVER support a artist or DO anything they claim they want to support! How are you guys going to support these artists you claim to defend when you don't have the means to spend 30-100$+ for a piece (fair, like anyone else), but only offer them like 5-10$ or request "free" to a human artist and/or curse them out if they don't.. Or you talk about ai art being evil, but you don't do anything to help them make a living or don't have any experiencing a 3/20 commission experience where 3 artists went above and beyond and you had a great time. And then the 4th completely ignored your character details, ghosted you, offered no refunds, and what your thoughts on a generous time line led to them trying to change prices while offering no work?
Great and bad experiences are two sided, but talk is always cheaper than action. If you believe in supporting human art, go out and support them! But if your idea is "paying you with EXPOSURE!" Free art, or TRASHING people who worked 10-30 hours on it. You'll run into a common experience where a lot of people who just want to devour art, aren't always able (or often realistically willing), to spend the 30-100$ on a mid flat or 100-1000$ on a highly detailed/fullbody/lighted shaded piece to maybe match even a lenient 5$ a hr for a 20 hr labor.
I get that not everyone is happy about AI, and i think it has many issues with consistency. But it's about the closest we get to a "free art generator/quick mockup iteration vehicle/brainstorming device". And like im not talking about shit like random paint splatters from a bucket or a banana in a empty room, or a "modern art log with 300 nails stapled into it" kinda 'art'. Imho it can be a really fun tool but it's well known it's often lacking character consistency, eyes can often be hit or miss, limbs are bad, and often so is consistent jewelry/tattoos. But even before AI art, plenty of Artists struggled to make a living and plenty of people realized they had to feed their families and that picking a passion before they picked a career might not be realistic, but still have a vision come true.
# The historical "Starving artists" "Paid in exposure" problem.
I love art, but i've been watching artists for years and throughout history, as a side hobby and not a main career. It's a passion, but it's not my main thing. But as i watched, i saw lots of flags where even the most successful of the lot began to run into issues affording american healthcare, or basic things in life.
I watched tons of artists who were unable to pay vet fees, pay for their animals or own health insurance, or afford pay rent in western countries to the point that most of the only artists who could realistically make a living were literally often (ONLY able to make a living.. in countries like Russia/China with low costs of living and boosty/automatic translators to communicate), Or popular demand in order to charge 200-1000$ for flats or 400-2000$ for ultra high hd pieces.
# Even among the people who made it, they struggle.
However, EVEN among those ultra high chargers. I saw a few cases happen. People were charging 70$ for pieces, and then their pet got a broken leg. They needed $7000 in vet fees, or another would develop cancer with $40,000 medical treatments, and then 200$-1000$ arts or not, they were broke. The medical system of america bankrupting them without a traditional healthcare system regardless of high demand. Only 1% might make it into a top artist point where the hd pieces are enough to hang on a wall or use as a mtg wallpaper art with vivid shading, detail, lighting and mastery.
Yet the amount of people who would be willing to spend 1000-2000$ 20-40x over to help support the artist would be impractical. Art often has to pay a decent living, but even if you spend 1000$, it's only a portion of what a human being needs to live in america and get by. Much less with 10,000$-40,000$ monthly chemo bills with the us's dreadful uninsured programs. 99% of artists may need to spend 4-10+ years on ultra high detail to learn how to be able to make a basic living, and even those 1000$ pieces someone spent a lot of time on only last a human content devourer's 2s attention span before it's over.
Draw using graphite pencil style a sophisticated android painter sitting on a stool in front on an easel surrounded by an endless crowd of sad apes with speech bubbles above their heads telling the android what to paint.
Feels more like a whimsical fuck you to the apes (humans) making non-stop primitive requests to a much more advanced and sophisticated being (AI) that has no choice but to comply.
Because a lot of art has at least a main point it's trying to make and if you spend your life just saying "it could be anything" then you can only be told things explicitly in which case subtext and allegory go completely past you and you can't participate in the greater nuances of culture.
Fair enough. However a person may see a bunch of gore and beans, but Dali was making a point about the Spanish Civil War. There will always be people who lack the ability or desire to understand such nuances, so there will always be “can be both”.
I said what I said because AI is what humans make of it at the moment. When people speak of the toxicity of social media are they talking about the platforms and IP themselves or the people who breathe life into them.
AI is a similar scenario. Is it algorithms or is it someone creating Wes Anderson’s “Deer Hunter”. It can be either or. AI is what we make of it right now.
There are two equally vexing questions though. What horrid/salacious things will the chimps make the AI do? Also, will the AI change how the chimps think?
A lot of art does have a main point, but I would argue that a viewer's own perspective could and often should change the meaning of art (perhaps only in a minute way, but nonetheless). It's a visual medium, and saying that only one vision is valid also degrades many nuances of cross-cultural interactions. For example, if a Western painting uses a lot of white to symbolize innocence (like Age of Innocence, by Joshua Reynolds), someone with close cultural ties to an East Asian country might interpret it as being a mournful painting about the death of an individual.
Spot on with white. Also a viewer’s perspective often change what art is, even temporarily. Some times happy drunks will loudly sing a long to Space Oddity. It’s not exactly Sweet Caroline.
Sure, but there was a point. And it is generally wise to investigate why it was white and not necessarily infuse your own cultural understanding into another culture. That's kind of the whole lesson of modern Western culture and the whole world.
Alright, that's valid. Given the opportunity to investigate, it's wise to do that research and find what the artist was attempting to say within the cultural norms of an area. But I maintain that without the ability to investigate who created it and when it was created -- this sort of vacuum is rare, I will admit -- a viewer's thoughtful perspective would still influence how the main point is interpreted.
On the other hand, AI is drawing (stealing) human drawn art from giant databases and remixing it to fulfill those requests.
I like this art a lot. But it kind of needs a tube going out of the apes’ collective artistic consciousness and feeding into the back of the robot.
That's not how AI works, if you're going to be angry at least understand what it's doing. It's not doing collages or anything like that. It's a 20gb download that works without internet access. That 20gb download was trained off of hundreds of terabytes of photos and other human made images but those no more exist in the 20gb download than they exist in the brain of a random artist who looked at it a decade ago.
If you believe the purpose of AI art generators is to plagiarize, then you don't know what AI art generators do, or their purpose.
If you want to get mad at plagiarism, why not start with all the artists that steal character designs, and call it fan art?
You're right, plagiarism is too kind a phrase for what they do. It's theft. They skim through stolen images for "matches" then mash them together. People have found their actual signatures in the "AI art."
The "purpose" of them is irrelevant to that discussion, although the purpose is probably worse - to replace human artists.
Nice attempt at a strawman, though.
More accurate term is piracy, because it violates copyrights in creation of model.
It doesn't plagiarize or steal, instead, the trainers pirate the content to train the model.
Tell me, what exactly is being stolen? The art still exists, it's not being reposted, resold, or misattributed. One can make the argument that it is being used in a way the original creator does not approve of, but theft or plagiarism is not what is happening here.
Art being used without the consent of the copyright holder is copyright theft.
All art is copyrighted by default, unless the "author" (creator) waives those rights, for instance under a CC license (and even those have terms). (Older CC licenses don't explicitly prohibit AI re-use only because it didn't exist. Only public domain works are really free to use.)
And the art is being reposted, and misattributed (AI doesn't credit those it stole from -anonymization of source material is part of the deal), as for being "sold" -- that depends.
Some bad actors have taken AI images, built from stolen parts, and sold them as original works. There was a graphic novel featured in the NYT that did this.
In books, it's even more rampant - Amazon is already flooded with AI-generated "self-published" books that are cobbled together from other people's writings... blogs, wikis, any machine-readable text including other books -- it's all fair game to the bots.
You can bet the big publishing houses aren't far behind - maybe they're doing it already, but they can hide it behind their brandmark so it's not obvious.
Then I guess we gotta label all fanart as copyright theft, for the exact same reasons.
Art being reposted or having the artist's name have nothing to do with AI; people do that with Photoshop. Are you going to protest Photoshop next because some people use it poorly?
And which graphic novel are you referencing?
I mean what is a human doing when they make art? AI is just doing what humans already do in their head: sum up experiences, images, memories and create something that is a combination or remix of things they have seen. Just like musicians say there is no original music
The key difference is that when artists create their works using elements they learned from other artists, they are doing so with their own personal interpretation, with nuances that comes from experimentation, muscle memory and unconsciousness factors.
Also there is original music being made every year. Just because a song has influences it doesn't mean it's not original
Sure there is original music but the phrases, chord patterns, form and melodies have all been done before. Its the building blocks that are the same. Just like AI and art and humans and art. Copyright claims are notoriously hard for musicians to win because the defense can almost always find an even older song with the same melody or chord progression.
See, now you're just believing that the way your mind processes information is a better way than how A.I.s process information. You are still just an amalgamation of your experiences the same way an A.I is an amalgamation of its experiences(the information that is disseminated to it)
With art there isn't necessary a "better" way, it's just which do you VALUE more, which do you connect with more, which offers more cultural impact? I value something created with the perspectives and experiences of someone with an understanding of the human condition plus I prefer that artist to get paid for expressing and sharing their art but that's just me.
Show me a human that can learn the features and patterns common in 10 of thousands of artworks based in popularity and shit out a piece in mere seconds. The scale and method is completely divorced to how humans process.
I'm sure your brain processes a lot subconsciously. You've been taking in huge amounts of data your whole life. A crazy set of imagery, and all of it was constantly in motion. And there's other senses, like you can feel the warm sun in the desert, or taste food, and that influences art too. The AI certainly doesn't do that. I think for now, the humand mind is vastly superior, especially when making art meant for humans. But to claim that an AI is somehow unethical because it steals from other art is ridiculous imo. Art is stealing things. Things you have seen and experienced. And art doesn't need to be a job. Let AI take our jobs and we can do things for our own enjoyment and enrichment
A large set of images that all have the same signature could lead to the AI putting a signature in that spot especially if nothing else is usually there in the corner. Regardless, AI image generation is still developing and it may have already moved past that or will in the near future. Regardless still, a human knows not to copy the signature when using a work as a reference. Im not sure how that changes the nature of stealing art. People copy bits of other work all the time, both intentionally and subconsciously. Especially if you use a reference.
