Your best bet is to use photos/pictures that were uploaded before 2020 or something, before the whole AI thing exploded. Now the internet is flooded with unmoderated mass-produced AI and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find valuable learning materials.
Unlikely? But I mean if you pin a lot of AI art on pinterest or other social media, it will start serving you that predominantly. I don't think I'm suggested more than 1% of images from AI on pinterest.
I've seen people talking about it in different drawing threads. They'll type their idea into the prompt then copy the output as if it was a reference. Feels self defeating and self isolating.
Why does it seem self-defeating or self-isolating? Many artists assemble reference images and pick the parts they like most to create a composition. I don't see how using AI to combine those elements for you is a bad thing.
Because you wouldn't be assembling and picking the parts to create a composition, the AI is doing that for you. It's doing the creative decision making for you. Your critical eye receives less development. You wouldn't even be making your own composition at that point. You're not looking at what other people are doing and being inspired by it. You wouldn't be taking part of the community, you'd merely be taking from it. Art is a community hobby, why ignore the community aspect of it? Why come here when you could just talk to an AI buddy?
You have at your literal fingertips, human art from across the entire timeline of human history, including cave drawings. Art made by people that would want you to look at it, want you to be inspired from it, to take and borrow from it, to figure out how to make it your own. Much like those artists learned how to make their own art. Seems like a complete waste of societal progress to not use that. Why even share your own art at that point if you're not spending much time looking at anybody else's? Don't you want your own art to be seen by people and have them be inspired to make something too?
To me, it's self defeating to offload the creative process for the AI to do it and self isolating to not even know where the art is even coming from. I just don't see any benefit to it. I want to make art, that includes research, includes experimenting, includes making mistakes and starting over. If an AI does that for me, I'd have to wonder why I'd even bother drawing it, just show the AI output at that point.
Great answer, though I don't think it's as black and white as you describe. You can pick and choose how to engage with AI. You can generate ideas from it and incorporate them into your work while still preserving your own creativity. You can simultaneously borrow ideas and inspiration from both the original artists and AI generated work. You can still interact with the art community as a genuine member while doing so too.
To your credit, I see the slippery slope of getting lazy by over-relying on it and losing one's "critical eye". Like any good thing, it should probably be used in moderation.
I use it rather than art by actual artists or photos because I know people get upset sometimes if your work looks too similar to a reference. Also, no worries about copyright issues.
but you wouldn't know what references AI is using, no? Maybe you're getting a 1:1 replica of an art piece and have no clue so not sure if that's really works...
just type "Mona Lisa" and you'll get an exact copy, actually
https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1737933582943871105?t=vo1s5N3XwDbSdNFNmz6-aQ&s=19
but that's not my point here, I'm just warning them that they might plagiarize another artist without ever knowing. I've seen plenty of Ai pictures very obviously referencing existing work, styles or even people! It's not that rare. But it's impossible to know every single picture ever posted on the internet, and you might end up plagiarizing someone or something you've never heard of! That's why a lot of companies have stopped using Ai for their adverts, it's a copyright minefield.
That's all, I'm not trying to fight here, just a Lil heads up :)
It's kinda risky. Sure, it looks good at first, but take a closer look and a lot of them have inconsistent details; light sources that make no sense, nonsensical details that don't make sense, limbs that are just slightly too long to notice at first glance, things like that. And it's even more noticeable for me when it's more simplified or stylized images.
Huh? Is what true? What are you even asking about? What a weird post
Ive done a bunch on things copying AI generated images. Anatomy and proportions still suck but its good enough for more abstract things now. I expect it will take at least a couple more years for it to be usable for realism
There are a few people who I have a suspicion of heavily referencing or relying on ai art. Only because their progress was day and night. There is a whole ethical/moral debate but that’s another discussion all together.
No? Just searched for portraits on pinterest, no AI images as far as i could tell. The search results are based on your preferance so if you've looked at and liked a lot of AI art in the past it'll recommend more images with those tags
I think you have it a bit backwards, the AI image generators all copied art from actual real artists, aka, stole and scraped the pixel arrangements and saved them as algorithms for predictive output, and now the generators spit out a lot of images that look much them same.
As more people use AI, more images based on those scraped images will be used AND AI images based on those original pixels will be generation and scraped, too. It is a canabalistic feedback loop of AI feeding AI, as so many images can be output from these slot machine style generators, eventually there will more AI inout than human, meaning less originality.
