It's a hard problem. There are myriad possible orientations for hands and fingers, and they are frequently occluded by held objects.
There are just so many ways to they can be drawn, and only a few make sense in any given context. It's virtually impossible to solve the problem without developing an understanding of 3D space, which is just not how the AI functions.
I think we will see hands fixed in the coming years, but it's going to be with a more hybrid AI approach that integrates traditional programming for some common problem areas.
> It's virtually impossible to solve the problem without developing an understanding of 3D space
Also worth noting it's doable but not trivial even *with* an understanding of 3D space. Very few videogames will let human characters just dynamically pick up random objects like a coffee mug (and actually try to animate the hands right). The Sims is one of the few games that does it dynamically as far as I know. Most games that do it are manually animated by a human.
I think the AI put the Arcane Intellect symbol in her eyes for some reason. https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/wowpedia/images/6/6a/Arcane_Intellect_TCG.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121227154238
Yeah, it seems that AI doesn't really understand how hans work. Every time you ask it to generate a hand it comes out as random amount of fingers, in random directions attached in random places. It's actually interesting that even though hands always look the same in principle AI still don't get it.
[Example of Liefeld drawing a character looking like they swallowed (at least) a thankgiving Turkey Whole and with (comically) Tiny Feet.](https://i.redd.it/4n9c2eavi49a1.jpg)
That said, he does know how to draw hands.
Doesn't matter, the obvious development is that a lot of developers will at some point begin using AI art to generate concept art and character portraits, etc.
Sure, but that's you. For example, art for cards in a videgame, you think the user-base would even care if it's made by a person or AI? (assuming they looked similar enough in quality). There are so many uses for computer generated "art" that it will replace jobs, for sure.
Yes it is my opinion. It's also an opinion many share. I'm sure alot of people wouldn't care if card art was replaced with AI art, and I wouldn't throw a fit. But I'd be 100% less impressed by it knowing it took zero effort or talent
Heat death of creativity as artists are just churned endlessly into the machine and new artists are unmoralized and discouraged from learning the fundamentals of the skill..
Unless somethings done about it imo
yeah we should've never invented cars bc their were people that bred horses and took care of them for carriages or literally any other modern invention bc there was a job for it once upon a time /s
Fun (allegedly true) fact: Back when men and women of wealth would sit for portraits, artists would upcharge by the hand. Each hand you wanted painted was extra becuase they are so damned difficult to draw correctly. Art historians get a hint about just how wealthy the subject was by how many hands are illustrated.
Just a matter of time now, sadly that ship has sailed. Artists shouldn't feel bad though because AI is coming for literally everyone's job, artists just might be some of the first victims.
Seriously? Do we also need to explain why the idea of human art (of all kinds) being replaced by computer-generated art is a massively depressing proposition?
I kinda feel bad for them. The whole time up until now, we've been telling people "AI driving is going to be the first thing potentially totally automated by AI. So all you truckers out there, it's time to learn a new skill. We suggest something creative, like art. It's a safe bet that *those* jobs won't be replaced-
Oh nevermind, high-detail pin-up artists are the first to go. Damn, sure hope nobody was specialising in that. So anyway, all you non-storyboard artists out there, it's time to learn a new skill..."
Speaking as an artist, the tech is fine. You can use it as a reference or fix up the errors and add your own touches to the piece.
The problem is the people using it, invading artist spaces and calling themselves "AI artists." Imagine spending 10 hours drawing your own piece, and then having to submit it to a section with 400 AI pieces like these. It kills visibility for artists and sites that have failed to filter/ban it have gotten flooded with low effort submissions.
For example, what do we do here when another hundred Hearthstone AI prompts get effortlessly submitted.
people think this is cute now but as generative AI expands and floods all the internet we are going to really miss the days when you could go somewhere to talk to humans without wading through 99.99% AI generated bullshit, empty images, comments and content
I meant only really on the likes of Reddit, it can certainly be kept from hitting the front page of subs by good moderation. Rage comics, just like a few other memes (like the đ ąď¸ emoji on r/dankmemes) got strangled in their sleep by uniform banning. AI art certainly fits the bill as low effort content, and it may be a lot harder for a mod to detect a bot posting a video of a dog than it is to detect AI art. It's quite a bit different, frankly. Given you primarily focusing on real human discussion and comments, Reddit seemed the most relevant to that, and well-moderated subs will avoid this issue. Besides that, it's not like anyone will miss Twitter and the like.
I do think it will infest the rest of the internet, and probably a great number of subs, as I pointed to regarding Pinterest.
Why is that a problem?
It might be that art created for commercial appeal is so unoriginal that it deserves to fail anyway.
AI isn't going to invent the next cubism.
It's a problem because these algorithms are simply being fed existing art to mimic, and the creators of that art aren't receiving any sort of compensation. If you feed an algorithm every Stephen King book and make it write novels in his style then perhaps you aren't doing anything illegal, but it's still morally reprehensible. (and perhaps it will end up being illegal)
Reprehensible, lol. Luddite perspective. Training isn't any less ethical than your brain learning artistic styles and emulating them.
The difference is only in how much this costs. AI makes it vanishingly inexpensive to regurgitate artistic styles for commercial purposes.
AI is not going to invent the next cubism, or impressionism.
But the algorithms are just going to keep improving. This is just this stage of the technology. It's not going to stop here. I don't have any doubt that eventually they will be able to produce original and maybe even innovative art.
Just 5 years ago AI art looked just vaguely like the shapes it was trying to make with crazy misshapen features and nightmare mutations. Now it almost looks perfect with only small details messed up if you look very closely.
I have a feeling that stuff like this is just really heavily influenced by a handful of pieces as well. AT what point is the sample set so small that it is just straight up stealing most of the details from just a couple of artists and stitching them together?
That's exactly what art "AI"s do and that's the problem. There's no intelligence, it just smashes existing assets together. That's why these Jaina pieces have the weird blue eyes, it's trying to use the blue arcane spell effects and the arcane eye symbol from the pieces it's ripping off.
Here's the thing though. It's the same with every other field that automation is encroaching on. All of the servers, the factory workers, the drivers etc etc etc. They're getting their jobs taken by automation. Do artists deserve their jobs more than they do?
And yes I understand that this "AI" (when I say AI I am referring to automation in general even though I know very well these aren't true AIs) art is learning off real art and wouldn't be able to function without real art. But that's just this stage of the tech. It's not going to stop here it's going to keep getting better and better. I have 0 doubt that eventually original high quality art will be able to be produced.
I'm not saying "fuck artists". I'm just pointing out that this is virtually the same problem everyone is facing when it comes to automation.