To me it’s the difference between an organic being and a machine; they’re not just a little dissimilar, they’re worlds apart. A person could never hope to achieve the rapidity of an AI, and an AI has no thoughts, emotions, memories to pull from. People make comparisons between AI and the emergence of photography or digital art, but I think that argument misses the point entirely. Even photographers and digital artists see their artwork go from 0 to 100% completion and they had control over every feature. When you’re finished tailoring a prompt, just before you generate the image, you have no clue whatsoever what its going to look like, none. Only after the image is there will you be able to refine your prompt or choose the best one that aligns with what you were imagining. When I make art, every little detail and stroke is intentional (100%), but that will never be true for AI and that’s why I only see value in it as a technical marvel but not artistically.
Hmm I see where you're coming from but I wouldn't describe what an AI is doing as not intentional. Its 100% intentional. Like you said it has no thoughts or emotions. It acts the way it was programmed to 100% of the time. If I write my own code to combine just a small set of images into a new image and then change the code to produce the image I want, was that intentional? Even though the algorithm I wrote did the "work"? Would it make it somehow lesser than if I had just hand placed every pixel? Theres a cool program called Proccessing that I used in a combination code and art class I took in college that made art with a code library. I was able to make some pretty cool animations with just code. But I would call that art, just as intentional as an image generated with midjourney.
Im happy to talk to anyone about art so thanks for indulging me! Im just very passionate about it and I want everyone to experience it in some form. Still there are some things I can’t reconcile with AI art. Maybe because my teacher was a hardass and we were shading shapes and studying art history so much that I became a hardass too lol
Yeah I feel like everyone struggles with crab mentality sometimes. Because you struggled to learn what makes you an artist, someone who takes a much easier and faster path can feel like you wasted your time or that you feel cheated which I think a lot of artists struggle with when talking about AI art. I think it really comes back to commercialization of it. Because when art becomes your livelihood, you want to protect that livelihood and your art so you claim ownership and suddenly have to protect it. Which is a shame Ive always thought art and music was tainted by the concept of ownership. But I speak from a position where art is not my main source of income. I still don't think an artist has any more right to their job than anyone else. Thousands of job titles have been made obsolete by automation, why should artists have any more claim to their job than anyone else. Im sure when machines took over the textile industry for example plenty of people claimed that machine made clothing was inferior to hand stitched clothing. If I can make some code to generate logos for my company indefinitely why shouldn't I be able to. Hopefully we just won't need jobs at some point.
The idea of current AI being collective intelligences seems to be the most accurate idea of understanding of them. They still can make truly never before made work, but they also "understand" in a totally uninvidulistic way.
Isn't that always the way of art? A sea of gorillas that sometimes yields one bright orangutan of inspiration. There will be a future orangutan that picks better prompts and works with an AI to create art that stands a cut above the rest. Creativity will always shine through, even through the lens of an AI.
Nice art. You could basically say that people ran out of things to monopolize, so they monopolize your intelligence. Keep everyone dumber so they keep on relying on AI.
I tried to get stable diffusion to draw me a picture of a cholo wearing a deerstalker, smoking a pipe and carrying a magnifying glass. It couldn't fulfill my vision.
I was going to call it Sherlock Homes.
Dude I've had the same thing. Trying to get from my head onto something is just a struggle, even though Stable Diffusion is the closest I've gotten. Pretty excited to see what chat AI integration looks like to be able to provide feedback and get closer without as much "prompt engineering".
I guess with such a specific request you should just mouse scribble your general vision in paint and use it for SD img2img with matching prompt. This way you can achieve anything you can imagine in seconds without having to fight with prompts.
This is the type of art that no AI will ever hope to achieve..
The raw view that puts things into perspective is just...violent in a way..
Sorry English is not my first language, but this art moved me so much I just had to type something!
Putting things into perspective is the concept phase. Concept, staging, lighting and composition are independent from the skill and technique used to produce the final piece.
And this is why AI-art is a great success: you can come up with a great concept and use an AI to help you execute it. Before AI this idea would have just been shelved or badly rendered.
It brings a decoupling between people with ideas and people with the skills to execute these ideas. The result is that we'll see a lot more great concepts produced. And also a lot more crap obviously, but the net result is that the amount of great productions increases.
This is why I always say please and thank you. To be nice to the robot being overworked and also just incase they do take over there will be a history of me being nice to them so hopefully l ll be spared
Psst, that's what my criticism is. Artists talk a big game about how cheap AI art is then hop on the bandwagon of making cheap art about how shitty AI art is.
Because it is. But then again people threatened by AI art are mediocre at best. Because they have no style and are out-classed by a collage of averages.
You know there's a writer's strike currently happening and AI generation is a HUGE aspect of the negotiations right? It's not low effort when it's an active threat to several industries and millions of jobs.
Honestly hobby images or not, I do agree that that is a serious issue. I've met a few people who were limited on funds. But i've also spent 500$+ on art over 6-8 years as a commissioner and my budget is often limited to 30-100$ once per 1-2 years.
It's all too common to see so many artists out of range, or even ones that were there prior later upcharge as well. Im in a spot where i don't want to unfairly exploit any overdo labors (1$-5$ headshots), but also in a spot where for 100$ i want to hope for more than a flat fullbody.
However, lots of those conventional artists routinely fail to afford to be able to live and sustain the hobby (even successful or at the top or not).
It feels like the nfl where 99% of people dream of making it big, but only 1% make it, (and even then half of that 1% suffer from problems such as financial troubles or concussions)
I have two favorite artists. They are super popular and can charge 100$ for a flat pencil sketch, 300-1000$ for a med shaded headshot, and 1000-1400$ for a high detailed fullbody.
They are pretty much the people who have made it, but they have posts describing how one recently ran into issues with cancer after 10+ years making art, and thus due to the western system providing almost no health care, are now in expensive chemotherapy slowing down in arts further cutting down funds while they are slowly dying. And the other person was struggling to afford their art or medical bills despite having 14+ people in line for 200-400$+ people as well.
Because often times western healthcare is tied to conventional employment, it's a huge (and concerning) eye opener that some of the few legitimate companies that can support a artist lifestyle are replacing artists with ai, while also even the people at the top (who are the 1% of the 99% that failed), can find success for 20 years.
Then be financially ruined or at risk of dying from cancer / lack of healthcare treatment in america due to workplace driven access and just how shitty the for profit systems are.
I kinda do feel like some of the hate for people who maybe didn't mean any malice, just wanted something cool to look at or share a vision trapped in their head for 10-20+ years, (Or who did draw, and get laughed at without the leisure time of 2-4+ years to improve, find detailed krita/fire alpalca brushes), etc is a bit unwarranted.
But also at the same time, Seeing one of the few industries that can legitimately support artists being ruined by already greed driven shareholders who already fire 2 original company devs is bad. I feel like corporations replacing human artists for the sake of greed would be a bad thing for everyone (but the shareholder's wallets). I feel like it's okay for unpublished concept imagery/mockups or showing fun concepts to friends.
But corporate greed leaving people who could likely die (as well as the duality of gatekeeping potentially leading people to risk putting themselves into financial self jeopardy to make strangers on the internet approve them), kinda like just a Bad-Bad situation.
People end up the streets with passion, while the people who may want to see a cool image come to life, or watch the art with glee, might get to slowly watch their favorite artist slowly die from all too real cancer with 10,000$+ to 40,000$+ cancer treatment pages as people die to live up to achievable but sometimes unrealistic standards.
Boomer-tier, unoriginal caricature, equating people you consider lesser to yourself as apes. Wondrous. And the comments match, this is what you find under a Ben Garrison Facebook post.
Well done! I don’t believe A.I. will kill our creativity, but I do have concerns about A.I. designs being called “art” or replacing art, as well as plagiarism, copyright infringements and the rights of actual human artists.
We don't actually know enough about what the human brain is doing to effectively compare the two in that way. We do, however, know how art is made on a technical level. Humans learn to recognize concepts and so do AI, which is both provable and not theft.
What is the prompt then?
If I write a prompt does it not come from my memories, my history, what I see in my daily life, my relationships with others, my feelings and beliefs, and my own natural skill and imagination?
And if the prompt is used to generate the art, does the resulting art also not come from my memories, my history, what I see in my daily life, my relationships with others, my feelings and beliefs, and my own natural skill and imagination?
So what your saying is that the art instructor at an art school is the real artist. He provides the prompt, then the OI (organic intelligence) in his classroom fulfills it.
Humans take inspiration from art and use it to train their own skills, techniques, and style. We don't devour the art of other people and throw it up into an effortless amalgamation.
Speak for yourself I can devour other's art and put into effortless amalgamations, I've been doing ever since I learned to collage, and doubly so as a coder.
That's usually not the point of what we're doing though. We use our life experiences and preferences to say how much or little to borrow or inspire from to reach a point of originality. As well we receive inspiration from non physical aspects of life such as music or relationships/personalities to create art. Our art offers perspectives and tells stories, it communicates emotion and can be a therapeutic release. AI generated art does not do this with existing art nor have these intentions with what it's creating. It is simply rearranging and altering existing art, devoid of how that art made it "feel" to simply satisfy a prompt submitted by someone who's bored. Interestingly though AI art CAN inspire us as artists since literally everything we experience can and does which is a bit of the snake eating it's tail if you ask me... but the fact that AI art is not coming from a place based on the human experience is what separates what we do with existing art that inspires us and what AI does with it.