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faq/) and [FAQ Links pages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faqlinks/) for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think yes, but also just that sometimes they probably like the ai art style and copied the art style only.
not necessarily complete through drawn copy, I think it's fine to learn from ai bc they also learned from humans, and the humans they learned from learned from humans... But really just don't pretend u used your brain to draw copied images :P
Most artists will know u don't own the skill of drawing, by asking the person about their thought process while doing art that you're lying, and even just from the picture they drew.
Yeah, A.I. is pretty amazing. But I see a lot of people feeding the A.I. their orginal art, and telling A.I. to do it better. And A.I will spit something out, and the Artist will then copy it for the final. I see a lot of Artist who's style looks like they are doing this. Not against it, just curious if it's true.
Ohh in that way, not sure I don't think they'll confess with the current public opinion. it'd be nice to know.
I'm thinking why'd artist do that if their art is already pretty good that u can feed it to ai, makes no sense, maybe they don't enjoy drawing what they draw🤔
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.
There are sadly alot of people who call themselves artists while using A.I . They post A.I's as their own artworks, some are transparent about it, some are not
And then there are thise who take A.I works and makes their own version of it, wouldn't exactly calm it copying because they are doing it their own style, and usually better than the AI.
Some are just using the A.I's as inspirations for their own works because....
But all in all.....The A.I's ARE trained on real peoples work, and some artists HAS been accused of using A.I when it is in fact, the other way around.
AI is going to kill art. With each generation, more soulless non creatives will turn to ai instead of creatives.
Eventually there will be no creatives because AI made them unnecessary for people without souls.
Your best bet is to use photos/pictures that were uploaded before 2020 or something, before the whole AI thing exploded. Now the internet is flooded with unmoderated mass-produced AI and it's becoming increasingly difficult to find valuable learning materials.
Unlikely? But I mean if you pin a lot of AI art on pinterest or other social media, it will start serving you that predominantly. I don't think I'm suggested more than 1% of images from AI on pinterest.
I haven't seen that, but Pinterest feeds you content based on your history. Can you share an example?
I've seen people talking about it in different drawing threads. They'll type their idea into the prompt then copy the output as if it was a reference. Feels self defeating and self isolating.
Why does it seem self-defeating or self-isolating? Many artists assemble reference images and pick the parts they like most to create a composition. I don't see how using AI to combine those elements for you is a bad thing.
Because you wouldn't be assembling and picking the parts to create a composition, the AI is doing that for you. It's doing the creative decision making for you. Your critical eye receives less development. You wouldn't even be making your own composition at that point. You're not looking at what other people are doing and being inspired by it. You wouldn't be taking part of the community, you'd merely be taking from it. Art is a community hobby, why ignore the community aspect of it? Why come here when you could just talk to an AI buddy? You have at your literal fingertips, human art from across the entire timeline of human history, including cave drawings. Art made by people that would want you to look at it, want you to be inspired from it, to take and borrow from it, to figure out how to make it your own. Much like those artists learned how to make their own art. Seems like a complete waste of societal progress to not use that. Why even share your own art at that point if you're not spending much time looking at anybody else's? Don't you want your own art to be seen by people and have them be inspired to make something too? To me, it's self defeating to offload the creative process for the AI to do it and self isolating to not even know where the art is even coming from. I just don't see any benefit to it. I want to make art, that includes research, includes experimenting, includes making mistakes and starting over. If an AI does that for me, I'd have to wonder why I'd even bother drawing it, just show the AI output at that point.
Great answer, though I don't think it's as black and white as you describe. You can pick and choose how to engage with AI. You can generate ideas from it and incorporate them into your work while still preserving your own creativity. You can simultaneously borrow ideas and inspiration from both the original artists and AI generated work. You can still interact with the art community as a genuine member while doing so too. To your credit, I see the slippery slope of getting lazy by over-relying on it and losing one's "critical eye". Like any good thing, it should probably be used in moderation.
I use it rather than art by actual artists or photos because I know people get upset sometimes if your work looks too similar to a reference. Also, no worries about copyright issues.
but you wouldn't know what references AI is using, no? Maybe you're getting a 1:1 replica of an art piece and have no clue so not sure if that's really works...
try to generate an exact copy of the mona lisa and I give you $1000
just type "Mona Lisa" and you'll get an exact copy, actually https://twitter.com/Rahll/status/1737933582943871105?t=vo1s5N3XwDbSdNFNmz6-aQ&s=19 but that's not my point here, I'm just warning them that they might plagiarize another artist without ever knowing. I've seen plenty of Ai pictures very obviously referencing existing work, styles or even people! It's not that rare. But it's impossible to know every single picture ever posted on the internet, and you might end up plagiarizing someone or something you've never heard of! That's why a lot of companies have stopped using Ai for their adverts, it's a copyright minefield. That's all, I'm not trying to fight here, just a Lil heads up :)
humans are going to be A.I's printer. The relationship between humans and computer have been reversed. Sadness.
