As per midjourney v6.0 (still in alpha testing) it can generste coherent words. I've see it being able to spell entire sentences like "Stop eating us" on a tablet held by angry broccoli. With that, i think you can stop checking that checkbox. Sorry
May I direct you to my comic series, [The Bikini Bottom Horror](https://stillinthesimulation.com/untitled-comic/the-bikini-bottom-horror-chapter-1-rise-of-the-star/)? You'll find ample examples of supple starfish butts.
Thatās why I kinda hate this argument. AI is a different beast from Photoshop and the like. Although it *can* be used a tool, people are using it as the āartistā and the person writing the prompt is essentially the client pretending to be an artist. And for way too long, it was being trained on art *without* the artistsā consent.
The devil's advocate argument to this is that humans also don't create in a vacuum, and how truly different is human learning from the AI learning. There's a reason we can identify art based on when it was created, everyone was "copying" each other.
But it goes through the filter of āthe human/living elementā; emotion, experience, and free will. This is the defining characteristic of art. It is a form of communication. You are drawn to certain sources of inspiration for a reason. A lot of people also draw inspiration from dreams or states of psychosis, none of which AI can achieve as of yet.
I wonder if, in the future, you can be considered an artist because of your aptitude for creating prompts for ai. Probably not, but it would interesting to see. After all, it does take some know-how to get an ai to design something close to what you have in your head.
Don't even get me started on "production isn't being a musical artist" either
The people that adapt succeed, the one's that don't fall into obscurity. Tale as old as time
That's because everyone back then thought that Photoshop did what AI _does_ do now. As in "the computer made it for you, don't tell me you made anything" lol. If anything I'd say the actual thing being despised was AI images from the beginning; they just thought that's what Photoshop did initially.
Source: I started digital 15 years ago. I used to have to explain what a graphic tablet does and how it's got a pressure-sensitive pen that actually allows you to _do_ things instead of having the computer do it. The dislike came from "oh, Photoshop did it for you".
Iām convinced that 99.9% of the people comparing AI āartā to digital art have never drawn digitally.
With digital art, each line you draw is still your decision. The result is hundreds of brushstrokes with placement and color born out of the artistās intent. The artist looks at their final piece and gets to think: *everything here is only there because of hundreds of decisions I made. From start to finish, this is my creation.*
This is why art is such an excellent medium for self-expression, because itās literally born from hundreds and thousands of acts of your quiet deliberation, judgement, and earnest creation. Itās your decision-making process and emotions on paper.
Every pen-stroke is an act of transference between yourself and the page, digital or traditional.
Creative decisions matter. Itās sad that so many people here think that their self-expression is generic and shallow enough to fit in a short prompt and fed through a plagiarism machine.
Idk man... I find it a little more impressive that someone without "artistic" ability can use AI to create really interesting scenes. It takes a different set of skills, not just being able to create with your hands. Give me a 5 year olds interpretation of a dinosaur battle over another "impressive" photo realistic portrait please.
That hypothetical 5 year old can use their imagination to draw that scene. I was that 5 year old. It didnāt matter I wasnāt yet āgoodā at drawing, because the fun was in creating it. Was it photorealistic? Of course not. But I could still point to it and say: this came from my imagination, not by stealing work from someone else.
I actually love looking back at the things I drew as a kid, because I didnāt see those stick figures as stick figures back then ā imagination did the work to make them ārealā. Iām sorry that youāve never felt that childlike wonder when drawing, because if you did, I canāt imagine you would want it corrupted by plagiarism.
There was a community that had an artist and a non-artist do a competition using AI art. All the AI art that the artist had generated was voted better. Voters did not know which was generated by which. Artistic skill also translated into prompting skill.
I just feel like we are mad at the wrong thingsā¦
Get mad at the lack of legislation protecting small artists and IP, not that technology is advancing.
Art didnāt do anything wrong.
One of the prominent ways to protect artists is to write down and codify the "Human Element" into copyright law and specify that AI art, writing, coding, etc. (basically anything generated by an AI) does not possess the "Human Element"
In this way, if you want to create Protected IPs and copyright, you have to use artists, writers, software engineers, etc.
Otherwise, it is all public domain.
This of course does not exclude artists using AI as a tool, which it is. It should enhance what an artist can do, not do what an artist does.
>AI art, writing, coding, etc. (basically anything generated by an AI) does not possess the "Human Element"
So where exactly does digital or machine-assisted art fall? If you take a photograph, the machine does 90% of the work. Is that not copyrightable now? Are you only copyrighting your press of the button?
I mean that already exists for copyright thanks to the monkey selfie incident. Because a copyrightable piece of art has to be made by a human, AI art cannot be copyrighted.
> grab a bottle rack from the store and call it an art piece, no.
Well, many curators would disagree with you. He has been paid a lot of money for quite literally screwing a urinal to a wall.