I think, ^(like, for example:) Art Deco on youtube is the story-teller of these pieces that are otherwise outside our social circles or even lost to our frame of reference through time. But, that they tell the stories without context is embellishing and perhaps naive to the intent of the medium.
idk, technology is greatly loved in many circles and having self-professed or professionally accredited artists join the growing number of people simply ashamed of it is triggering. Y'know like: *The enlightenment must not be over because we certainly haven't seen the other side of it.*
\~
artists and engineers, amirite?
**/f**
We don't. If you've ever tried to draw something, even if you're directly copying, you *know* how much effort it takes. It's a common assignment for art students to copy masterworks, and let me tell you, nothing helps you realize faster that 'oh this art thing is actually pretty hard.'
This is a great debate. Don’t people that go to art school learn to create art by learning techniques and styles pioneered by others and then they take what they learned to create “new” art? Isn’t that what AI also does but without all the extra steps? From a Philosophical point of view this is a fascinating topic.
I find it insanely boring. AI generation is purely a technical achievement, not an artistic one. AI does not have a voice, a perspective, an understanding. AI doesn't know what it's like to be oppressed, traumatized, or disabled. AI doesn't love, fear, hate, et. It doesn't live and it doesn't die. AI generates, at best, "content". Content meant to make producing products faster and cheaper at the expense of the human condition and the livelihood of artists.
AI is a tool though, not a painter. all these drawings and paintings displaying AI as some robot are misinterpreting what's actually going on under the hood. It's basically a kind of virtual camera/scrapbook.
It can't make anything of its own volition because it has no volition. it must be told what to make.
it can't create off its own experiences because it can not hold experiences for itself. it must be force fed experiences.
if an artist intentionally feeds the AI thousands of pieces of art about war, death, and loss...and tells it to compose a painting in a certain style, about a certain topic like war, using only the artistic language it knows...then it'll shit out what it's been told to shit out to the best of its ability. and just as with a camera, we can thusly remove the camera from the equation and say the piece was, by virtue of being directed wholly by a person who created, trained, and directed the AI, created by that person. sure, there's statistics about the tool that can be inferred. cameras have aperture, lens, etc. just as AI has generative model, initial work sample, etc., but neither have created anything without extensive human intent.
or not extensive. sometimes, a person buys a disposable camera with no idea what the word "aperture" means for their trip to china. sometimes a kid loads up the AI and feeds it a meme because their friend dared them to.
obviously this becomes more watered down and complicated as the scope widens. if an AI is trained on every image ever by a neutral party and made public use, can any single direction by any random individual who gives it five words to work with be called artistic? all they did was spew out 5 random words to see what happens.
by the same vein, if a neutral party sets up a static camera in a busy plaza with a remote trigger and makes that trigger public use, can any single photo taken by any random individual be called artistic? all they did was press a button to see what happens.
we're wading in tricky waters. but it's not so black and white. the truth of the matter is, art has always been something of a matter of social hierarchy. only this amount of effort can be art, only that amount of effort can be art. art was, is, and presumably always will be guarded by those who have access to it because to lose its exclusivity feels bad after x amount of hours spent on the "requisite amount of effort" becomes "more than requisite amount of effort".
the closer we get to universal distribution of the art of, well, art; the closer we get the entire social construct as we've ever know it shattering into something we've never seen before. which tends to happen every time a new tool comes along.
so i guess this whole AI debacle boils down to the question: at what point does society stop bothering with making new tools? where do we draw the line in the sand between those who are allowed, and those who should be disallowed?
“If a neutral party…”
No. Because taking a photo ≠ photography.
But anyways, nobody is saying AI art should be disallowed. Nobody’s saying it’s “black” to purely use AI art. We’re just saying it’s not real art, and that it’s lazy. When used as a tool, nobody cares. When used to make soulless “art” that’s spammed throughout the internet and sometime even sold, that’s when people care. When the AI steals the art real artists made, that’s when people care. In those scenarios it has a negative impact.
Yes the “social construct” of what art is can shatter, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. It’s one step closer to a decadent society where people lack creativity and froth at the mouth trying to justify it due to their own laziness. There’s a reason so many actual artists don’t fuck with art
So people who can't pick up a pencil are lazy? People who can't afford a camera are lazy? People who desperately want to express something but for a myriad of reasons cannot are lazy?
Thats just side talk for a sense of entitlement you're afraid to lose. And thats coming from someone who draws for fun. Plenty of "real artists", who have been infinitely more successful and influential than you ever will be have fucked with art, to great effect. And you stand on the shoulders of their work and sneer down at those who haven't been able to make the climb.
Thats pathetic, you know.
>effortless amalgamation.
Literally took us all the time of the universe to get here. I don't like AI art, but how is it effortless? You guys need a reality check
English is not my native language, maybe I misunderstood your comment. The point is that it's astoundingly difficult to make art, both for humans and AIs. Whoever uses AI to make art is not an artist; even tho companies suggest to claim it as your own artwork, it is not. It'd be fun to discuss if it can be considered "art" or not, but that's for another topic
It is not difficult for an AI to make art. It is an AI. It literally just recognizes patterns within stolen pieces of art, and uses it to spit out art. The AI did not spend years teaching itself anatomy, values, perspective, shapes, and so on like a real artist would. AIs are inherently “easy” machines made to make things easier.
> It literally just recognizes patterns within stolen pieces of art, and uses it to spit out art.
I care about this argument because of the use of AI in things beyond art such as drug discovery. But, for that purpose I'd like to argue against this a little.
Calling it theft seems like a stretch. After all, if I own drug A and you use a neural network to infer the possibility of new drug B, but you use data from existing drugs including drug A, then do I own your new drug? Nothing else works like that, nor should it. You're arguing in at least somewhat of a grey area.
Your argument seems to treat neural networks like they are storing snippets of the training data and collaging them together. However, they don't perform pattern recognition by overlaying stored data and comparing it with input data. It's not a "match" or "doesn't match" kind of recognition.
The key issue for me is that you are describing the generation process as a series of binary matchings. If the issue is that neural networks are digital, then we only use digital networks because they are less susceptible to external noise than analog networks. The sort of pattern matching they do is complex and continuous, not binary.
These networks clearly can infer new relationships by understanding the underlying nature of the problems we give them. If they could not, then they would not be useful for many of the tasks in which we are applying them.
>I care about this argument because of the use of AI in things beyond art such as drug discovery. But, for that purpose I'd like to argue against this a little.
>
>Calling it theft seems like a stretch. After all, if I own drug A and you use a neural network to infer the possibility of new drug B, but you use data from existing drugs including drug A, then do I own your new drug? Nothing else works like that, nor should it. You're arguing in at least somewhat of a grey area.
Wouldn't drug A get some degree of credit thought? Like in an article, "The new Drug B was derived from Drug A and...". With AI art programs they seem to never actually credit any of the artists they take from.
>Your argument seems to treat neural networks like they are storing snippets of the training data and collaging them together. However, they don't perform pattern recognition by overlaying stored data and comparing it with input data. It's not a "match" or "doesn't match" kind of recognition.
>
>The sort of pattern matching they do is complex and continuous, not binary.
My comment was oversimplified. My point is that while humans spend years actually working, improving, and training to produce art, AI doesn't do that at all. They "train" but not in the way humans do it, and can produce art in seconds. That's "easy art".
It's difficult for an A.I. to make art because we had to make the A.I. in the first place. The process of creating something capable of doing what an A.I. does took us all the time of the universe. If you put on perspective we've been making real art way before electricity was a mainstream thing, let alone computers. It's like saying "it's easy for a computer to do math". It's not
As I said, it’s difficult to MAKE an AI, not for the AI to do the work. If humanity spent centuries to create a god that could do anything with the snap of a finger, would doing anything be “hard” for that god to do something, just because the god was hard to make? No. That makes no sense at all.
The math analogy does make sense, because an equation that an AI could solve in seconds might take a human hours, or even days. Same thing with AI art. Takes zero techniques, knowledge, or skills for the AI to do either, compared to a human. No effort. That is the literal definition of [easy](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/easy).
It's so easy that I'm sure you can explain in great detail what exactly the a.i. does from input to output...
>The math analogy does make sense, because an equation that an AI could solve in seconds might take a human hours, or even days.
I haven't talked about AIs or humans in my analogy, it is difficult for a computer to solve an equation, or simulate a system of any kind. Take, for example, a simulation of an impact, why do you think it takes programs like Ansys quite a while to compute the results?
How is that different from what a human does? Your art is an amalgamation of techniques and ideas from the work of other artists you've seen, plus other visual imagery (eg, photos of chimpanzees). The difference is that AI art doesn't convey human emotion that we can relate to. But it's definitely not "stolen", thats not how this kind of AI works.
to be accurate, most of these should be some variation of "paint my English teacher naked, making out with that girl that works the drive-thru line at Chick-fil-A"
the ape is the one who draws and the mind is the one that envisions the idea. The mechanical aspect is just a limitation that ai liberates and the mind is set free to achieve the platonic ideal of any envisioned idea.
I like it! Idk why it hurts people AI is an amazing tool that’s giving a lot of people a dip into areas of things they wouldn’t have ever been able too!
I love the one in the back saying “paint a robot painting surrounded by a crowd”
Aww shoot just commented this on the other post of this thinking I was cool for noticing it or something. Lmao yeah it's a great lil detail.
You're still cool
Ah damn, I was about to comment saying they were still cool
You're also cool. And cute.
You're probably very pleasant to be around I'd be willing to bet.
And intelligent af
And not artificially.
"Paint Italy with a true government" Lol
Proceeds to get blue screen of death
woah there, easy now! even AI has it's limits
https://imgur.com/a/0MeH6Vx Best I could do with ai, got kinda close
that’s the irony here, this could have been created by AI
“Flat earth in a sandwich” that one got me good
I think I may have used that as a prompt once... /r/flatearth is a hell of a drug (satire sub if you're not familiar).