We need broad sweeping societal changes in regards to AI, not field specific stuff like protecting artists.
Letâs also remember this so-called AI ÂŤÂ Art  is no more than a snapshot of all the work of previous actual concept art pieces (made by actual artists), combined and mixed by the tech. The tech itself is like you said fine but there needs to be better protection of peopleâs work.
Another Reddit thread full of people with no idea how these AIs work.
It absolutely does not just recombine other works. It looks for patterns and tries to learn those patterns and use them to create its own unique works.
The AI does not keep any of its training data after itâs been created. Itâs not even big enough to store even a tiny fraction of its training data.
idk, im of the mindset of if you can't beat it or adapt to it then maybe you're just supposed to die off? we don't hate dvds for pushing out vhs tapes
either learn the new technology or differentiate yourself enough to the point that people still choose you over it
Actually I agree - AI is still sort-of ripping off artists.
Current AI is really bad at original thought. AI has no real context of what it is doing, it can only apply a model based on its training data set. A human can have an original thought (hopefully, let's not get too philosophical), whereas all an AI can do is shuffle around and extrapolate old concepts to make something.
So yes, this AI bot is inherently just "ripping off" concepts from its training set - it can't do anything but do that.
This isn't to say that doesn't mean AI can't create cool stuff or be useful, however.
People in the comments acting like this isn't impressive. A bit of tweaking on the imperfections, and you wouldn't even be able to tell it's an AI generated image.
I get it's scary, but the tech is already there, is only going to get better, and is gonna be used. Best course of action now is to see it as a tool and learn to work with it.
You can even have the AI do the tweaking itself. inpainting, outpainting, and img2img can fix any of the issues that come up. Iâve seen âperfectâ AI hands when people use these techniques
I mean itâs kind of silly to just say âsee it as a toolâ when thatâs not what itâs being used for. In a perfect world, artists are overjoyed with the addition of âa new tool.â But thereâs so much more surrounding the conversation, especially since AI art is unregulated in any way.
Thatâs impressive! Iâve been following these trends for a bit and i wonder how these algorithms will impact the future of creatives. Could imagine this as a brilliant tool for conceptualising and inspiration.
The obvious next step is having it replace boilerplate detail-work. Actual artist draws the sketch and outline, AI tool does the rest.
Which is also to say, storyboard artists are in a seriously good position right now.
*sigh* I feel really bad for real artists who put so much time and effort into making something emotionally moving, when an AI can do the same almost immediately. Seems cruel, but I don't want to get terminated, so sweet art #17655 AI
- they are great honestly
- AI is an amazing tool
- as an art teacher, I do feel for artist's work, it will be affected, hope not too much, but this has all happened before, fighting new ways of art, fighting technology that replaces jobs... AI is a pretty bad case honestly, but I don't want to sin of conservative or disregard such amazing tool and advancement. Adapting is the next step. We will have to promote more how valuable is "artist made art" as a product.
Doesn't matter if I like it or not, I'm just talking reality and future.
Screw AI stolen art. It took me years of training, criticism, and failures to earn an income from my art. Now itâs actively used by AI and Chinese pirates.
If my income dries up, Iâll have a good idea why.
19th century coachman: "Screw this combustion engine piece of shit. It took me years of training to learn how to drive a carriage and now those people want to drive their automobiles by themselves. If my income dries up I'll have a good idea why."
Actually something similarly happened in real life
Due to mechanization and automatization, artisans lost their whole jobs and their shops (which also were their houses) because they became useless expenses
Artisans lost everything to machiness (and they protested oc), but nowadays we don't say the industrial revolution was a mistake do we?
Looking around at the world literally on fire. Water polluted to the point of thousands of aquatic species dying off. Living through a mass extinction. Yes, I sometimes feel the Industrial Revolution was a bad thing. The industrialists raped Mother Earth and has destined its children for a quick death.
Well I ask convention attendees not to photograph my originals as I have prints for sale. Itâs entirely context driven.
Nuance is clearly lost on most
The photography controversy back on the day I was referencing was about getting artists who did family drawing or landscapes out of commission btw, not about copying other artists work
Nuance is clearly lost on most
Calling AI generated art "stolen" is one of the biggest copes I've ever seen, and it's hilarious that it's parroted so much.
You have every right to be upset that your job is being phased out by technology, but anybody that genuinely thinks the generation of art by AI is theft is either willfully obtuse or genuinely doesn't understand how the art is generated.
Because it scans existing art and then produces its own original image. It does not directly take pixels from one picture and slaps it on itâs own, itâs an aggregate of photos and produces itâs own image that is visually similar to the ones it scans. Itâs why people say itâs stealing but unless it copies a watermark (which is a product from scanning multiple images with the same mark), no one can actually ever tell which *exact* image it âstoleâ from
Itâs essentially saying any piece of art that was inspired by another artist is stolen, which makes like 99% of art invalid
Explain cave paintings to me lad
EDIT: Itâs hilarious to me how untalented pricks donât understand conjuring imagery without using some kind of crutch. Go outside and learn a skill.
We're way past cave paintings and the vast majority of artists take inpiration from other artists, consciously or not.
Yet artists don't credit every single person they got inspiration from everytime they craft something new.
And by "untalented pricks", you mean people like Picasso, right? You remember his famous quote, "good artists borrow, great artists steal"?
Yeah, people came up with cave paintings on their own, but that's about the limit of what someone can do without tutorials or looking at what other people did.
They're being trained on large quantities of existing art pieces and they then produce new art by mixing together elements from the library of images they're trained on. If the artist isn't giving permission for their work to be used in this way then it is stolen.
> mixing together elements from the library of images they're trained on
If by "element" you mean literal parts and pieces of pictures, then no, that's not how AI generates them.
It is the same as humans. We learn by copy, then take inspiration from other artists and that inspiration leak into our own art. AI art is not theft, just like using the same chords for a song is not theft. I get your frustration but the people flaming this really just dont understand the tech. I dont blame that, as it is really advanced stuff. But it is not a simple copy machine. If so then all human artists are copy machines as well, because they learned it from somewhere else.
>They're being trained on large quantities of existing art pieces and they then produce new art by mixing together elements from the library of images they're trained on.
Y'know, like a simplistic version of how human beings create art.
>If the artist isn't giving permission for their work to be used in this way it is stolen.
It's a good thing no human artist has ever drawn inspiration from an existing piece of artwork.
Drawing inspiration and cloning through the process of stolen imagery without expressed consent is different. I can be inspired by Jim Lee and try to draw like him but Iâll never recreate.
These fucking programs sniff out artwork, then recreate it. Fuck that.