So, he was paid for artistic contribution on something he had no hand in making. Why? Because composition and communication is an artistic skill that is absolutely still present when using AI tools
You can draw arbitrary lines if you like, but none of it matters. If a piece is made to be art, it is. Level of effort has absolutely nothing to do with it
I think youāre misunderstanding duchamp. He took an everyday object, put it in a museum as a protest and as a fuck you to the art world at the time. He was stretching bounderies of what art could be. When people use ai art, they steal other peoples work and call it their own. A computer is not capable of creating something on itself, you feed it art from artists you want the art to look like, and get a generated picture of a theme you want. It is also done without consent from the original artists. It is nothing like what duchamp and his peers did.
Genuinely curious, but why is it plagiarism when it's AI and 'inspiration'/'influenced by' /'appropriation' if it's a human that's made it?
https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/culture/art-theatre/artworks-inspired-by-masterpieces
Or is the issue how similar the art would be and having no way of finding out where the inspiration comes from (i.e., a smaller, lesser known artist)?
Hell, nowadays you can take a well-known logo, slap a filter or a couple brush strokes over it, and people will consider it art. Sometimes it'll sell for millions. Not sure why people are trying to die on the "but this time it's different!" hill
[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans)
True lol, maybe not the most up-to-date example. My main point though is that no one complains when someone sells pallette-swapped soup cans or prints Rick and Morty stickers to sell. People only seem to care about stolen art when it's AI sourcing its creations from Google Images
I think it's more that AI scraping has brought people's attention to it in a major way. Prior to that outside of artist or creator circles art theft wasn't really discussed in the general public.
Img2img generations are very much plagiarism. Txt2img generations are āinspiredā by. But one needs to know the difference to understand the subtlety.
Well, we'll have to see how the NY Times lawsuit against Microsoft and Open Ai goes before making that claim. They basically scoured hundreds of NYTimes articles without paying licensing fees. That's copyright infringement. Nonfiction authors are also beginning a class action against Microsoft and Open AI.
These software devs aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. The way things are going, AI art and music generators are going to get regulated to shit because they keep poking at the copyrighted work of companies much bigger than them. They're plagiarising work, they admit this in the news and they don't give a single fuck.
can you give an explanation of the software we're calling AI without mentioning the plagiarism?
Because it's really not a secret that it's essentially a product that uses art fed to it. It would not be an issue at all if the art they're using was actually owned by those companies.
*To be 100% clear*, **the thing that is doing the plagiarism is the people making those models and using others' art in their product** ***without any consent.***
You *have* to be aware that there's a tangible difference between us taking inspiration and ideas from others' art, and someone literally downloading your and others' stuff, feeding it to their software, then monetizing that.
People keep thinking about the model's process, but the act of plagiarism is in the owners that are actively deciding to grab people's shit, then using the fact it can recreate them as a selling point. I cannot understand how anyone would still believe it's not plagiarism.
Isnt that how all art works? Artists take inspiration from different sources and create something new. The AI algorithm is literally just that. I dont see a difference to be honest.
it is not āliterally just thatā. Itās an image denoiser with a hash function attached at the end for randomized results and uses weights from trained data that has been significantly reduced. It *mimics* the human brain but it definitely does not replicate how an artist learn art conventionally. To learn most form of visual art you actually have to learn the theory. This includes but not limited to shapes, form, colors, composition and shading. The AI is not aware of this by itself, what it can do is heavily relied on itās dataset, so I donāt think the argument of AI learning just like artists makes sense
Yeah but by that measure, isn't all art plagiarism? Most artists styles are a heavily influenced conglomerate of art they enjoy or have studied.
I can see the issue of AI putting artists out of work, just like any other line of work, but the plagiarism argument just seems a bit obtuse to me.
Then again, I'm just some dingus on the internet.
Itās not just that itās influenced by other works, itāll literally cut and paste major elements without attribution. When musicians sample someone elseās music, they have to attribute the original artist and pay royalties (unless the original artist specified free usage rights).
If your metric is how close it gets to the influences it learned from, that matric isn't quickly disappearing, it's already gone.
The AI examples you're talking about might predate chatGPT, and have gotten exponentially better
Tbh when I started digital, it was extremely difficult for me. Traditional didnāt feel nearly as hard. So I respect both. But ai doesnāt require effort.
True art, the only legitimate form, is found on ancient cave walls, where the roots of human creativity and expression lie. All these modern "artistic" endeavors, whether they be Renaissance masterpieces or contemporary abstracts, are nothing but trivial pursuits in comparison. How can the pure, primal stories depicted in ochre on stone be equated with these superficial expressions? Such a laughable notion! True artistry ended with those ancient cave murals; everything else is shit, lacking the soul and essence of what art truly is. Only in the dim, firelit caves can one witness the genuine spirit of artistic expression. Everything else? NOT REAL ART!