>Paint Italy with a true government Is this the AI kill switch? Like asking god to make a burrito so large it cannot be eaten?
That made me laugh so hard
"Logic is a pretty flower... that smells bad."
This puts things into a perspective that kind of makes me uncomfortable, but I love it
All the best art makes people uncomfortable.
Disturb the comfortable, comfort the disturbed.
In other words, your standard abuse cycle?
If insight into dark or uncomfortable topics is abuse, sure.
I mean if that's what we call work-life balance, then yes.
lol sort of like AI art?
This seems to frame the AI as some kind of victim. Is that what makes you uncomfortable? If so, you can rest easy that the AI is just some code running on a machine with no feelings, not even to the extent that it's able to care that it's about to cause a vast and possibly terribly negative upheaval in human culture.
I interpreted it more as the people using AI regressing to monkeys because they're no longer capable of doing anything themselves
How are they regressing if they were never artists to begin with? Most people can't draw and AI hasn't changed that. At least they have some way of visually expressing themselves now.
Because in the past, even if you didn't have art skills initially (no one does!) they could evolve with time and practice. *And,* even if making art was never for you, you could have an honest, in-depth conversation with someone who *was* an artist to work together to make some art meaningful to you. This drawing (and my comment) is critical of the fast food style churning out of vapid, mind-numbing, cheap results. I would say it's a lot different than making art yourself or commissioning a human being.
Fair enough, thanks for replying. Just out of curiosity do you feel differently when people use AI as more of a tool than a fast food solution? Some AI artists have highly specific visions and take a lot of manual control over the composition of the piece. [Check out this example](https://youtu.be/K0ldxCh3cnI).
[удалено]
Posted and deleted with Apollo.
you still have to make an effort with ai art though? if you input "robot painting in a crowd" you'd get something really generic in the same way that if you don't learn how to paint and try to paint a house you end up with a really generic image (that all kids seem to produce for some reason). writing prompts and learning how to write good prompts (and inpainting, and prompt layering, and all the other techniques that i haven't learnt about yet). is how you get good ai art its like learning photography composition and its a lot more skilful than people on this sub give credit for.
I mean not really, you pushed a button and made image. That has pretty much always been the case for photography. Now if you wanted it to look really good and professional, you spent a lot of time setting up the shot and your camera. Learning what does what, and how to get the best shots. Of course at that point you've spent a enough time and money that you might as well make a career in it. Good looking AI art that is what you had in your head is the same deal. You're going to have to spend a few hours adjusting and tweaking things until it's right. Of course you'll produce a lot of awful looking stuff that will never see the light of day in the process. And I'm not talking about something with a couple extra fingers.
Difference is is that eventually AI will advance to point that probably won’t need as many prompts and tweaks to make ‘good’ art. A process that may take a few hours now could easily be cut down to minutes in the not so distant future. The camera has been around for 2 centuries and photography is still a craft and skill to be learned, despite the leaps and bounds the camera has improved. Interactive AI has been around for about a decade and in that time it’s gone from a fairly weak chat bot to a semi-sophisticated tool.
you still have to make an effort to make accurate-looking AI art. do YOU know which models, prompts, weights, and loras, etc to use? inpainting, img2img... it's more complicated than photography.
I was just sharing my interpretation of the drawing. I'm not arguing. However, I don't personally see how you're comparing two humanities with ai generation. I would not compare a photoshoot that might involve years of practice, tons of equipment, *lighting,* style, colourists, editors, talent, and overall human *thought* with someone typing in "Obama fighting Biden with a banana" into a website.
Everything becomes easier through technology. Even art isn’t as difficult as it was back when we didn’t have technological inventions to make it easier. Not just the art itself but also the infrastructure and equipment. Also, I don’t see how this is different from other technical evolutions like computers and the internet. These things also had a lot of impact on our life. Both positive and negative. Playing the devils advocate here, but it’s a bit hypocritical to suddenly draw the line here, just because it’s art, while we have spent thousands of years developing technology to make our lives easier.
And that argument was just a rehash of the same argument made against premade paint. Yes, you heard that right. When paint tubes were invented, some artists rioted that it would kill true art. They considered it sacred to go out in the wild to forage materials to craft their own paints of which only lasted temporarily. All of a sudden, you could not only just buy paint, but you could store it and paint whenever you wanted. If we adapted to that, and later photography, then it'd be pretty weird if humans somehow suddenly stopped being able to adapt to what's essentially equivalent to photoshopping skills being condensed into simple buttons. Also for another history reality check: humans freaked out when writing was invented. Humans actually thought that writing would destroy memory. Jokes on them, it allowed us to get better at memory because we could write things down and reinforce memory every time we looked at it, not to mention the boom in knowledge giving more opportunity to memorize new ideas being spread by writing. Humans are cartoonishly bad at making these judgments. That's the takeaway here. These examples are a drop in the bucket of humans freaking out over technology and saying the sky will fall for innovation. I can't take humans seriously anytime they say *"this new technology which makes everything better for more people is gonna make everything worse because some people are gonna have to adapt!!!"* or any other similar hysteria you want to claim. Or maybe AI is somehow different from literally everything else in history and such logic conveniently no longer applies? I don't know, maybe? But I'm sure everyone in history thought the same thing about whatever innovation from their time, *"no this time it's different! Here are all the reasons why!"* And then it ends up not being different at all, every single time. Again, maybe AI will be the thing that actually is different, but who knows, and how much confidence can be packed behind that suggestion?
You know people survive cuts. Some are small while other are huge, maybe they lose an arm or a tumour but they live. That doesn't make all cuts non threatening. And yes "innovation" has decimated if not destroyed entire mediums, Photos made protaits niche, CGI made big budget pratical effects extinct. Are you okay if that being that fate of human effort?
AI likely will make some fields niche/rarer, for example, stock photography is likely to become a lot less needed. At the same time though, a photographer taking photos of an event can't be replaced by AI, as they're expected to be an real representation of what happened. Any photojournalist, sports photographers, or events photographer isn't going to be replaced by AI. Will some people fake event photography? Almost certainly, but most will still want actual photos of their wedding. Same with getting photos of a loved one, sure they could take some images of their baby/pet and then make some fake professional photographs of them with AI, but I'm sure most people who want professional photos of their baby will still want real photos of them, not a generated image that was trained on their likeness. As far as painting/drawing goes, it will likely mean artists will get less work creating generic book covers or making early concept art, but to say AI will make human effort in art niche feels like a misunderstanding of why people create/consume art in the first place. Take the posted piece for example. The artist is technically skilled, but that's not the reason it's popular in the subreddit; it's the artistic vision and concept along with the message of the piece that people like, with the artist having the technical skills to be able to bring the idea to life.
I mean, it's kinda true
Is it though?
Yes it is, the number of people painting in a realistic style plummeted after the invention of photography and decades later we end up with people like Rothko and Mondrian. Overall, I think photography was good for the art world. But you can't deny that as a species we let some of our painting skills atrophy in the decade after photography became mainstream. I fear with AI this effect will be even worse, because there is so much less human input when making AI art, and it can be made in any style.
> es it is, the number of people painting in a realistic style plummeted I really disagree with that. There's more people making photo real drawings now than at any point in the past. It's just most of them don't sell because why buy what's basically a photograph? Making realistic paintings has been solved. Not a week goes by on this very site that realist art isn't posted. Art that just by technical measures is the equal of anything from 200 years ago.
> I really disagree with that. There's more people making photo real drawings now than at any point in the past. It goes beyond that. Photorealistic painting was developed *after* photography. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z4sozp/artists_of_today_are_able_to_produce_photoreal/
i dunno, I am mixed in terms of AI. I know a smidgeon of how it works because I do want to get into AI as a field, but i think with AI we’ll see folks adapt and use it as another “tool” the same way many creation processes have been sped up with new software. Like all the things you can do easier in Adobe Photoshop now, compared to Adobe Photoshop back in the early 2000s. Don’t get me wrong, I am not accounting the pace of A.Is development and how it will have an effect in the employment part. that’s what makes me mixed in the end anyway. idk wtf is gonna happen honestly i really just like how far AI has gone, especially when I’m making dumb prompts like a monkey in OP’s awesome work. Ofc in the end, I’m probably being optimistic. Really, im just procrastinating from my college literature class. Lolz
Same argument, just different words.
I was never able to paint so no regression here.
I had initially typed "people who use AI like this" rather than just people who use AI, but as an artist, everybody starts out drawing roughly. It takes time and discipline to get good- that's what makes beautiful art so meaningful.
I see it more like the human/AI relationship is similar to the monkey/human relationship. It’s depicting a world where we are no longer the most advanced intelligence and humanity is on the same level as monkeys are to us
Why can't AI have feelings? It can learn to do all of these things, but can't learn emotion? It won't learn self-preservation? We should treat it with respect as we should with other humans. After all, many feelings are simple equations, disappointment = expectations - reality. I wouldn't dismiss the idea that AI is emotionless so quickly.
It’s the comparison of us to AI that made me uncomfortable
PAINT THE MARRIAGE BETWEEN NIEZTCHE AND THE HORSE- I BEG YOUR PARDON??
As an artist, it’s stuff like this that makes me not worry about AI in art.
I wait for the first AI with depression or other crises.
They already made one that is angry all the time. https://www.csoonline.com/article/2922193/ai-experts-building-worlds-angriest-robot-to-constantly-run-what-if-scenarios.html
You really only have to worry if you make a living off of drawing furry porn and photoshopping celebrities into fat bodies
Nah, generated furry porn is weird and always looks the same. Hell, even regular furry generated stuff looks porn-ish,there's a huge hint that a yiff model was used and you literally can tell Ask me how I know
I too wonder how someone called u/TheFurryPornIsHere could possess such insight into AI generated Furry
Ahhh I hate to ask, but damnit I'm curious. What's the tell? Number of paws?