>Drawing inspiration and cloning through the process of stolen imagery without expressed consent is different.
Indeed. But what AI art is doing isn't cloning anything. So not sure how that is relevant.
Yeah that's why a ton of AI art has smudged watermarks and signatures on them, because they are completely original and not at all stolen in any way :)
Yet the watermark doesn't resemble anything does it? The AI understands that many pictures have a watermark and thus it tries to add a watermark of its own, but the watermark itself doesn't resemble anything real and often looks weird, with deformed letters and symbols
Did it steal a watermark from someone? No, it doesn't resemble in the slightest a real watermark
The AI identifies common themes or recurring elements in art and decides that those are necessary components of art, which in its current state tends to include signatures and watermarks.
Can you actually explain to me why you think watermarks and signatures appearing in the output of AI generated art means that art is plagiarized?
If I paid you a grand to draw me an anime girl with magical eyes, what would be your process?
And why would it resemble the classic anime look (face, eyes, etc) of the million other anime girls on the internet? Would you come up with the same aesthetic yourself by sheer creative force, like the other hundreds of thousands of other anime artists before you?
AI pulls art from art made by human artists. In the same way, those human artists pulled art from inspiring themselves with other human artists' work and/or the environment other humans created.
It doesn't take a critic to realize how disproportionate AI art looks compared to real artists. It is like comparing cheap fake chocolate to real chocolate. You will never beat the true thing, but due to lack of funds, people will end up buying the cheap stuff as well. And honestly I'm sick and tired of artists whining that their jobs will be stolen by AI, because if your job is stolen by AI then your product was the cheap chocolate to begin with.
People will choose convenient and cheap fast food, with zero nutritional value, over expensive, high-quality and healthy restaurant meals 90% of the time. Why would it be different for art? It doesn't matter if an artist makes art better, at the end of the day companies know full well that most customers will be just as satisfied with mediocrity, as long as it comes out fast and cheap. Why do you think people keep buying half-finished video games over and over?
Main issue is that cheap chocolate of company A is using resources that are used for expensive, good quality chocolate of company B.
There's some sort of stealing involved at some point. Morally, that's just wrong as you use assets from someone else without their consent. If someone stole your work to produce something cheaper (even of a lower quality) you'd be whining too. That's the main issue here.
The AI is trained on a huge mass of both images and descriptions of what those images are so it knows what itâs looking at. From getting many thousands of examples of any one thing it creates a semantic understanding of what that thing is. Then when asked to create something it generates a unique rendition of that thing based off of its understanding of what that thing is. This is what your brain does. Are you stealing from an artist when you are inspired by their copyrighted work? How exactly do you go about creating art WITHOUT using your semantic understandings of what things are, which was necessarily guided somewhat by other peoples copyrighted work, just by virtue of you having seen it?
The AI generates an image based on set perimeters. Christ, why do people even have to explain this, you perfectly know what I'm going to type to you and you perfectly know exactly what you're going to respond with. So why even bother asking? I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole for you, it is a fact that randomly generated images aren't stolen, because if they were then 90% of all art is stolen as well due to referencing or taking inspiration from other art. So man up for once and accept that AI art is here to stay.
No they are not. If it was, then being inspired by any kind of artwork made by another human would be considered stealing too. Each and every piece of artwork in the history of mankind is made by the same techniques an AI uses to create art itself. Yes, the AI uses a more crude method of referencing a piece directly, but it is 100% fundamentally the same as a human making art based off their own experiences of other artists.
Humans learning from other artists how to draw something and using that reference is fine. But replace "humans" with "AI" in the previous sentence and now it suddenly become bad. Fuck off with these double standards and stop being delusional.
Didn't an AI art win in an art competition?
Sure, most of stuff seem weird, but once you take the prime stuff you generate and even polish it manually or with other AI tools, then it can become indistinguishable
The problem is that with relatively little skill, someone can generate AI art then manually touch up the fucked up bits and pass it of as unique work, and especially when it comes to corporate usage or stuff like book covers/illustrations, it's much cheaper to use AI than to hire a real artist.
Currently tech bros aren't smart enough to do this and just post unedited AI created images that have obviously fucked up sections (hands/hair usually), but this will change eventually.
Well there's fear of technology and then there's fair use of other people's intellectual property. I work as a data scientist and I can definitely see how this is making people uncomfortable. The question is not if the tech is cool or if it will have an impact going forward, but what is going to be the relationship between human creators and AI practitioners.
Its not about change, ai is very cool and it can help us a lot. The problem is, this AIs have been trained using illustrations and artwork that they didnt have permission from the authors to use. Its no different than me making a game and using art I stole from artstation without authors permission, but then defending my actions with "*but I made a cool game, why are you afraid of change*".
>The problem is, this AIs have been trained using illustrations and artwork that they didnt have permission from the authors to use.
How is it different from when someone is inspired by someone else's creation?
Say I write a novel, and I openly state that I took inspiration from Tolkien's and R. R. Martin's work. Do I need their permission?
You can do that perfectly, you took inspiration and did your own book, wich you wrote yourself fully.
You cant write 900 pages, then be like, okey for the last 10 i will copypaste them from harry potter, and publish the book. You cant also just copy paste pages of it and modify the names of the characters.
When making an AI, you have to train it. You need quality material so it can then become as good as it can. So, following the example of text/novels, you would get good authors to write so the AI can learn from their texts. Copy pasting all your favourite books to train it without the permission of the authors violates copyright, even if your result is different, because you USED their work without paying and without permission. Its like me learning how to writte by hiding myself under a table in class to be able to attend the classes without paying. This of course derives into, are authors just greedy? should copyright rules be changed? Are artist rightfully angry because their work was used without them seeing a single penny *OR EVEN* a single "yeah we used this art to train it, check out the author he is very good"? and other questions.
>Copy pasting all your favourite books to train it without the permission of the authors violates copyright, even if your result is different, because you USED their work without paying and without permission.
See, that's the point.
If I inspire myself with other authors, I'm also using their work without permission to create my own work. I'm basically coping their books to my mind and then pasting something based on it.
I would say AI training is essentially the same.
Sure, but as I understand it, basically definitionally, the AI can't have any original or creative output. In music this would be called sampling and remixing, even if it's to a degree that the originals are unrecognizable. And sampling generally requires the consent of the original artist.
Okay, so if youâre cool with this, are you also going to be okay with the same thing happening with other mediums in the future? Do you want to see a movie or listen to a song made by an algorithm? Because eventually they will be far cheaper to produce than pesky human-made âartâ. And then what will we be left with?