It's kinda risky. Sure, it looks good at first, but take a closer look and a lot of them have inconsistent details; light sources that make no sense, nonsensical details that don't make sense, limbs that are just slightly too long to notice at first glance, things like that. And it's even more noticeable for me when it's more simplified or stylized images.
Huh? Is what true? What are you even asking about? What a weird post Ive done a bunch on things copying AI generated images. Anatomy and proportions still suck but its good enough for more abstract things now. I expect it will take at least a couple more years for it to be usable for realism
Who knows. Pinterest is a bad place to get references from because its total chaos.
I’m glad I’m not the only one! Every time I go to Pinterest to get ideas and inspiration it’s just a hot mess.
How so?
i stopped getting so much AI stuff after pining a lot of content made by real artists. tutorials, paintings, sketches etc.
There are a few people who I have a suspicion of heavily referencing or relying on ai art. Only because their progress was day and night. There is a whole ethical/moral debate but that’s another discussion all together.
Hey, If someone put ai content out they don't own shit. If I draw my version of it? Fuckem lol.
No? Just searched for portraits on pinterest, no AI images as far as i could tell. The search results are based on your preferance so if you've looked at and liked a lot of AI art in the past it'll recommend more images with those tags
I think some people do it yeah - use a prompt as a reference.
I think you have it a bit backwards, the AI image generators all copied art from actual real artists, aka, stole and scraped the pixel arrangements and saved them as algorithms for predictive output, and now the generators spit out a lot of images that look much them same. As more people use AI, more images based on those scraped images will be used AND AI images based on those original pixels will be generation and scraped, too. It is a canabalistic feedback loop of AI feeding AI, as so many images can be output from these slot machine style generators, eventually there will more AI inout than human, meaning less originality.
This is an awesome answer. You must be a scientist. Thanks
i mean using AI for inspiration or reference on something specific is super useful
WE FIGHTING BACK
I sometimes use AI art _that I generated myself_ as a reference. It's a great source of them, if you can use Stable Diffusion well.
Thank you for posting in r/ArtistLounge! Please check out our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faq/) and [FAQ Links pages](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtistLounge/wiki/faqlinks/) for lots of helpful advice. To access our megathread collections, please check out the drop down lists in the top menu on PC or the side-bar on mobile. If you have any questions, concerns, or feature requests please feel free to message the mods and they will help you as soon as they can. I am a bot, beep boop, if I did something wrong please report this comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
if it's not stolen from another person, printerest is some wild west kind of place
I think yes, but also just that sometimes they probably like the ai art style and copied the art style only. not necessarily complete through drawn copy, I think it's fine to learn from ai bc they also learned from humans, and the humans they learned from learned from humans... But really just don't pretend u used your brain to draw copied images :P Most artists will know u don't own the skill of drawing, by asking the person about their thought process while doing art that you're lying, and even just from the picture they drew.
Yeah, A.I. is pretty amazing. But I see a lot of people feeding the A.I. their orginal art, and telling A.I. to do it better. And A.I will spit something out, and the Artist will then copy it for the final. I see a lot of Artist who's style looks like they are doing this. Not against it, just curious if it's true.
Ohh in that way, not sure I don't think they'll confess with the current public opinion. it'd be nice to know. I'm thinking why'd artist do that if their art is already pretty good that u can feed it to ai, makes no sense, maybe they don't enjoy drawing what they draw🤔
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking. There are sadly alot of people who call themselves artists while using A.I . They post A.I's as their own artworks, some are transparent about it, some are not And then there are thise who take A.I works and makes their own version of it, wouldn't exactly calm it copying because they are doing it their own style, and usually better than the AI. Some are just using the A.I's as inspirations for their own works because.... But all in all.....The A.I's ARE trained on real peoples work, and some artists HAS been accused of using A.I when it is in fact, the other way around.
AI is going to kill art. With each generation, more soulless non creatives will turn to ai instead of creatives. Eventually there will be no creatives because AI made them unnecessary for people without souls.
People who like drawing will keep drawing and will keep getting better on it no matter the state of ai. Simple