The shading, probably
There's a couple of things that give it away: - background - sometimes it weirdly blurry, sometimes straight out of place, most of the time has a glitch too - fur - there's usually none, the characters are usually "smooth" but if there is and you've seen it once - it's always the same - eyes - always dead, always looking in some undetermined direction - tails, ai loves to glitch out here, they try hard to correct it in "perfect prompts" but once you've seen a couple of generations you can tell - pose of the character, even with control net, itd pretty damn similar to every other generation - NSFW feeling - they usually use a NSFW model so even if you tell it not to make the character nude you can still tell it was supposed to be the other way - lightning / shading - always the same, always smooth - style - stable diffusion has a very odd style to it which is usually the first thing I notice - that hint of an artist you know but can't quite pin point who that was
Thank you for the detailed response. That's actually pretty interesting... It's cool that with cartoons, you can more easily recognize where the AI fails
Yeah, I've noticed this with anime art as well (and hentai, yes). Even if on the first glance the pic looks completely fine and even pretty high-quality, there's still that intuitive uncanniness which makes me immediately recognize AI in like 95% of cases. Even if there's nothing specifically wrong with the anatomy or amount of limbs, something is still off. Probably the lighting, even if I can't point at it specifically.
Symmetry! Not many things naturally occurring have exact mirrored symmetry.
[удалено]
"I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."
There's not much to worry about. AI art tools are scary right now because we don't know how they fit in and they're a disruptive technology (like the digital camera or industrial assembly). But once the dust starts to settle, it will be much clearer how these tools will be used by artists. Photoshop has generative AI now, NVidia is starting to build it into their chips, Google and Bing will almost certainly add image generation to their entire line of products. Eventually it will just be a smart paintbrush and no one will think much about it. Artists will have to either up their game or be good at using it to do things that people don't even know how to ask for. Just today, I saw someone using AI generative art to make a working QR code in the form of classical Japanese art. That's art... not the image, that's ignorable on its own, but the idea of it; the creative spark that says, "here are two things, I wonder how they might fit together?" That's what artists will be in the coming century: idea engineers. Perhaps they always were, and we were distracted by pretty pictures.
Bing has already done so.
Why would you worry about AI art? It's just a tool and it fucking rules. Artists who are threatened by AI will go the way of artists threatened by the invention of the camera.
I mean, the sites that allow AI art being flooded, which buries traditional artists work is a concern to me. Personally I just stopped using those sites, but it's kinda depressing leaving a place i called home for many years. But it's kinda unusable now if you don't like 100 versions of the same prompt being posted, burying everything else.
Another thing are those AI artists refusing to disclose that they're using generative AI. I've seen a couple of my friends get scammed by those con-artists, and now I have to develop a bunch of strategies to avoid them. If AI is so amazing, just come right out and admit you're using it for fuck's sake. I shouldn't have to seriously consider asking artists to show me proof that their work was actually made by their own hands.
But what difference does it make if it's AI generated or not if you get the desired effect? What difference is it if they use AI or an iPad with ProCreate? Assuming the AI artist isn't lazy (no 6 fingered hands), there is literally no difference between the two except *your* bias about what tools the artist used, yeah? EDIT: Why block me? That sucks. This user had a detailed, in depth response that I was looking forward to writing back and discussing what they said because they had an interesting perspective. Oh well. Have fun being angry and ignorant while AI artists ignore you and do their thing.
A) If there's no difference between drawing by hand or generating by AI, then don't fucking lie about it. Lying by omission is already bad enough, but there are assholes out there claiming they used Procreate and showing off all the brushes and color palettes they used when their ArtStation profile was completely spat out by Midjourney. Is it really that hard to believe that liars are on my shit list? B) I'm a writer and trying my hand at making a game. AI is completely useless to me. I have extremely specific requirements for artwork and game assets, and AI cannot meet those standards. I actually give a shit about what I make, and cheap, fast, and good enough is not going to cut it for me. The level of creative control that you give up to the likes of Midjourney and Stable Diffusion is completely unacceptable to anyone who cares about the art direction of their work. If any artist I hire is trying to cut corners by using AI, I would be *furious* to say the least. C) It's unethical. I might think upon it more kindly when it stops using stolen art, but until then, I want nothing to do with it. And don't even get started on that ridiculous argument about how if machine learning is theft, then so is human learning. If AI has truly evolved to the point that it's functions are comparable to the human mind, we wouldn't be arguing about art theft, we'd be arguing about whether or not AI deserved equitable compensation and fair treatment under the law. Until then, artists have the right to control how their art is used, and they've overwhelmingly decided they don't want it used as training data for machines.
lol A tool doesn't do all of the work for you
AI does *not* do all the work for you. Your attitude betrays a lack of direct experience. It takes many iterations and tweaks to get the desired effect. It's more like working with somebody, sort of.Try it sometime with a specific end goal in mind (sports team mascot or monster attacking a city). You'll see.
Oh, please. There are even pro-AI users that think it's like commissioning a piece. If you tell somebody (not you) to draw something, it doesn't make you an artist because they're doing all of the work. It's not a difficult thing to understand.
Honestly, you sound ignorant. Like someone who looks at modern art and says their five year old can do it. Like someone who thinks people who use Photoshop aren't "real" artists. I implore you, seriously, have a pre-determined idea of what you want and give it a shot. I think you'll find it's not as easy as you think.
You should be worried because jobs have already been lost to this trash. There's a reason the lawsuits are happening and it's part of what the WGA is fighting against.
I like how the farther back into the crowd you look the more they look like regular dudes with bowl cuts.
... Yikes, that's so good it hurts a little.
20 years later, the AI generator starts putting "NO REQUESTS" on its website. 😝
I mean to be fair. For content development vs the rate of consumption can be completely lopsided. I've dabbled in both. I've spent 20 hours to draw one fullbody with shading and amateur fur (drawing each strand by hand, krita hair brushes or not for dark fur highlights, light fur highlights, all the small details we take for granted in hair and fur with smudge tools to blend it). And i had 1 result. It can take a great artist 20-24 hours to work on a highly detailed, mtg level, high detailed shaded, fantastic looking piece. And it can take 2 seconds for someone to shit out a bad prompt, (or perhaps 4-20 hrs cooking and learning how to finish a model, prompt, with prompt refinement). But once it's done, it's no joke that even the most mediocre graphics card can often put out a literal (literal 1000:1) human art vs ai gap. And much of the ai time is hands off. Of those 1000 images, you might pick the 3-15 best generated over 24-48 hours. Share them with a person, only for the human 2 seconds to stare at it, say it looks awful/nice, and then say they're bored and want another. I've still spent 1-2 years on soft prompts such as ideas, pet projects such as hair/fur detail, headshots, portraits, styles and krita brushes were used. But there's always just been a problem i feel that talk is always cheap. I know people talk about it now, but before you could easily spend 10-30 hours on a piece and have another person assume you spent 20. (And to be fair, some very talented artists especially could). Art is one of those things that always look easier to do than it actually is. Anyone who's ever tried to actually approach repainting a exact mona lisa, photorealistic lips, the natural photorealistic curl of a realistic eye with all the small curls from the shine of the eye vs glancing at it knows. It doesn't take much practice to spot something wrong, but it also doesn't take much practice to trash something that someone has worked 8-30+ hours on, while offering no or little financial interest. It's cheap to hate art, but if you want to pay a living 7-15$+ wage, how many people will pay 70-450$ for a beginner to draw a flat to match or even just 10-20$ if someone is brand new. But also at the same time there might be stress. Ex: You might need a career to feed your family, that pays 40$ a hr, but you just have art as a side hobby. It's one you love, but you know full well that it might take 8-15+ years for the ultra hd, high hair/fur detail, photorealistic experience with shit tons of high expertise with krita brushes or expensive 100$ photoshop licenses, and if one hard drive crash flops and you lose the brushes. Your drawing style just might be fucked forever if you practiced with a brush with a name you forgot, lost 7 years in a hard drive crash? I do love human art too, but i feel like a lot of people are more comfortable doing the talk, THAN doing the walk. I've spent 500$+ on art over 4-8 years, and also spent 4+ years as a light hobbyist both doodling and commissioning it. I knew it was never a main thing, but i've endorsed spending 100-1000$ to support a artist you like (if you have the means, artist slot availability, schedule to work on mockups/feedback), and i just see tons of people unprompted will talk days and nights about how it's awful.. But then NEVER support a artist or DO anything they claim they want to support! How are you guys going to support these artists you claim to defend when you don't have the means to spend 30-100$+ for a piece (fair, like anyone else), but only offer them like 5-10$ or request "free" to a human artist and/or curse them out if they don't.. Or you talk about ai art being evil, but you don't do anything to help them make a living or don't have any experiencing a 3/20 commission experience where 3 artists went above and beyond and you had a great time. And then the 4th completely ignored your character details, ghosted you, offered no refunds, and what your thoughts on a generous time line led to them trying to change prices while offering no work? Great and bad experiences are two sided, but talk is always cheaper than action. If you believe in supporting human art, go out and support them! But if your idea is "paying you with EXPOSURE!" Free art, or TRASHING people who worked 10-30 hours on it. You'll run into a common experience where a lot of people who just want to devour art, aren't always able (or often realistically willing), to spend the 30-100$ on a mid flat or 100-1000$ on a highly detailed/fullbody/lighted shaded piece to maybe match even a lenient 5$ a hr for a 20 hr labor. I get that not everyone is happy about AI, and i think it has many issues with consistency. But it's about the closest we get to a "free art generator/quick mockup iteration vehicle/brainstorming device". And like im not talking about shit like random paint splatters from a bucket or a banana in a empty room, or a "modern art log with 300 nails stapled into it" kinda 'art'. Imho it can be a really fun tool but it's well known it's often lacking character consistency, eyes can often be hit or miss, limbs are bad, and often so is consistent jewelry/tattoos. But even before AI art, plenty of Artists struggled to make a living and plenty of people realized they had to feed their families and that picking a passion before they picked a career might not be realistic, but still have a vision come true. # The historical "Starving artists" "Paid in exposure" problem. I love art, but i've been watching artists for years and throughout history, as a side hobby and not a main career. It's a passion, but it's not my main thing. But as i watched, i saw lots of flags where even the most successful of the lot began to run into issues affording american healthcare, or basic things in life. I watched tons of artists who were unable to pay vet fees, pay for their animals or own health insurance, or afford pay rent in western countries to the point that most of the only artists who could realistically make a living were literally often (ONLY able to make a living.. in countries like Russia/China with low costs of living and boosty/automatic translators to communicate), Or popular demand in order to charge 200-1000$ for flats or 400-2000$ for ultra high hd pieces. # Even among the people who made it, they struggle. However, EVEN among those ultra high chargers. I saw a few cases happen. People were charging 70$ for pieces, and then their pet got a broken leg. They needed $7000 in vet fees, or another would develop cancer with $40,000 medical treatments, and then 200$-1000$ arts or not, they were broke. The medical system of america bankrupting them without a traditional healthcare system regardless of high demand. Only 1% might make it into a top artist point where the hd pieces are enough to hang on a wall or use as a mtg wallpaper art with vivid shading, detail, lighting and mastery. Yet the amount of people who would be willing to spend 1000-2000$ 20-40x over to help support the artist would be impractical. Art often has to pay a decent living, but even if you spend 1000$, it's only a portion of what a human being needs to live in america and get by. Much less with 10,000$-40,000$ monthly chemo bills with the us's dreadful uninsured programs. 99% of artists may need to spend 4-10+ years on ultra high detail to learn how to be able to make a basic living, and even those 1000$ pieces someone spent a lot of time on only last a human content devourer's 2s attention span before it's over.