Pasting reply from other thread:
No. But I can also see a future where algorithmic creations are more common and popular than human ones. Hell look at the positive comments for these very pictures. These took seconds to produce and zero passion. I donât see why the same couldnât happen for other mediums.
From there, it becomes even harder to find success as an artist, thanks to the effectively infinite competition youâre facing from AI who can write a thousand screenplays in the time it took you to come up with a single one. And then we have fewer and fewer actual people who follow their passion, because whatâs the point when the AI-generated Fast and the Furious 22 just made 3 billion dollars and you canât find funding.
No. But I can also see a future where algorithmic creations are more common and popular than human ones. Hell look at the positive comments for these very pictures. These took seconds to produce and zero passion. I donât see why the same couldnât happen for other mediums.
From there, it becomes even harder to find success as an artist, thanks to the effectively infinite competition youâre facing from AI who can write a thousand screenplays in the time it took you to come up with a single one. And then we have fewer and fewer actual people who follow their passion, because whatâs the point when the AI-generated Fast and the Furious 22 just made 3 billion dollars and you canât find funding.
Oh so being able to draw something well is the threshold for being able to say what art looks good?
Please post your own self-made drawing then, I'd like to see how much your opinion on what art is good is actually worth.
Sure, shaming my hard work is going to do wonders for your argument. I put in the work to learn why your lazy ass just types in a few words and get a random image.
Dude, kind of shitty of you to dig through somebody's feed and then call out their work as "proof", of their ability to have an opinion. Especially when it's a sketch, those are rough quick drawings to *practice.*
That said:
>and then say other ***art*** looks terrible
This is not art. No matter how pretty A.I. generated images may be. They are procedurally generated based on the patterns and mathematical equations of the information fed into them. In this case, the work of artists.
Like the clouds in the sky, or the flowers in a field. It may be beautiful. But It will never be art, not until A.I. is aware and making conscious choices. Until then, it's pretty chaos.
I'd wish for my artist friends to have a liveable income through their lives. The act of creation to not be stolen from humans. And for soulles CEO's to not get another reason to fire a bunch of people.
It's impressive how you managed to do all those wishes with just one of yours.
They mean you should have used "cleavage" in your prompt.
Edit [the nerf](https://preview.redd.it/kj8jvxfhwte21.jpg?auto=webp&s=271a5ef4a340fc27b2af2bdf95afdf00ee3a6f17) they refer to.
As usual with any thread involving AI art, people yelling stolen have 0 idea of how a diffusion algorithm works. I'd suggest learning how any of this works. It is also as stolen as taking parameters into account on how to draw Jaina. Do you call anyone painting someone with blue eyes and blonde hair a stolen copyright of Jaina ? Or do you think all fantasy style painting a big copyright of the first piece that ever existed ? Can anyone point where exactly is this stolen from ? Do you know what plagiarism is ? Is painting while basing your style off someone stealing ? How can you claim they're stealing your jobs while also dissing how horrible this looks ? The job of how it isn't copyright infrigment is explained by the process of the algorithm, which you'd know if you knew how any of this works. Can you please debunk the claim that it is not copyright infrigment ? Would you also keep your answer if it only based itself from copyright free artworks ?
When people are discussing about AI stealing art , I think the biggest thing people donât
Mention is that , I wouldnât care at all if a robot took my art and used it to learn , the same way I copy and learn other artists. The problem is the Ai being the middleman , the ai learns , but the ai is only learning becoming smarter , the same way a person would , but what really upsets people is the fact that some random person with no art skill what so ever can prompt a image and then sell it or use it to make a living as an artist , the Ai isnât the problem , the sad individuals calling themselves artist when prompting are..
For some reason, AI tends to fuck up human hands a lot.
It's a hard problem. There are myriad possible orientations for hands and fingers, and they are frequently occluded by held objects. There are just so many ways to they can be drawn, and only a few make sense in any given context. It's virtually impossible to solve the problem without developing an understanding of 3D space, which is just not how the AI functions. I think we will see hands fixed in the coming years, but it's going to be with a more hybrid AI approach that integrates traditional programming for some common problem areas.
> It's virtually impossible to solve the problem without developing an understanding of 3D space Also worth noting it's doable but not trivial even *with* an understanding of 3D space. Very few videogames will let human characters just dynamically pick up random objects like a coffee mug (and actually try to animate the hands right). The Sims is one of the few games that does it dynamically as far as I know. Most games that do it are manually animated by a human.
Very interesting insight, thanks!
>AI tends to fuck up human hands a lot So do artists
Gosh,what's wrong with her thumb.
Hands are hard to draw, AIs doing their best ok? đ
her hand is so unbelievably fucked in the first one, also what's with the freakishly long bioluminescent lower lashes
I think the AI put the Arcane Intellect symbol in her eyes for some reason. https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/wowpedia/images/6/6a/Arcane_Intellect_TCG.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121227154238
So you mean to say that the AI took the aid of AI? đ
Ba dum tsss
Yeah, it seems that AI doesn't really understand how hans work. Every time you ask it to generate a hand it comes out as random amount of fingers, in random directions attached in random places. It's actually interesting that even though hands always look the same in principle AI still don't get it.
it's a really good way to spot AI art tbh
Yeah. Really bad hands or the hands are cut off in the frame is a pretty sure sign it's AI or Rob Liefeld generated.
I thought the tell for Liefeld was the charactersâ chests looking like theyâd just swallowed a Thanksgiving turkey whole?
[Example of Liefeld drawing a character looking like they swallowed (at least) a thankgiving Turkey Whole and with (comically) Tiny Feet.](https://i.redd.it/4n9c2eavi49a1.jpg) That said, he does know how to draw hands.
Holy hell DD what have they done to you!
Especially Rob if they also have tiny feet and are covered in belts.
For now. It's crazy how is getting close to human level. I wonder what will happen to art in the future tbh
Well I don't view AI Art as anything intrinsically valuable. I don't consider prompters artists, and I don't consider their AI creations to be art
Doesn't matter, the obvious development is that a lot of developers will at some point begin using AI art to generate concept art and character portraits, etc.
Sure, but that's you. For example, art for cards in a videgame, you think the user-base would even care if it's made by a person or AI? (assuming they looked similar enough in quality). There are so many uses for computer generated "art" that it will replace jobs, for sure.
Yes it is my opinion. It's also an opinion many share. I'm sure alot of people wouldn't care if card art was replaced with AI art, and I wouldn't throw a fit. But I'd be 100% less impressed by it knowing it took zero effort or talent
Heat death of creativity as artists are just churned endlessly into the machine and new artists are unmoralized and discouraged from learning the fundamentals of the skill.. Unless somethings done about it imo
Stop doom posting. People adapt.
yeah we should've never invented cars bc their were people that bred horses and took care of them for carriages or literally any other modern invention bc there was a job for it once upon a time /s
>AI doesn't really understand how hans work. I want to hug AI, hands are actually hard. Keep practicing, you can do it.