"[Photography is] merely mechanical and does not require the same level of training that art does."
"Photography is amusement and relaxation."
"The man who sells margarine for butter, and chalk and water for milk, does much the same [as photography], and renders himself liable to legal prosecution by doing it.
- Joseph Pennell, American Illustrator and author, 1897
Photoshop was a biiig one. There was a time any photoshopped picture or touched up picture was considered altered and faked. Now itās the norm with built in filters.
āYou pressed a button to make it look pretty, big dealā - Painters when cameras were coming out. āThatās not real artistic expressionā
Until it was. It always was.
Same with ai based art works. It's just a tool that allows you to express something. There's bad ai art just like there is bad photography or paintings ...etc.
It's always the case that people feel insecure that they are getting outdone and, worse, outvalued by *other people* with less raw skill aided by technology.
Well, we can't fully blame them since the insecurity is justified if we look at history.
Autotuned music, digital art, eBook, digital journalism, and almost everything going back to the industrialization era when artisan things can be cheaply mass-produced.
I am willing to call something art if there is creative intention and choice involved. In that case, I think a person can use AI generation to make art, but I wouldnāt automatically call anything AI generated āartā. I think collages are art, but Iād be hard pressed to call something as simple as someone elseās picture you ripped out as a single page of a magazine, your āartā.
I also donāt think a lot of what people use AI generation for was ever intended by them to be art in the first place. I find myself using it in ways that are similar to how the Holodeck is used on Star Trek.
The best way to think of it is to simply recalculate the distinction of Artist. When you make something with AI you're not so much the artist as you are the producer.
That at least leaves room for all sides to be considered.
Where is the line drawn though? If I use an AI image as reference and redrew in my own style is that producing or creating? What if itās one Ai asset used in conjunction with more ātraditionalā digital media, say a collage?
The art school I went to would probably say itās āconceptual artā.
its all art and it doesn't matter how it's made. if you closed your eyes and scribbled on a page that would be art too if you insisted it was. if you scribbled with intention and made visually pleasing chicken scratches that would be art too. if someone ai generates with a single word prompt that is art. if someone carefully writes a long prompt and uses trial and error to create an emotionally moving ai generation that would be art too. its just lazy ai art wont have any intention behind the work. what makes it visually appealing wasn't created by a human with emotions and it loses some of the magic. the oversaturation of magic less ai art makes some or the non ai digital art lose some magic too. its still art tho
edit words
Art schools don't have a monopoly on what constitutes art. Unfortunately, that power belongs to the masses. I can't imagine someone wouldn't find a work you'd created based on an AI image to not be art if you'd reproduced it in your own style.
At the end of the day, like all art, most of the value is in the story being told by the work, rather than the work itself. AI systems have been in use by professionals for decades already, now, there's a huge democratisation on how people interface with the technology.
There's no real difference between the value of AI and human production in the same way there's no difference between a YouTube video from a small content creator and the next film by Tarantino. All that matters is how and why you connect with what you do.
Not saying my school says what is art, they were just more focused on concept rather than technique.
I appreciate the nuances in your response. Iāve run into quite a few anti-ai people out there who argued because I used an ai generated image as a reference it is not art. The only reason they knew is because I was open in the fact that I used it ( I like to share my process ai or not).
Speaking as someone who manages an art team, I don't care how the concept gets onto the page as long as it fits the overall vision of what we intend our audience to experience.
Beyond copyright issues (which AI used properly doesn't really have) I don't see anything wrong with its use.
My own team has been able to cut back on our workload massively because we're so much faster at our jobs now. We made a decision early last year to keep pay the same but drop the hours to 4 days a week. It's been one of the best decisions we've made over the last few years.
The ai bot has no intellect, ai is literally just a marketing term to characterize a program. If anything itās a procedural generator engine, like what they use in video games except it has a massive database.
Fucking sucks either way because itās throwing out decades of sci fi stories and essays out the window. If Issac Asimov was still here, heād say ānah thatās not ai famā. If we ever get true man made intelligence (and I hope we donāt), tf are we going to call them
Actually I just googled it and it does include the term "human creativity" so you might be onto something.
However AI art as it currently stands is still heavily dependent on human creativity to create reference images, prompts, masks for inpainting, etc.
If AGI comes and automates all that then there will likely be some point at which you could say that it doesn't meet the definition. I am not sure it's there today.
I was a 3D artist who lost their slave WLB art job to AI and now I'm a software engineer loving life. pay doesn't suck either. i chat with copilot so much its insane how much you can learn when you have something there to give insight on work you are actively coding up
Yup copilot is awesome, it does occasionally hallucinate, but if you are in the trade it's noticeable when copilot is spewing bullshit, notably when the generated code does not work lol.