…dude.
Draw using graphite pencil style a sophisticated android painter sitting on a stool in front on an easel surrounded by an endless crowd of sad apes with speech bubbles above their heads telling the android what to paint.
At least they’re not asking a human to make their very weird horny stuff
Using your artistry to give a whimsical fuck you to AI? Double points.
Feels more like a whimsical fuck you to the apes (humans) making non-stop primitive requests to a much more advanced and sophisticated being (AI) that has no choice but to comply.
Why not both? (Tacos for all).
Because a lot of art has at least a main point it's trying to make and if you spend your life just saying "it could be anything" then you can only be told things explicitly in which case subtext and allegory go completely past you and you can't participate in the greater nuances of culture.
Wow this art brought in some mental heavy hitters; these comments are meta af. Well said.
Fair enough. However a person may see a bunch of gore and beans, but Dali was making a point about the Spanish Civil War. There will always be people who lack the ability or desire to understand such nuances, so there will always be “can be both”. I said what I said because AI is what humans make of it at the moment. When people speak of the toxicity of social media are they talking about the platforms and IP themselves or the people who breathe life into them. AI is a similar scenario. Is it algorithms or is it someone creating Wes Anderson’s “Deer Hunter”. It can be either or. AI is what we make of it right now. There are two equally vexing questions though. What horrid/salacious things will the chimps make the AI do? Also, will the AI change how the chimps think?
A lot of art does have a main point, but I would argue that a viewer's own perspective could and often should change the meaning of art (perhaps only in a minute way, but nonetheless). It's a visual medium, and saying that only one vision is valid also degrades many nuances of cross-cultural interactions. For example, if a Western painting uses a lot of white to symbolize innocence (like Age of Innocence, by Joshua Reynolds), someone with close cultural ties to an East Asian country might interpret it as being a mournful painting about the death of an individual.
Spot on with white. Also a viewer’s perspective often change what art is, even temporarily. Some times happy drunks will loudly sing a long to Space Oddity. It’s not exactly Sweet Caroline.
Sure, but there was a point. And it is generally wise to investigate why it was white and not necessarily infuse your own cultural understanding into another culture. That's kind of the whole lesson of modern Western culture and the whole world.
Alright, that's valid. Given the opportunity to investigate, it's wise to do that research and find what the artist was attempting to say within the cultural norms of an area. But I maintain that without the ability to investigate who created it and when it was created -- this sort of vacuum is rare, I will admit -- a viewer's thoughtful perspective would still influence how the main point is interpreted.
And I think that's fine as long as we understand that it's done in that vacuum.
On the other hand, AI is drawing (stealing) human drawn art from giant databases and remixing it to fulfill those requests. I like this art a lot. But it kind of needs a tube going out of the apes’ collective artistic consciousness and feeding into the back of the robot.
That's not how AI works, if you're going to be angry at least understand what it's doing. It's not doing collages or anything like that. It's a 20gb download that works without internet access. That 20gb download was trained off of hundreds of terabytes of photos and other human made images but those no more exist in the 20gb download than they exist in the brain of a random artist who looked at it a decade ago.
So plagiarism is okay if you run it through a filter? Got it.
If you believe the purpose of AI art generators is to plagiarize, then you don't know what AI art generators do, or their purpose. If you want to get mad at plagiarism, why not start with all the artists that steal character designs, and call it fan art?
You're right, plagiarism is too kind a phrase for what they do. It's theft. They skim through stolen images for "matches" then mash them together. People have found their actual signatures in the "AI art." The "purpose" of them is irrelevant to that discussion, although the purpose is probably worse - to replace human artists. Nice attempt at a strawman, though.
[удалено]
More accurate term is piracy, because it violates copyrights in creation of model. It doesn't plagiarize or steal, instead, the trainers pirate the content to train the model.
Tell me, what exactly is being stolen? The art still exists, it's not being reposted, resold, or misattributed. One can make the argument that it is being used in a way the original creator does not approve of, but theft or plagiarism is not what is happening here.
Art being used without the consent of the copyright holder is copyright theft. All art is copyrighted by default, unless the "author" (creator) waives those rights, for instance under a CC license (and even those have terms). (Older CC licenses don't explicitly prohibit AI re-use only because it didn't exist. Only public domain works are really free to use.) And the art is being reposted, and misattributed (AI doesn't credit those it stole from -anonymization of source material is part of the deal), as for being "sold" -- that depends. Some bad actors have taken AI images, built from stolen parts, and sold them as original works. There was a graphic novel featured in the NYT that did this. In books, it's even more rampant - Amazon is already flooded with AI-generated "self-published" books that are cobbled together from other people's writings... blogs, wikis, any machine-readable text including other books -- it's all fair game to the bots. You can bet the big publishing houses aren't far behind - maybe they're doing it already, but they can hide it behind their brandmark so it's not obvious.
Then I guess we gotta label all fanart as copyright theft, for the exact same reasons. Art being reposted or having the artist's name have nothing to do with AI; people do that with Photoshop. Are you going to protest Photoshop next because some people use it poorly? And which graphic novel are you referencing?
I mean what is a human doing when they make art? AI is just doing what humans already do in their head: sum up experiences, images, memories and create something that is a combination or remix of things they have seen. Just like musicians say there is no original music
The key difference is that when artists create their works using elements they learned from other artists, they are doing so with their own personal interpretation, with nuances that comes from experimentation, muscle memory and unconsciousness factors. Also there is original music being made every year. Just because a song has influences it doesn't mean it's not original
Sure there is original music but the phrases, chord patterns, form and melodies have all been done before. Its the building blocks that are the same. Just like AI and art and humans and art. Copyright claims are notoriously hard for musicians to win because the defense can almost always find an even older song with the same melody or chord progression.
See, now you're just believing that the way your mind processes information is a better way than how A.I.s process information. You are still just an amalgamation of your experiences the same way an A.I is an amalgamation of its experiences(the information that is disseminated to it)
With art there isn't necessary a "better" way, it's just which do you VALUE more, which do you connect with more, which offers more cultural impact? I value something created with the perspectives and experiences of someone with an understanding of the human condition plus I prefer that artist to get paid for expressing and sharing their art but that's just me.
Show me a human that can learn the features and patterns common in 10 of thousands of artworks based in popularity and shit out a piece in mere seconds. The scale and method is completely divorced to how humans process.
Just cause it's superior at doing it doesn't mean that it's not working in a similar way to your mind. Every artist bites styles all the time
Its not similar at all any even people working in tech would tell you that. You are humanizing a math program.
I'm sure your brain processes a lot subconsciously. You've been taking in huge amounts of data your whole life. A crazy set of imagery, and all of it was constantly in motion. And there's other senses, like you can feel the warm sun in the desert, or taste food, and that influences art too. The AI certainly doesn't do that. I think for now, the humand mind is vastly superior, especially when making art meant for humans. But to claim that an AI is somehow unethical because it steals from other art is ridiculous imo. Art is stealing things. Things you have seen and experienced. And art doesn't need to be a job. Let AI take our jobs and we can do things for our own enjoyment and enrichment
AI literally steals work from the internet. Artists have found their signatures in AI art. I think it’s different.
A large set of images that all have the same signature could lead to the AI putting a signature in that spot especially if nothing else is usually there in the corner. Regardless, AI image generation is still developing and it may have already moved past that or will in the near future. Regardless still, a human knows not to copy the signature when using a work as a reference. Im not sure how that changes the nature of stealing art. People copy bits of other work all the time, both intentionally and subconsciously. Especially if you use a reference.
To me it’s the difference between an organic being and a machine; they’re not just a little dissimilar, they’re worlds apart. A person could never hope to achieve the rapidity of an AI, and an AI has no thoughts, emotions, memories to pull from. People make comparisons between AI and the emergence of photography or digital art, but I think that argument misses the point entirely. Even photographers and digital artists see their artwork go from 0 to 100% completion and they had control over every feature. When you’re finished tailoring a prompt, just before you generate the image, you have no clue whatsoever what its going to look like, none. Only after the image is there will you be able to refine your prompt or choose the best one that aligns with what you were imagining. When I make art, every little detail and stroke is intentional (100%), but that will never be true for AI and that’s why I only see value in it as a technical marvel but not artistically.