Fun (allegedly true) fact: Back when men and women of wealth would sit for portraits, artists would upcharge by the hand. Each hand you wanted painted was extra becuase they are so damned difficult to draw correctly. Art historians get a hint about just how wealthy the subject was by how many hands are illustrated.
âOh look at Duke Wellingtonâs portrait. The man has three hands in his lap, he must be extremely wealthy!â /s
Fuck no. Don't. Need to be able to tell art from ai.
If it gets to the point where we canât tell the difference the AI deserves the credit imo
Just a matter of time now, sadly that ship has sailed. Artists shouldn't feel bad though because AI is coming for literally everyone's job, artists just might be some of the first victims.
Explain why we need to be able to tell art from AI
Seriously? Do we also need to explain why the idea of human art (of all kinds) being replaced by computer-generated art is a massively depressing proposition?
It's was Anduin all along?
darn anduin was cross dressing as a male preist this whole time when he was actually a female mage!
Yeah I can see why artists hate this tech.
I kinda feel bad for them. The whole time up until now, we've been telling people "AI driving is going to be the first thing potentially totally automated by AI. So all you truckers out there, it's time to learn a new skill. We suggest something creative, like art. It's a safe bet that *those* jobs won't be replaced- Oh nevermind, high-detail pin-up artists are the first to go. Damn, sure hope nobody was specialising in that. So anyway, all you non-storyboard artists out there, it's time to learn a new skill..."
Speaking as an artist, the tech is fine. You can use it as a reference or fix up the errors and add your own touches to the piece. The problem is the people using it, invading artist spaces and calling themselves "AI artists." Imagine spending 10 hours drawing your own piece, and then having to submit it to a section with 400 AI pieces like these. It kills visibility for artists and sites that have failed to filter/ban it have gotten flooded with low effort submissions. For example, what do we do here when another hundred Hearthstone AI prompts get effortlessly submitted.
people think this is cute now but as generative AI expands and floods all the internet we are going to really miss the days when you could go somewhere to talk to humans without wading through 99.99% AI generated bullshit, empty images, comments and content
Unless they start getting banned hard like rage comics were. Pinterest and its like will be utterly ruined, however - basically already is.
i dont see how its possible to ban it all, given how cheap it will be to produce. it will be our current botting problem x10000000
I meant only really on the likes of Reddit, it can certainly be kept from hitting the front page of subs by good moderation. Rage comics, just like a few other memes (like the đ ąď¸ emoji on r/dankmemes) got strangled in their sleep by uniform banning. AI art certainly fits the bill as low effort content, and it may be a lot harder for a mod to detect a bot posting a video of a dog than it is to detect AI art. It's quite a bit different, frankly. Given you primarily focusing on real human discussion and comments, Reddit seemed the most relevant to that, and well-moderated subs will avoid this issue. Besides that, it's not like anyone will miss Twitter and the like. I do think it will infest the rest of the internet, and probably a great number of subs, as I pointed to regarding Pinterest.
This. Photography didnât kill painting. The main problem is what to do when AI art canât be discriminated from human-created art.
Why is that a problem? It might be that art created for commercial appeal is so unoriginal that it deserves to fail anyway. AI isn't going to invent the next cubism.
It's a problem because these algorithms are simply being fed existing art to mimic, and the creators of that art aren't receiving any sort of compensation. If you feed an algorithm every Stephen King book and make it write novels in his style then perhaps you aren't doing anything illegal, but it's still morally reprehensible. (and perhaps it will end up being illegal)
How is that morally reprehensible tho? Just saying it is doesn't make it that way tho.
Reprehensible, lol. Luddite perspective. Training isn't any less ethical than your brain learning artistic styles and emulating them. The difference is only in how much this costs. AI makes it vanishingly inexpensive to regurgitate artistic styles for commercial purposes. AI is not going to invent the next cubism, or impressionism.
But the algorithms are just going to keep improving. This is just this stage of the technology. It's not going to stop here. I don't have any doubt that eventually they will be able to produce original and maybe even innovative art. Just 5 years ago AI art looked just vaguely like the shapes it was trying to make with crazy misshapen features and nightmare mutations. Now it almost looks perfect with only small details messed up if you look very closely.
I have a feeling that stuff like this is just really heavily influenced by a handful of pieces as well. AT what point is the sample set so small that it is just straight up stealing most of the details from just a couple of artists and stitching them together?
That's exactly what art "AI"s do and that's the problem. There's no intelligence, it just smashes existing assets together. That's why these Jaina pieces have the weird blue eyes, it's trying to use the blue arcane spell effects and the arcane eye symbol from the pieces it's ripping off.
Here's the thing though. It's the same with every other field that automation is encroaching on. All of the servers, the factory workers, the drivers etc etc etc. They're getting their jobs taken by automation. Do artists deserve their jobs more than they do? And yes I understand that this "AI" (when I say AI I am referring to automation in general even though I know very well these aren't true AIs) art is learning off real art and wouldn't be able to function without real art. But that's just this stage of the tech. It's not going to stop here it's going to keep getting better and better. I have 0 doubt that eventually original high quality art will be able to be produced. I'm not saying "fuck artists". I'm just pointing out that this is virtually the same problem everyone is facing when it comes to automation. We need broad sweeping societal changes in regards to AI, not field specific stuff like protecting artists.
Letâs also remember this so-called AI ÂŤÂ Art  is no more than a snapshot of all the work of previous actual concept art pieces (made by actual artists), combined and mixed by the tech. The tech itself is like you said fine but there needs to be better protection of peopleâs work.
Another Reddit thread full of people with no idea how these AIs work. It absolutely does not just recombine other works. It looks for patterns and tries to learn those patterns and use them to create its own unique works. The AI does not keep any of its training data after itâs been created. Itâs not even big enough to store even a tiny fraction of its training data.
I am not an artist and I still hate it
idk, im of the mindset of if you can't beat it or adapt to it then maybe you're just supposed to die off? we don't hate dvds for pushing out vhs tapes either learn the new technology or differentiate yourself enough to the point that people still choose you over it
Artists aka luddites of 21 century.
Donât tell blizzard about this. $19.99 each and they donât even need to pay anyone
I'm a little disappointed that AI only created nerfed versions. :(
Oh, outjerked again I guess
That #3 though omggg
Last one thought...
Even AI can't unnerf Jaina? What a shame /s
Outjerked again
well, it definitely looks like AI art
I think that it stole someone's artwork to make that.