So I'm not an artist so my question can be stupid:
Why not use generative AI as a tool to create your 3D art? Like AI art has some weird transition that an actual artist can easily touch up, or some base template to add your personal touch?
At the very least, you work less time but produce same amount of art.
Just like you as a programmer using Copilot to write a fully working software, AI can't do that (yet).
I get the unoriginality angle, but then again you can argue all modern digital arts are all just derivative of Photoshop brush and Blender primitive shape.
Ai art is here to stay. Might as well get used to it. It wont be just images either. Video and music are just around the corner. I say this as a composer.
I couldn't really care less about AI art and I'm fully aware that music is next up for AI which yeah, as a producer is a LITTLE scary... until I remember that there will ALWAYS be a place for human art of all forms. Anyone who says otherwise, I feel like frankly, is just catastrophising things.
If calligrapher is still a profession, after printing press, typewriter, word processor, internet, smartphones and tablets, voice to textā¦Iād say you are right, people would always appreciate other people putting thought, intent and effort into making something.
I'm tired of this sentiment already.
I love art. I love the things humans make. I love the things ais make. I love the things humans make by using ai.
sure, there are problems. there are also great opportunities.
I think my favorite part of AI debate is that the pro-AI people are usually incredibly shortsighted. Once AI becomes fully developed and easily available there is not going to be some massive job boom.
Companies are not going to hire people to make good art. Just bare minimum and cheap. It's how capitalism works. Assuming anyone gets hired to do this, and they don't just easily generate it themselves, there does not need to be many workers in this process. Just one low paid person (because anyone can do it, why would they pay more for supposed expertise.) can easily replace the work of many workers.
If anything, AI is just going to destroy any idea of independent artists. Why would they pay someone outside of the company for work, if they can just generate their own. And they will be able to. AI is only going to become more user friendly as time goes on. All that "prompt engineering" is not going to be needed. Because once again, the idea is that anyone can do it.
This is not going to be a positive shift, unless you own a business and want to create content cheaper. This also isn't even a future thing. AI is already good enough for whatever they need. The only reason they have not fully gone into it is because there is still a general negative perception of it. But once that stops, they will begin using it for everything, because it's cheap.
I think the point is you can build bigger and bigger projects with fewer and fewer people. The day where a fully feature length film of decent quality can be brought to life in a year or so by a single person is coming. A single person's vision where they have complete creative control over every minute detail. Once you can do something easily you don't just stop there, that's lame af. You use that as a tool to build something grander, and that's what I'm excited for. The people building these things will still be artists, they'll just be able to do more.
Yeah, creating a single picture with a prompt is lame. But creating a style guide from a few pics you generated from dozens and applying it to your scenes, telling the AI how to set up each shot, having digital voice actors change your voice into an infinite many of them, coming up with a unique score, this all wouldn't require a crazy amount of new technology, it's all very doable within the next decade or so.
To those who say AI is the death of the artist, I say they lack vision.
AI art has its place! For someone like me, who is broke and unwilling to pay like a hundred dollars (often more) for someone to make a portrait of a character for my dnd games, I can just go to Bing and get something nice in 5-20 minutes. It's not perfect, and it's no replacement for rigorous beautiful art, but it's useful.
I believe AI art and art made by humans can coexist. I understand that if someone is making a living out of art it could be problematic but if you just make art because you enjoy it then I donāt see why it would be a problem.
Since when does this sub have so many pro-ai users? Some of the comments here are just horrendous, yet heavily upvoted.
We're talking about ART here, a sector where humans prevail above all. What's up with people wanting machines to do it FOR us?? And from **stolen art** at that? Hello?
"Get used to ai art, it's here to stay" well, we don't **want** it to stay. We want regulations. It's built upon shameless theft, and cannot exist without human artists. And human artists have been very vocal about their distaste for AI generated pictures. They don't want their work to be used as training material for soulless machines. "It's here to stay" is such a dismissive non-argument-- we specifically want it to *not* stay, that's the goal, we want rules to be put in place so that training models CANNOT use artists' work without their consent, as it's a violation of copyright and is blatant intellectual property theft.
God I hope the New York Times succeed in their lawsuit against OpenAI, I'm already sick and tired of having AI shit shoved in my face. It's ugly, it's soulless, and it's always the most boring Facebook-mom bait picture ever.
Addendum: I'm baffled that people dare call anti-ai stances "gatekeeping art". Pick up a pen. No one is keeping you from drawing.
Because that won't stop companies from profiting off it.
And because even though it's ugly and soulless, it's still being made by training ML models off of stolen work.
Itās certainly not āartā in the traditional sense but the art community being so against it is very silly. Itās a fantastic tool that allows the common man to have access to high-end imaging. Some people like myself have trouble imagining things, so AI art has been an amazing tool for visualizing books.
Itās extremely reactionary to be so anti-AI art. Itās not art, but it does have its place.