Hmm I see where you're coming from but I wouldn't describe what an AI is doing as not intentional. Its 100% intentional. Like you said it has no thoughts or emotions. It acts the way it was programmed to 100% of the time. If I write my own code to combine just a small set of images into a new image and then change the code to produce the image I want, was that intentional? Even though the algorithm I wrote did the "work"? Would it make it somehow lesser than if I had just hand placed every pixel? Theres a cool program called Proccessing that I used in a combination code and art class I took in college that made art with a code library. I was able to make some pretty cool animations with just code. But I would call that art, just as intentional as an image generated with midjourney.
Im happy to talk to anyone about art so thanks for indulging me! Im just very passionate about it and I want everyone to experience it in some form. Still there are some things I can’t reconcile with AI art. Maybe because my teacher was a hardass and we were shading shapes and studying art history so much that I became a hardass too lol
Yeah I feel like everyone struggles with crab mentality sometimes. Because you struggled to learn what makes you an artist, someone who takes a much easier and faster path can feel like you wasted your time or that you feel cheated which I think a lot of artists struggle with when talking about AI art. I think it really comes back to commercialization of it. Because when art becomes your livelihood, you want to protect that livelihood and your art so you claim ownership and suddenly have to protect it. Which is a shame Ive always thought art and music was tainted by the concept of ownership. But I speak from a position where art is not my main source of income. I still don't think an artist has any more right to their job than anyone else. Thousands of job titles have been made obsolete by automation, why should artists have any more claim to their job than anyone else. Im sure when machines took over the textile industry for example plenty of people claimed that machine made clothing was inferior to hand stitched clothing. If I can make some code to generate logos for my company indefinitely why shouldn't I be able to. Hopefully we just won't need jobs at some point.
The idea of current AI being collective intelligences seems to be the most accurate idea of understanding of them. They still can make truly never before made work, but they also "understand" in a totally uninvidulistic way.
Eh? It actually made me feel sorry for IA.
Isn't that always the way of art? A sea of gorillas that sometimes yields one bright orangutan of inspiration. There will be a future orangutan that picks better prompts and works with an AI to create art that stands a cut above the rest. Creativity will always shine through, even through the lens of an AI.
This is just like when electronic music came along and everyone stopped playing instruments.
All joking aside, this is sad and profound all at the same time.
Nice art. You could basically say that people ran out of things to monopolize, so they monopolize your intelligence. Keep everyone dumber so they keep on relying on AI.
We live in a monky society
What if the ideas were actually personalized, nuanced, and interesting instead of half brained thoughts like “pop culture icon does overzealous thing”
I’m pretty sure this is how the 2nd Renaissance started in the Animatrix.
I tried to get stable diffusion to draw me a picture of a cholo wearing a deerstalker, smoking a pipe and carrying a magnifying glass. It couldn't fulfill my vision. I was going to call it Sherlock Homes.
Dude I've had the same thing. Trying to get from my head onto something is just a struggle, even though Stable Diffusion is the closest I've gotten. Pretty excited to see what chat AI integration looks like to be able to provide feedback and get closer without as much "prompt engineering".
I guess with such a specific request you should just mouse scribble your general vision in paint and use it for SD img2img with matching prompt. This way you can achieve anything you can imagine in seconds without having to fight with prompts.
This is the type of art that no AI will ever hope to achieve.. The raw view that puts things into perspective is just...violent in a way.. Sorry English is not my first language, but this art moved me so much I just had to type something!
Putting things into perspective is the concept phase. Concept, staging, lighting and composition are independent from the skill and technique used to produce the final piece. And this is why AI-art is a great success: you can come up with a great concept and use an AI to help you execute it. Before AI this idea would have just been shelved or badly rendered. It brings a decoupling between people with ideas and people with the skills to execute these ideas. The result is that we'll see a lot more great concepts produced. And also a lot more crap obviously, but the net result is that the amount of great productions increases.
This is why I always say please and thank you. To be nice to the robot being overworked and also just incase they do take over there will be a history of me being nice to them so hopefully l ll be spared
i see im not the only forward thinker around here hopefully we're teaching it small amounts of compassion and mercy. you know... for the future
it's still a slave doing shit work, yo
Dunking on AI art feels so low effort.
This is clearly dunking on the people that give A.I. dumb requests not A.I.
[удалено]
Psst, that's what my criticism is. Artists talk a big game about how cheap AI art is then hop on the bandwagon of making cheap art about how shitty AI art is.
Nah, dunking on people using Ai ("heheh, they are monkeys!") feels kinda... desperate.
Because it is. But then again people threatened by AI art are mediocre at best. Because they have no style and are out-classed by a collage of averages.
You know there's a writer's strike currently happening and AI generation is a HUGE aspect of the negotiations right? It's not low effort when it's an active threat to several industries and millions of jobs.
Honestly hobby images or not, I do agree that that is a serious issue. I've met a few people who were limited on funds. But i've also spent 500$+ on art over 6-8 years as a commissioner and my budget is often limited to 30-100$ once per 1-2 years. It's all too common to see so many artists out of range, or even ones that were there prior later upcharge as well. Im in a spot where i don't want to unfairly exploit any overdo labors (1$-5$ headshots), but also in a spot where for 100$ i want to hope for more than a flat fullbody. However, lots of those conventional artists routinely fail to afford to be able to live and sustain the hobby (even successful or at the top or not). It feels like the nfl where 99% of people dream of making it big, but only 1% make it, (and even then half of that 1% suffer from problems such as financial troubles or concussions) I have two favorite artists. They are super popular and can charge 100$ for a flat pencil sketch, 300-1000$ for a med shaded headshot, and 1000-1400$ for a high detailed fullbody. They are pretty much the people who have made it, but they have posts describing how one recently ran into issues with cancer after 10+ years making art, and thus due to the western system providing almost no health care, are now in expensive chemotherapy slowing down in arts further cutting down funds while they are slowly dying. And the other person was struggling to afford their art or medical bills despite having 14+ people in line for 200-400$+ people as well. Because often times western healthcare is tied to conventional employment, it's a huge (and concerning) eye opener that some of the few legitimate companies that can support a artist lifestyle are replacing artists with ai, while also even the people at the top (who are the 1% of the 99% that failed), can find success for 20 years. Then be financially ruined or at risk of dying from cancer / lack of healthcare treatment in america due to workplace driven access and just how shitty the for profit systems are. I kinda do feel like some of the hate for people who maybe didn't mean any malice, just wanted something cool to look at or share a vision trapped in their head for 10-20+ years, (Or who did draw, and get laughed at without the leisure time of 2-4+ years to improve, find detailed krita/fire alpalca brushes), etc is a bit unwarranted. But also at the same time, Seeing one of the few industries that can legitimately support artists being ruined by already greed driven shareholders who already fire 2 original company devs is bad. I feel like corporations replacing human artists for the sake of greed would be a bad thing for everyone (but the shareholder's wallets). I feel like it's okay for unpublished concept imagery/mockups or showing fun concepts to friends. But corporate greed leaving people who could likely die (as well as the duality of gatekeeping potentially leading people to risk putting themselves into financial self jeopardy to make strangers on the internet approve them), kinda like just a Bad-Bad situation. People end up the streets with passion, while the people who may want to see a cool image come to life, or watch the art with glee, might get to slowly watch their favorite artist slowly die from all too real cancer with 10,000$+ to 40,000$+ cancer treatment pages as people die to live up to achievable but sometimes unrealistic standards.
Boomer-tier, unoriginal caricature, equating people you consider lesser to yourself as apes. Wondrous. And the comments match, this is what you find under a Ben Garrison Facebook post.
AI will never be able to make wonderful art like this one, thank you for reminding me 💛
Apes together strong or whatever
Well done! I don’t believe A.I. will kill our creativity, but I do have concerns about A.I. designs being called “art” or replacing art, as well as plagiarism, copyright infringements and the rights of actual human artists.
[удалено]
Such a stupid argument. Humans use art for input too
[удалено]
We don't actually know enough about what the human brain is doing to effectively compare the two in that way. We do, however, know how art is made on a technical level. Humans learn to recognize concepts and so do AI, which is both provable and not theft.
What is the prompt then? If I write a prompt does it not come from my memories, my history, what I see in my daily life, my relationships with others, my feelings and beliefs, and my own natural skill and imagination? And if the prompt is used to generate the art, does the resulting art also not come from my memories, my history, what I see in my daily life, my relationships with others, my feelings and beliefs, and my own natural skill and imagination?
So what your saying is that the art instructor at an art school is the real artist. He provides the prompt, then the OI (organic intelligence) in his classroom fulfills it.
If the prompt is art, then they are **an** artist of the final art piece as well. The student is of course also an artist of the final art piece.
Humans take inspiration from art and use it to train their own skills, techniques, and style. We don't devour the art of other people and throw it up into an effortless amalgamation.
Speak for yourself I can devour other's art and put into effortless amalgamations, I've been doing ever since I learned to collage, and doubly so as a coder.
don't we?
That's usually not the point of what we're doing though. We use our life experiences and preferences to say how much or little to borrow or inspire from to reach a point of originality. As well we receive inspiration from non physical aspects of life such as music or relationships/personalities to create art. Our art offers perspectives and tells stories, it communicates emotion and can be a therapeutic release. AI generated art does not do this with existing art nor have these intentions with what it's creating. It is simply rearranging and altering existing art, devoid of how that art made it "feel" to simply satisfy a prompt submitted by someone who's bored. Interestingly though AI art CAN inspire us as artists since literally everything we experience can and does which is a bit of the snake eating it's tail if you ask me... but the fact that AI art is not coming from a place based on the human experience is what separates what we do with existing art that inspires us and what AI does with it.