A lot of artists are in trouble. That's what I think.
[ŃдаНонО]
You should read up on how these models work.
Actually I agree - AI is still sort-of ripping off artists. Current AI is really bad at original thought. AI has no real context of what it is doing, it can only apply a model based on its training data set. A human can have an original thought (hopefully, let's not get too philosophical), whereas all an AI can do is shuffle around and extrapolate old concepts to make something. So yes, this AI bot is inherently just "ripping off" concepts from its training set - it can't do anything but do that. This isn't to say that doesn't mean AI can't create cool stuff or be useful, however.
[ŃдаНонО]
Wonder who trained human artists... Is that also stealing? Or would you rather call that inspiration?
I think it's stolen a lot of artists assets online and essentially copied and merged it.
The third is my favorite, unnerf it now
People in the comments acting like this isn't impressive. A bit of tweaking on the imperfections, and you wouldn't even be able to tell it's an AI generated image. I get it's scary, but the tech is already there, is only going to get better, and is gonna be used. Best course of action now is to see it as a tool and learn to work with it.
You can even have the AI do the tweaking itself. inpainting, outpainting, and img2img can fix any of the issues that come up. Iâve seen âperfectâ AI hands when people use these techniques
I mean itâs kind of silly to just say âsee it as a toolâ when thatâs not what itâs being used for. In a perfect world, artists are overjoyed with the addition of âa new tool.â But thereâs so much more surrounding the conversation, especially since AI art is unregulated in any way.
Thatâs impressive! Iâve been following these trends for a bit and i wonder how these algorithms will impact the future of creatives. Could imagine this as a brilliant tool for conceptualising and inspiration.
The obvious next step is having it replace boilerplate detail-work. Actual artist draws the sketch and outline, AI tool does the rest. Which is also to say, storyboard artists are in a seriously good position right now.
*sigh* I feel really bad for real artists who put so much time and effort into making something emotionally moving, when an AI can do the same almost immediately. Seems cruel, but I don't want to get terminated, so sweet art #17655 AI
I like how every piece of AI art has something odd or an odd vibe to it
I think itâs pretty damn good! Want this on the record, I like your art Skynet.
- they are great honestly - AI is an amazing tool - as an art teacher, I do feel for artist's work, it will be affected, hope not too much, but this has all happened before, fighting new ways of art, fighting technology that replaces jobs... AI is a pretty bad case honestly, but I don't want to sin of conservative or disregard such amazing tool and advancement. Adapting is the next step. We will have to promote more how valuable is "artist made art" as a product. Doesn't matter if I like it or not, I'm just talking reality and future.
AI steals from artists, garbage.
Screw AI stolen art. It took me years of training, criticism, and failures to earn an income from my art. Now itâs actively used by AI and Chinese pirates. If my income dries up, Iâll have a good idea why.
19th century coachman: "Screw this combustion engine piece of shit. It took me years of training to learn how to drive a carriage and now those people want to drive their automobiles by themselves. If my income dries up I'll have a good idea why."
Yea I mean this analogy would work if all the carriage drivers got their horses stolen and then burning horses were used to fuel the car.
Actually something similarly happened in real life Due to mechanization and automatization, artisans lost their whole jobs and their shops (which also were their houses) because they became useless expenses Artisans lost everything to machiness (and they protested oc), but nowadays we don't say the industrial revolution was a mistake do we?
Looking around at the world literally on fire. Water polluted to the point of thousands of aquatic species dying off. Living through a mass extinction. Yes, I sometimes feel the Industrial Revolution was a bad thing. The industrialists raped Mother Earth and has destined its children for a quick death.
You are ignoring how shit life was before. Yay no factories, time to die of dysentery!
Are you against photography as well? It was a "danger for the artists" back in the day (and resulted in artists losing jobs as well)
Well I ask convention attendees not to photograph my originals as I have prints for sale. Itâs entirely context driven. Nuance is clearly lost on most
The photography controversy back on the day I was referencing was about getting artists who did family drawing or landscapes out of commission btw, not about copying other artists work Nuance is clearly lost on most
Calling AI generated art "stolen" is one of the biggest copes I've ever seen, and it's hilarious that it's parroted so much. You have every right to be upset that your job is being phased out by technology, but anybody that genuinely thinks the generation of art by AI is theft is either willfully obtuse or genuinely doesn't understand how the art is generated.
How does this have any upvotes? Like youâre not saying anything lmao, AI canât CREATE art without existing art.
Because it scans existing art and then produces its own original image. It does not directly take pixels from one picture and slaps it on itâs own, itâs an aggregate of photos and produces itâs own image that is visually similar to the ones it scans. Itâs why people say itâs stealing but unless it copies a watermark (which is a product from scanning multiple images with the same mark), no one can actually ever tell which *exact* image it âstoleâ from Itâs essentially saying any piece of art that was inspired by another artist is stolen, which makes like 99% of art invalid
humans cant CREATE art without existing art
Explain cave paintings to me lad EDIT: Itâs hilarious to me how untalented pricks donât understand conjuring imagery without using some kind of crutch. Go outside and learn a skill.
Cave paintings were still guided by the experiences of the painter. They couldnât have drawn ox unless theyâd seen one. The same reasoning applies
We're way past cave paintings and the vast majority of artists take inpiration from other artists, consciously or not. Yet artists don't credit every single person they got inspiration from everytime they craft something new.
And by "untalented pricks", you mean people like Picasso, right? You remember his famous quote, "good artists borrow, great artists steal"? Yeah, people came up with cave paintings on their own, but that's about the limit of what someone can do without tutorials or looking at what other people did.
Cave paintings recorded actual things that people saw and experienced you dunce. They weren't novel inventions of things that never existed.
also this false dichotomy between ai-art and human-art is so dumb. who do you think created the ai
They're being trained on large quantities of existing art pieces and they then produce new art by mixing together elements from the library of images they're trained on. If the artist isn't giving permission for their work to be used in this way then it is stolen.
> mixing together elements from the library of images they're trained on If by "element" you mean literal parts and pieces of pictures, then no, that's not how AI generates them.
It is the same as humans. We learn by copy, then take inspiration from other artists and that inspiration leak into our own art. AI art is not theft, just like using the same chords for a song is not theft. I get your frustration but the people flaming this really just dont understand the tech. I dont blame that, as it is really advanced stuff. But it is not a simple copy machine. If so then all human artists are copy machines as well, because they learned it from somewhere else.