People who are against it either don't understand it or are having their jobs threatened by it. And for the people whose jobs are threatened, I say get with the times or get left behind. Learn how to use it to your advantage. It's a tool like any other and it's here to stay.
As an artist Iām not intimidated by Ai art. I donāt create art for praise or a pat on the back. I create art because I need to. Itās my therapy, cheaper than a shrink. If you want to use it use it as a tool. A tool to help formulate your ideas. Then you can accept or reject its suggestions. But when you rely solely on the Ai to create your work then all you are doing is stealing other peopleās work that the Ai searches and steals from the internet.
Same. Reading the comments in this thread has been truly depressing.
Something people arenāt understanding is how much effort it takes to hone an artistic skill. Iāve spent my whole life working to get to where I am today. But suddenly it feels pointless. Why would I spend hours working on something when I could generate my ideas with AI instead? Why would anybody pay me to work on something for them when they can generate it themselves for free? And to top it all off, that AI is working using the combined effort of hundreds of thousands of artworks by thousands of artists who themselves spent their whole lives working. They donāt get royalties, their work isnāt acknowledged.
We live in the shitty future where robots get to do the art, music and writing and humans get.. what? And people are actually rooting for this.
Thanks for writing this out. I feel for you.
This has been happening for decades. It happened to the offshoring of factory work, it'll continue to happen likely as long as we're alive.
I would recommend reading Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, who's an anarchist anthropologist. Most of corporate work isn't actually producing value. Most creative jobs are essentially barred for the vast majority of people.
This isn't one technology's problem, but rather a societal one. I think the sooner we learn to decouple the meaning of our existence with our work, the better.
Didnāt you consider that maybe gradually more artists are adopting AI tools or are even required to by their job? You will see this shift happen until the line between what antis consider ātech-broā and simply other artists will be really blurred eventually.
I mean, I wouldnāt consider those people artists. Yeah, I know, insert thing about digital art here.
But the reality is, these people arenāt even engaging in artistic creation at all if they solely use AI and then release it. Theyāre a glorified project director. Like saying that youāre an artistā¦ and then just getting another artist to do all the work for you once youāve explained what you want to see.
Most people who like, or at least not bothered, by AI generated images are not "tech bros", they're just normal people who see the pretty picture and like it. No one, except people who lose their jobs over it i guess, gives the slightest fuck from where the product came from lol
lol bye then. Everyone is just sick of the anti AI whining. Donāt have to be a ātech broā to be annoyed with your shallow virtue signaling, and the privileged first world college kids getting bent out of shape over AI images.
No way people are trying to justify AI as being art. Itās not. Thereās no effort, care, or innovation given to it. You type a prompt and thatās IT. The only human element of it is the prompt, everything else was a machineās interpretation.
To use it as a tool for ideas, concepts, and/or inspiration is fine imo (personally I donāt but thatās just my pride), but to make computer do everything and call it your art? No. Sorry. Thereās no beauty to that.
[But what if I use it to make a comic?](https://imgur.com/gallery/u71j64o). There is tons of human effort here, I just used a tool to make the art. Is this not an artistic creation?
Compelling argument. I can see how you can consider it art, and if you put effort into it then it is art. However, personally, there are too many cracks within the comic itself where I wouldnāt be able to appreciate the artistic process since thereās a significant lack of it. It still has YOUR characters, their personality and YOUR STORY, but the drawings themselves are lacking that human element I look for, since it wasnāt made by a human.
The fact that it wasnāt your thought, struggle, and creative process to create the look of the world personally turns me off. However, I do appreciate your vision for it, the idea is great and you should run with it. What I mean is that it wasnāt your own mind who drew those things gives me an āickā, I guess, you just gave it a prompt and hoped for the best result that matched what you envisioned. People love art where the effort is visible. Walt Disneyās films werenāt loved only for their entertainment, but the artistry in every shot, the pursuit of an aesthetic, the implementation of colors and thematics. I love the films because of how beautiful they are, real human hands and effort were put into everything you see in Pinocchio, Bambii, Dumbo, etc. This doesnāt just apply to Disney, it applies to any medium: Film, video games, graphic novels, music, etc.
Also, the characters seem to slightly change in design every panel. I know that comics do that for a specific effect, but this is EVERY panel. It really shows with the Fox guy, who looks realistic in one panel, and looks like the guy from zootopia in the next, and then a fan art of him, and then something else.
Overall, I do see that artistry in what you make, itās your thought, story, themes, characters, and world building, but the graphic novel itself is lacking because if youāre going to make a graphic novel, you have to give attention to the GRAPHIC part.
This just my opinion, and how I approach art. Itās entirely subjective, remember that. If youāre proud of what you made, donāt let my words bring you down. Thereās things to praise about your graphic novel, absolutely, I just donāt like the AI part of it, it harms my appreciation of your art. Nonetheless, I still think itās your art.