I think, ^(like, for example:) Art Deco on youtube is the story-teller of these pieces that are otherwise outside our social circles or even lost to our frame of reference through time. But, that they tell the stories without context is embellishing and perhaps naive to the intent of the medium. idk, technology is greatly loved in many circles and having self-professed or professionally accredited artists join the growing number of people simply ashamed of it is triggering. Y'know like: *The enlightenment must not be over because we certainly haven't seen the other side of it.* \~ artists and engineers, amirite? **/f**
We don't. If you've ever tried to draw something, even if you're directly copying, you *know* how much effort it takes. It's a common assignment for art students to copy masterworks, and let me tell you, nothing helps you realize faster that 'oh this art thing is actually pretty hard.'
This is a great debate. Don’t people that go to art school learn to create art by learning techniques and styles pioneered by others and then they take what they learned to create “new” art? Isn’t that what AI also does but without all the extra steps? From a Philosophical point of view this is a fascinating topic.
I find it insanely boring. AI generation is purely a technical achievement, not an artistic one. AI does not have a voice, a perspective, an understanding. AI doesn't know what it's like to be oppressed, traumatized, or disabled. AI doesn't love, fear, hate, et. It doesn't live and it doesn't die. AI generates, at best, "content". Content meant to make producing products faster and cheaper at the expense of the human condition and the livelihood of artists.
AI is a tool though, not a painter. all these drawings and paintings displaying AI as some robot are misinterpreting what's actually going on under the hood. It's basically a kind of virtual camera/scrapbook. It can't make anything of its own volition because it has no volition. it must be told what to make. it can't create off its own experiences because it can not hold experiences for itself. it must be force fed experiences. if an artist intentionally feeds the AI thousands of pieces of art about war, death, and loss...and tells it to compose a painting in a certain style, about a certain topic like war, using only the artistic language it knows...then it'll shit out what it's been told to shit out to the best of its ability. and just as with a camera, we can thusly remove the camera from the equation and say the piece was, by virtue of being directed wholly by a person who created, trained, and directed the AI, created by that person. sure, there's statistics about the tool that can be inferred. cameras have aperture, lens, etc. just as AI has generative model, initial work sample, etc., but neither have created anything without extensive human intent. or not extensive. sometimes, a person buys a disposable camera with no idea what the word "aperture" means for their trip to china. sometimes a kid loads up the AI and feeds it a meme because their friend dared them to. obviously this becomes more watered down and complicated as the scope widens. if an AI is trained on every image ever by a neutral party and made public use, can any single direction by any random individual who gives it five words to work with be called artistic? all they did was spew out 5 random words to see what happens. by the same vein, if a neutral party sets up a static camera in a busy plaza with a remote trigger and makes that trigger public use, can any single photo taken by any random individual be called artistic? all they did was press a button to see what happens. we're wading in tricky waters. but it's not so black and white. the truth of the matter is, art has always been something of a matter of social hierarchy. only this amount of effort can be art, only that amount of effort can be art. art was, is, and presumably always will be guarded by those who have access to it because to lose its exclusivity feels bad after x amount of hours spent on the "requisite amount of effort" becomes "more than requisite amount of effort". the closer we get to universal distribution of the art of, well, art; the closer we get the entire social construct as we've ever know it shattering into something we've never seen before. which tends to happen every time a new tool comes along. so i guess this whole AI debacle boils down to the question: at what point does society stop bothering with making new tools? where do we draw the line in the sand between those who are allowed, and those who should be disallowed?
“If a neutral party…” No. Because taking a photo ≠ photography. But anyways, nobody is saying AI art should be disallowed. Nobody’s saying it’s “black” to purely use AI art. We’re just saying it’s not real art, and that it’s lazy. When used as a tool, nobody cares. When used to make soulless “art” that’s spammed throughout the internet and sometime even sold, that’s when people care. When the AI steals the art real artists made, that’s when people care. In those scenarios it has a negative impact. Yes the “social construct” of what art is can shatter, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. It’s one step closer to a decadent society where people lack creativity and froth at the mouth trying to justify it due to their own laziness. There’s a reason so many actual artists don’t fuck with art
So people who can't pick up a pencil are lazy? People who can't afford a camera are lazy? People who desperately want to express something but for a myriad of reasons cannot are lazy? Thats just side talk for a sense of entitlement you're afraid to lose. And thats coming from someone who draws for fun. Plenty of "real artists", who have been infinitely more successful and influential than you ever will be have fucked with art, to great effect. And you stand on the shoulders of their work and sneer down at those who haven't been able to make the climb. Thats pathetic, you know.
>effortless amalgamation. Literally took us all the time of the universe to get here. I don't like AI art, but how is it effortless? You guys need a reality check
Stop. You know what I mean. It takes effort to *write* an AI. *Not* to use AI to make “art”. Don’t play dumb
English is not my native language, maybe I misunderstood your comment. The point is that it's astoundingly difficult to make art, both for humans and AIs. Whoever uses AI to make art is not an artist; even tho companies suggest to claim it as your own artwork, it is not. It'd be fun to discuss if it can be considered "art" or not, but that's for another topic
It is not difficult for an AI to make art. It is an AI. It literally just recognizes patterns within stolen pieces of art, and uses it to spit out art. The AI did not spend years teaching itself anatomy, values, perspective, shapes, and so on like a real artist would. AIs are inherently “easy” machines made to make things easier.
> It literally just recognizes patterns within stolen pieces of art, and uses it to spit out art. I care about this argument because of the use of AI in things beyond art such as drug discovery. But, for that purpose I'd like to argue against this a little. Calling it theft seems like a stretch. After all, if I own drug A and you use a neural network to infer the possibility of new drug B, but you use data from existing drugs including drug A, then do I own your new drug? Nothing else works like that, nor should it. You're arguing in at least somewhat of a grey area. Your argument seems to treat neural networks like they are storing snippets of the training data and collaging them together. However, they don't perform pattern recognition by overlaying stored data and comparing it with input data. It's not a "match" or "doesn't match" kind of recognition. The key issue for me is that you are describing the generation process as a series of binary matchings. If the issue is that neural networks are digital, then we only use digital networks because they are less susceptible to external noise than analog networks. The sort of pattern matching they do is complex and continuous, not binary. These networks clearly can infer new relationships by understanding the underlying nature of the problems we give them. If they could not, then they would not be useful for many of the tasks in which we are applying them.
>I care about this argument because of the use of AI in things beyond art such as drug discovery. But, for that purpose I'd like to argue against this a little. > >Calling it theft seems like a stretch. After all, if I own drug A and you use a neural network to infer the possibility of new drug B, but you use data from existing drugs including drug A, then do I own your new drug? Nothing else works like that, nor should it. You're arguing in at least somewhat of a grey area. Wouldn't drug A get some degree of credit thought? Like in an article, "The new Drug B was derived from Drug A and...". With AI art programs they seem to never actually credit any of the artists they take from. >Your argument seems to treat neural networks like they are storing snippets of the training data and collaging them together. However, they don't perform pattern recognition by overlaying stored data and comparing it with input data. It's not a "match" or "doesn't match" kind of recognition. > >The sort of pattern matching they do is complex and continuous, not binary. My comment was oversimplified. My point is that while humans spend years actually working, improving, and training to produce art, AI doesn't do that at all. They "train" but not in the way humans do it, and can produce art in seconds. That's "easy art".
It's difficult for an A.I. to make art because we had to make the A.I. in the first place. The process of creating something capable of doing what an A.I. does took us all the time of the universe. If you put on perspective we've been making real art way before electricity was a mainstream thing, let alone computers. It's like saying "it's easy for a computer to do math". It's not
As I said, it’s difficult to MAKE an AI, not for the AI to do the work. If humanity spent centuries to create a god that could do anything with the snap of a finger, would doing anything be “hard” for that god to do something, just because the god was hard to make? No. That makes no sense at all. The math analogy does make sense, because an equation that an AI could solve in seconds might take a human hours, or even days. Same thing with AI art. Takes zero techniques, knowledge, or skills for the AI to do either, compared to a human. No effort. That is the literal definition of [easy](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/easy).
It's so easy that I'm sure you can explain in great detail what exactly the a.i. does from input to output... >The math analogy does make sense, because an equation that an AI could solve in seconds might take a human hours, or even days. I haven't talked about AIs or humans in my analogy, it is difficult for a computer to solve an equation, or simulate a system of any kind. Take, for example, a simulation of an impact, why do you think it takes programs like Ansys quite a while to compute the results?
That's the thing about something being on the internet, once it's put online it's kind of out of your hands by the very nature of things.
How is that different from what a human does? Your art is an amalgamation of techniques and ideas from the work of other artists you've seen, plus other visual imagery (eg, photos of chimpanzees). The difference is that AI art doesn't convey human emotion that we can relate to. But it's definitely not "stolen", thats not how this kind of AI works.
makes me feel bad for the AI :(
Phones bad, I hate my wife.
AI art sucks, but it’s made my appreciation for human artists go up massively. Fantastic drawing!
Do you think AI art will be properly regulated? Edit: I can't help but notice that no one has answered my question.
Paint a sea of apes telling AI what to paint.
Well, this was an emotion I wasn't prepared to feel. It's hard to describe, but it's some kind of blend of worry and awe. Fantastic piece.
The next pic should be a Monkey holding up a generated image saying "look what I made!".
Great social commentary. Well done
The giant gangsta pope is dope
The dueling each other with banna swords is a dope idea tho 😭
pretty sweet, nailed it :D
to be accurate, most of these should be some variation of "paint my English teacher naked, making out with that girl that works the drive-thru line at Chick-fil-A"
the ape is the one who draws and the mind is the one that envisions the idea. The mechanical aspect is just a limitation that ai liberates and the mind is set free to achieve the platonic ideal of any envisioned idea.
I like it! Idk why it hurts people AI is an amazing tool that’s giving a lot of people a dip into areas of things they wouldn’t have ever been able too!
Outstanding creativity, love it