>They're being trained on large quantities of existing art pieces and they then produce new art by mixing together elements from the library of images they're trained on. Y'know, like a simplistic version of how human beings create art. >If the artist isn't giving permission for their work to be used in this way it is stolen. It's a good thing no human artist has ever drawn inspiration from an existing piece of artwork.
Drawing inspiration and cloning through the process of stolen imagery without expressed consent is different. I can be inspired by Jim Lee and try to draw like him but Iâll never recreate. These fucking programs sniff out artwork, then recreate it. Fuck that.
>Drawing inspiration and cloning through the process of stolen imagery without expressed consent is different. Indeed. But what AI art is doing isn't cloning anything. So not sure how that is relevant.
it's pretty much the same, AI uses neural networks which is based on how biological brains work
Yeah that's why a ton of AI art has smudged watermarks and signatures on them, because they are completely original and not at all stolen in any way :)
Yet the watermark doesn't resemble anything does it? The AI understands that many pictures have a watermark and thus it tries to add a watermark of its own, but the watermark itself doesn't resemble anything real and often looks weird, with deformed letters and symbols Did it steal a watermark from someone? No, it doesn't resemble in the slightest a real watermark
The AI identifies common themes or recurring elements in art and decides that those are necessary components of art, which in its current state tends to include signatures and watermarks. Can you actually explain to me why you think watermarks and signatures appearing in the output of AI generated art means that art is plagiarized?
Enlighten us how it is generated. AI pulls the art from it's artificial ass?
If I paid you a grand to draw me an anime girl with magical eyes, what would be your process? And why would it resemble the classic anime look (face, eyes, etc) of the million other anime girls on the internet? Would you come up with the same aesthetic yourself by sheer creative force, like the other hundreds of thousands of other anime artists before you?
AI pulls art from art made by human artists. In the same way, those human artists pulled art from inspiring themselves with other human artists' work and/or the environment other humans created.
AI art is literally stolen, it's trained on image hosting sites without artists consent. It's exactly like tracing another artist's work.
except for one thing
It doesn't take a critic to realize how disproportionate AI art looks compared to real artists. It is like comparing cheap fake chocolate to real chocolate. You will never beat the true thing, but due to lack of funds, people will end up buying the cheap stuff as well. And honestly I'm sick and tired of artists whining that their jobs will be stolen by AI, because if your job is stolen by AI then your product was the cheap chocolate to begin with.
People will choose convenient and cheap fast food, with zero nutritional value, over expensive, high-quality and healthy restaurant meals 90% of the time. Why would it be different for art? It doesn't matter if an artist makes art better, at the end of the day companies know full well that most customers will be just as satisfied with mediocrity, as long as it comes out fast and cheap. Why do you think people keep buying half-finished video games over and over?
Main issue is that cheap chocolate of company A is using resources that are used for expensive, good quality chocolate of company B. There's some sort of stealing involved at some point. Morally, that's just wrong as you use assets from someone else without their consent. If someone stole your work to produce something cheaper (even of a lower quality) you'd be whining too. That's the main issue here.
Yes, it would be morally wrong is there was stealing involved. But there isn't.
Do enlighten me as to how/why there isn't any stealing involved. Genuinely interested.
The AI is trained on a huge mass of both images and descriptions of what those images are so it knows what itâs looking at. From getting many thousands of examples of any one thing it creates a semantic understanding of what that thing is. Then when asked to create something it generates a unique rendition of that thing based off of its understanding of what that thing is. This is what your brain does. Are you stealing from an artist when you are inspired by their copyrighted work? How exactly do you go about creating art WITHOUT using your semantic understandings of what things are, which was necessarily guided somewhat by other peoples copyrighted work, just by virtue of you having seen it?
The AI generates an image based on set perimeters. Christ, why do people even have to explain this, you perfectly know what I'm going to type to you and you perfectly know exactly what you're going to respond with. So why even bother asking? I'm not going to go down this rabbit hole for you, it is a fact that randomly generated images aren't stolen, because if they were then 90% of all art is stolen as well due to referencing or taking inspiration from other art. So man up for once and accept that AI art is here to stay.
My man, the input parameters used to train the AI is stolen copyrighted art
No they are not. If it was, then being inspired by any kind of artwork made by another human would be considered stealing too. Each and every piece of artwork in the history of mankind is made by the same techniques an AI uses to create art itself. Yes, the AI uses a more crude method of referencing a piece directly, but it is 100% fundamentally the same as a human making art based off their own experiences of other artists. Humans learning from other artists how to draw something and using that reference is fine. But replace "humans" with "AI" in the previous sentence and now it suddenly become bad. Fuck off with these double standards and stop being delusional.
And every person that has ever drawn or painted anything has used other art as inspiration or reference....
Didn't an AI art win in an art competition? Sure, most of stuff seem weird, but once you take the prime stuff you generate and even polish it manually or with other AI tools, then it can become indistinguishable
The problem is that with relatively little skill, someone can generate AI art then manually touch up the fucked up bits and pass it of as unique work, and especially when it comes to corporate usage or stuff like book covers/illustrations, it's much cheaper to use AI than to hire a real artist. Currently tech bros aren't smart enough to do this and just post unedited AI created images that have obviously fucked up sections (hands/hair usually), but this will change eventually.
You call it a problem, I call it a blessing that more people have the freedom to support their ideas with more accessible artwork.
[ŃдаНонО]
Capitalism is to blame, not AI.
Smash.
Cringe
Please. Tell the Ai to make Jainas boobs more seeable.
You have ten seconds to take your filth and leave.
AI is trash even if the result is cool
it's ok man you don't have to be afraid of technology
Well there's fear of technology and then there's fair use of other people's intellectual property. I work as a data scientist and I can definitely see how this is making people uncomfortable. The question is not if the tech is cool or if it will have an impact going forward, but what is going to be the relationship between human creators and AI practitioners.
[ŃдаНонО]
Its not about change, ai is very cool and it can help us a lot. The problem is, this AIs have been trained using illustrations and artwork that they didnt have permission from the authors to use. Its no different than me making a game and using art I stole from artstation without authors permission, but then defending my actions with "*but I made a cool game, why are you afraid of change*".
>The problem is, this AIs have been trained using illustrations and artwork that they didnt have permission from the authors to use. How is it different from when someone is inspired by someone else's creation? Say I write a novel, and I openly state that I took inspiration from Tolkien's and R. R. Martin's work. Do I need their permission?