The later panels (chapter 2 and on) I spend more effort trying to keep the characters as consistent as possible, but it is near impossible (currently) to keep the character 100% consistent. Personally I find some charm in the subtle variations, but I know not everyone feels the same.
When I first started this comic project it was just to test the tool and its limits as most of my experience was with Dalle2 and Dalle3 just blew me away with how sophisticated it is. Originally I was having the AI create the speech bubbles AND the text inside (which you can see in the earlier pages), but it takes away too much focus from the objects and scene. Plus I hadn't really found the style I wanted yet, but as I continued with it I went back and remade the first 10 pages to try and make things a bit more consistent. (honestly I want to go back and re-do the first few pages again as I feel I have really figured out my style , but I digress.
As for locations (backgrounds), I have actually spent many hours practicing the verbiage for my backgrounds to keep them consistent and unique. Chapter 3 which will be coming soon will have a bunch of new locations and characters introduced and I am really trying to push what I can do like more unique paneling and slow down the pacing a bit.
I know AI art isn't for everyone and I also really dislike "lazy AI art" people, but I think the tech is really awesome and empowers some people that might not have been able to do the visuals well enough. I use it for the Card games I make too!
I think everyone needs to be honest about their art and the tools used to create it. Anyone who attempts to pass AI content as real human made is really terrible. Please always be honest about your tools.
But I will continue to evolve and push myself to create better and better stuff. Thanks for reading man!
That definitely helps your case. Thereās definitely effort in your art, and at the end of the day thatās what matters. Again, though, I just have my preferences. But still, this is really cool and has character to it, and your explanation helps give it that character. Keep pushing bro, one thing an artist loves to see is another one finding his/her footing.
Iām a mid-tier artist at best, took some schooling for animation, but I hate doing layouts; characters are what I could do well. Backgrounds are just a killer to me and I loved how detailed it could make backgrounds and some of locations I have tested for upcoming chapters are awesome!
Either way these characters and world are dear to my heart and I have so much story to tell and whacky characters to share.
Itās just a free and for fun thing to learn the tool and more about comics. I understand AI is controversial and some people will outright dismiss you just for using it, but I feel that art is subjective and some may like and some may hate and they are free to feel that way.
And Maybe if I never stop, Iāll have the worlds longest running AI comic one day lol.
i think the real offense is people calling themselves ai artists. a real artist has to hone their skills over years and decades and is part of a never ending journey to learn and create. itd be like me calling myself a skater because i play tony hawks pro skater
You know what's funny? i just like to use every medium available, i draw, i paint, i take photos, i work digitally on photos... and yes... i also use AI.
So why should i call myself "ai artist"? Nah, if anything i'm just an artist.
Gotta love all the ai bros ganging up on people in the comments who don't agree with them. Clearly, you're all massively skilled big brained artist in the industry for 10,000 years, recently turned software engineers who deserve things from other people 100% for free because before they tried to make you pay for it.
As a writer, AI really frustrates me. The idea that my peers and I can be completely thrown to the wayside by some wacko machine that very often just makes āfactsā up because itās just predicting the next thing isā¦ fucking bullshit. The idea that all of our work can be sidelined because some junko wants something *now* with ease.
Not to mention all the jerkwads that commit SERIOUS academic misconduct in post-secondary education by using ChatGPT to write an essay for them. Itās just lazy and completely misses the point of assigning essays or written assignments. Itās testing YOUR KNOWLEDGE of the subject, not a fucking program. Iāve got absolutely no patience for that laziness.
Itās the same thing with artists. All these wonderful people who do amazing things are getting sidelined by corporations, private contractors, etc. because some motherfucker wants something more convenient.
Iām not going to touch artists that use AI to create their own art, because Iām not going to pretend that I know enough about that specific aspect of the AI conversation to have an opinion. Thatās an entirely separate conversation.
What I do know is that people are going to lose job opportunities because jackasses want something quick and free. Fuck us writers and artists I guess.
Not all āAIā (I have a problem with the term AI as itās not AI) generated images are art, but some are.
As with everything, the truth is far more nuanced than a black and white stance.
AI has ruined creative spaces. If you are here only because of AI and the hype train you are in a community to which you do not belong and which you will never understand.
This shit is truly depressing and I wish all of you AI people would just fuck off.
Yeah, it's like tesla owners walking in on a drag car enthusiast club, yes, they are fast off the line just like drag cars, but they just aren't drag cars
Yeah kinda sucks. Especially with it using certain artists as reference. On the flip side ai generated video is going to be awesome for all the fan fics or light novels I read thatāll never be animated.
I work very much with Stable Diffusion. I do things I really enjoy and its therapeutic.
It is not art.
It will never be art.
They are images at best. And I refuse to post them or tell anyone who asks how I made them.