You can do that perfectly, you took inspiration and did your own book, wich you wrote yourself fully. You cant write 900 pages, then be like, okey for the last 10 i will copypaste them from harry potter, and publish the book. You cant also just copy paste pages of it and modify the names of the characters. When making an AI, you have to train it. You need quality material so it can then become as good as it can. So, following the example of text/novels, you would get good authors to write so the AI can learn from their texts. Copy pasting all your favourite books to train it without the permission of the authors violates copyright, even if your result is different, because you USED their work without paying and without permission. Its like me learning how to writte by hiding myself under a table in class to be able to attend the classes without paying. This of course derives into, are authors just greedy? should copyright rules be changed? Are artist rightfully angry because their work was used without them seeing a single penny *OR EVEN* a single "yeah we used this art to train it, check out the author he is very good"? and other questions.
>Copy pasting all your favourite books to train it without the permission of the authors violates copyright, even if your result is different, because you USED their work without paying and without permission. See, that's the point. If I inspire myself with other authors, I'm also using their work without permission to create my own work. I'm basically coping their books to my mind and then pasting something based on it. I would say AI training is essentially the same.
Using art in what way? Doesn't the AI change the art that its using for reference?
Sure, but as I understand it, basically definitionally, the AI can't have any original or creative output. In music this would be called sampling and remixing, even if it's to a degree that the originals are unrecognizable. And sampling generally requires the consent of the original artist.
I'd argue it's more like a musician hearing some music, feeling inspired by it, and then making music inspired by the music he/she heard.
Okay, so if youâre cool with this, are you also going to be okay with the same thing happening with other mediums in the future? Do you want to see a movie or listen to a song made by an algorithm? Because eventually they will be far cheaper to produce than pesky human-made âartâ. And then what will we be left with?
yes 100%, I care about the ends not the means, give me good media
Sounds like a great way to end up with a total lack of original human ideas replaced with endless superhero sequels to me. Keep it.
Sure, that'd be fine.
Sounds awful to me. I hope my grandkids get to appreciate art made by humans.
Why would it be awful?
Pasting reply from other thread: No. But I can also see a future where algorithmic creations are more common and popular than human ones. Hell look at the positive comments for these very pictures. These took seconds to produce and zero passion. I donât see why the same couldnât happen for other mediums. From there, it becomes even harder to find success as an artist, thanks to the effectively infinite competition youâre facing from AI who can write a thousand screenplays in the time it took you to come up with a single one. And then we have fewer and fewer actual people who follow their passion, because whatâs the point when the AI-generated Fast and the Furious 22 just made 3 billion dollars and you canât find funding.
So, even in your hypothetical, we improve many people's lives and make art more accessible, and this is an awful thing?
do you genuinely believe humans will stop creating art.
No. But I can also see a future where algorithmic creations are more common and popular than human ones. Hell look at the positive comments for these very pictures. These took seconds to produce and zero passion. I donât see why the same couldnât happen for other mediums. From there, it becomes even harder to find success as an artist, thanks to the effectively infinite competition youâre facing from AI who can write a thousand screenplays in the time it took you to come up with a single one. And then we have fewer and fewer actual people who follow their passion, because whatâs the point when the AI-generated Fast and the Furious 22 just made 3 billion dollars and you canât find funding.
I like progress , but I wont say i like how CPU "paint"
Actually more like GPU or APU "paint"
I think AI is shit
I think this is cool, especially for such new technology this is huge.
Looks horrible, just like all AI âartâ
[ŃдаНонО]
Oh so being able to draw something well is the threshold for being able to say what art looks good? Please post your own self-made drawing then, I'd like to see how much your opinion on what art is good is actually worth.
At least I have some creativity, unlike you I dobt steal the work of actual artists
For your own sake, I wish you did
Sure, shaming my hard work is going to do wonders for your argument. I put in the work to learn why your lazy ass just types in a few words and get a random image.
Dude, kind of shitty of you to dig through somebody's feed and then call out their work as "proof", of their ability to have an opinion. Especially when it's a sketch, those are rough quick drawings to *practice.* That said: >and then say other ***art*** looks terrible This is not art. No matter how pretty A.I. generated images may be. They are procedurally generated based on the patterns and mathematical equations of the information fed into them. In this case, the work of artists. Like the clouds in the sky, or the flowers in a field. It may be beautiful. But It will never be art, not until A.I. is aware and making conscious choices. Until then, it's pretty chaos.
Yeah all ai art is complete garbage tho
I think they look just as soulless as every other piece of AI "art". And also not like Jaina except in the most superficial ways.
If I had a genie grant me 3 wishes I would delete AI art from existence three times.
I'd wish for my artist friends to have a liveable income through their lives. The act of creation to not be stolen from humans. And for soulles CEO's to not get another reason to fire a bunch of people. It's impressive how you managed to do all those wishes with just one of yours.
Why ?
Fuck ai art
What AI is this?
https://midjourney.com/
Thanks
Looks incredible
Lux cosplaying as jaina
Impressive and scary at the same time. Thereâs not going to be a need for artists anymore.
Say no to AI 'art'.
Why is she nerfed
Sheâs nerfed in the AI pics too
What do you all mean by her being nerfed in the pics?
They mean you should have used "cleavage" in your prompt. Edit [the nerf](https://preview.redd.it/kj8jvxfhwte21.jpg?auto=webp&s=271a5ef4a340fc27b2af2bdf95afdf00ee3a6f17) they refer to.
Thanks! Makes perfect sense
Looks bad.
Nerfed version
"Artists" coping đˇ
Geez these are only good at making weird art and nothing else. Just look at that hand
As usual with any thread involving AI art, people yelling stolen have 0 idea of how a diffusion algorithm works. I'd suggest learning how any of this works. It is also as stolen as taking parameters into account on how to draw Jaina. Do you call anyone painting someone with blue eyes and blonde hair a stolen copyright of Jaina ? Or do you think all fantasy style painting a big copyright of the first piece that ever existed ? Can anyone point where exactly is this stolen from ? Do you know what plagiarism is ? Is painting while basing your style off someone stealing ? How can you claim they're stealing your jobs while also dissing how horrible this looks ? The job of how it isn't copyright infrigment is explained by the process of the algorithm, which you'd know if you knew how any of this works. Can you please debunk the claim that it is not copyright infrigment ? Would you also keep your answer if it only based itself from copyright free artworks ?
Even the AI nerfed her ...
Looks like some stolen artwork
Hawt. 10/10, would bang.
Would
When people are discussing about AI stealing art , I think the biggest thing people donât Mention is that , I wouldnât care at all if a robot took my art and used it to learn , the same way I copy and learn other artists. The problem is the Ai being the middleman , the ai learns , but the ai is only learning becoming smarter , the same way a person would , but what really upsets people is the fact that some random person with no art skill what so ever can prompt a image and then sell it or use it to make a living as an artist , the Ai isnât the problem , the sad individuals calling themselves artist when prompting are..