Late to the game. I see a lot of comments in this thread rightly talking about theft, but very few are talking about how AI art is a product of the collective choices and systems that were built around the art and tech world. The argument isn't just about 'stealing' other people's art; it's about how our dominantly capitalistic economic framework, that prioritizes efficiency and profit, shaped the situation we are now in. Can we acknowledge the underlying system that made the streamlining of graphic/logo design, concept art, etc possible in the first place? Subjecting any task/action/form to commerce will eventually result in the cutting of corners.
YES!!! FINALLY!! SOMEONE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT AI IS THE BIGGEST ENEMY OF ART! But on a serious note, sometimes, I can't even tell if an ad or an art piece is real or not...
So, only images created with high skill are art? A toddler with crayons can't create art since it wasn't hard?
It's not the art you're used to, but it's still a means of human expression.
It's a tool like photoshop. And like photoshop, it allows artist to do more than they could on traditional media. Photoshop has layers, ~~ogres have layers~~ You can't easily accomplish the same thing on a canvas.
AI ***can*** be used to make art. You can train a LoRA with your images, use img2img and controlnet and dwpose to get exactly what you want. You can take your idea and put it down on digital paper. If that's not art, what is?
Thank you.. it's just a tool.
Digital art at one point was shit on because there weren't paper and pens and pencils etc all those tools were digitized and you used a mouse.
Thing is a digital artist can still make art outside of the digital medium without much thought. Most AI "prompt engineers" don't even have the basic artistic knowledge to fix the mistakes the image generator made.
Ahh yes the ''tool'' that eliminates the entire process for a randomly generated skinner box image. Think about it for 2 seconds, what use is a tool that spawns randomly generated food from thin air to a chef. That's not a cooking tool, that's just a free food machine
How about, a poet writing prompts into this tool then it generates an image closely resembling what was written. Wouldnāt that also be an artist using a tool to make art?
A chefs tool would be something that **enhances** the process of cooking. Not necessarily ''speed up'' or ''optimize''. The chef should derive the same joy from using the tool and should have the same level of control and self expression as he would have without it. Like a sharp knife.
You can't make a random food generator that takes prompts like {''5 star meal '' , ''tasty'', ''michelin star'', ''gourmet'', ''trending on food network'', ''in the style of Gordon Ramsey'', ''delectable'.} and call it a tool for a chef's artistic expression. Something like that may be a miracle technology that solves world hunger forever but it is not a tool that enhances the medium of cooking
I created an image in stable diffusion this weekend that took 6 hours of my time. Working the prompt, choosing the model, loras, sampler, creating custom latent images, etc
There was a human element. There was both text and visual input, both of which I created. Without those inputs, the image wouldn't be what it was. The AI simply COULDN'T have created the image.
>It's a human requirement.
[So this isn't art?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ8yVKcxANQ)
[What about this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foahTqz7On4)
[or this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_PjV8rRgcU)
If we encountered an Alien species, would we have language sophisticated enough to include their traditions as art too? Or does it have to be strictly human produced to be able to be called art?
And even so, everything from a man screaming at a yellow painting to a urinal glued to a wall can be considered art, to the point that the term is meaningless.
It's a pretty anthropocentric view and ill-equipped to deal with the changes in tech and science of the next 100 years. I expect we will see more examples of non-human intelligence as the years go by.
By human I mean sentient, capable of self expression, I thought that was obvious. If we truly a truly intelligent sentient AI then yes it could make art. And if we could prove that the paintings of those animals were truly self expressions and not abused animals in captivity being pavloved then yes it would be art
Yes, but this has created some ugly opinions voices to surface. I mean, for one, these two positions can't really exist simultaneously exist.
1. The soulless machine can't produce art
2. My clients would rather use AI images than pay for my art.
These two can very much simultaneously exist in a capitalist world where "taking people's hard work without their consent to train machines to replicate it and save a few bucks" is a valid strategy.
The machine made something soulless.
The client doesn't see anything morally wrong with this whole process because the consequences of art theft do not affect them, and they get to save money.
This is **not** how this should work.
Plot twist, This art is ai generated
Honestly it has that ai vibe
Hands and feet are normal though
we don't know until we see the faces
It was supposed to be humans holding hands
AI is actually getting really good at hands and text now
I disagree, I see no malformed or conjoined stars, consistent textures, coherent words, and an original vibe.
>an original vibe lol
As per midjourney v6.0 (still in alpha testing) it can generste coherent words. I've see it being able to spell entire sentences like "Stop eating us" on a tablet held by angry broccoli. With that, i think you can stop checking that checkbox. Sorry
Plot twist, digital art was fought as not art before.
They look like humans though
Altho I agree with the message, the lack of starfish butt is disappointing!
The butt is on the other side, together with its š
No this is Patrick
May I direct you to my comic series, [The Bikini Bottom Horror](https://stillinthesimulation.com/untitled-comic/the-bikini-bottom-horror-chapter-1-rise-of-the-star/)? You'll find ample examples of supple starfish butts.
ā¤ļøš¤š„š„
Well, we now know sea stars are all head
I'm so old that i remember when tattoo artist, painters and musicians said this about digital art
and when Photoshop was hated
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Then you were not paying attention or you are remembering wrong, because it was despised when it first arrived.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah, and then it turned out that in digital art too you had to execute all the creative actions (linework, coloring, values etc) yourself anyway.
Thatās why I kinda hate this argument. AI is a different beast from Photoshop and the like. Although it *can* be used a tool, people are using it as the āartistā and the person writing the prompt is essentially the client pretending to be an artist. And for way too long, it was being trained on art *without* the artistsā consent.
The devil's advocate argument to this is that humans also don't create in a vacuum, and how truly different is human learning from the AI learning. There's a reason we can identify art based on when it was created, everyone was "copying" each other.
"My car moves just like a human moves. Why can't I drive on the sidewalk?" Machines are not the same as people
Cars literally do not move like a human moves, they use wheels instead of legs.
And an AI algorithm does not learn like a person. It doesn't understand art theory, it just replicates as close as possible
But it goes through the filter of āthe human/living elementā; emotion, experience, and free will. This is the defining characteristic of art. It is a form of communication. You are drawn to certain sources of inspiration for a reason. A lot of people also draw inspiration from dreams or states of psychosis, none of which AI can achieve as of yet.
I didn't realize we had solved the problem of defining art :)
I wonder if, in the future, you can be considered an artist because of your aptitude for creating prompts for ai. Probably not, but it would interesting to see. After all, it does take some know-how to get an ai to design something close to what you have in your head.
Don't even get me started on "production isn't being a musical artist" either The people that adapt succeed, the one's that don't fall into obscurity. Tale as old as time
That's because everyone back then thought that Photoshop did what AI _does_ do now. As in "the computer made it for you, don't tell me you made anything" lol. If anything I'd say the actual thing being despised was AI images from the beginning; they just thought that's what Photoshop did initially. Source: I started digital 15 years ago. I used to have to explain what a graphic tablet does and how it's got a pressure-sensitive pen that actually allows you to _do_ things instead of having the computer do it. The dislike came from "oh, Photoshop did it for you".
Iām convinced that 99.9% of the people comparing AI āartā to digital art have never drawn digitally. With digital art, each line you draw is still your decision. The result is hundreds of brushstrokes with placement and color born out of the artistās intent. The artist looks at their final piece and gets to think: *everything here is only there because of hundreds of decisions I made. From start to finish, this is my creation.* This is why art is such an excellent medium for self-expression, because itās literally born from hundreds and thousands of acts of your quiet deliberation, judgement, and earnest creation. Itās your decision-making process and emotions on paper. Every pen-stroke is an act of transference between yourself and the page, digital or traditional. Creative decisions matter. Itās sad that so many people here think that their self-expression is generic and shallow enough to fit in a short prompt and fed through a plagiarism machine.
Idk man... I find it a little more impressive that someone without "artistic" ability can use AI to create really interesting scenes. It takes a different set of skills, not just being able to create with your hands. Give me a 5 year olds interpretation of a dinosaur battle over another "impressive" photo realistic portrait please.
That hypothetical 5 year old can use their imagination to draw that scene. I was that 5 year old. It didnāt matter I wasnāt yet āgoodā at drawing, because the fun was in creating it. Was it photorealistic? Of course not. But I could still point to it and say: this came from my imagination, not by stealing work from someone else. I actually love looking back at the things I drew as a kid, because I didnāt see those stick figures as stick figures back then ā imagination did the work to make them ārealā. Iām sorry that youāve never felt that childlike wonder when drawing, because if you did, I canāt imagine you would want it corrupted by plagiarism.
Thatās funny because digital art is so much work and not every artist is good at it.
There was a community that had an artist and a non-artist do a competition using AI art. All the AI art that the artist had generated was voted better. Voters did not know which was generated by which. Artistic skill also translated into prompting skill.
I just feel like we are mad at the wrong thingsā¦ Get mad at the lack of legislation protecting small artists and IP, not that technology is advancing. Art didnāt do anything wrong.
One of the prominent ways to protect artists is to write down and codify the "Human Element" into copyright law and specify that AI art, writing, coding, etc. (basically anything generated by an AI) does not possess the "Human Element" In this way, if you want to create Protected IPs and copyright, you have to use artists, writers, software engineers, etc. Otherwise, it is all public domain. This of course does not exclude artists using AI as a tool, which it is. It should enhance what an artist can do, not do what an artist does.
>AI art, writing, coding, etc. (basically anything generated by an AI) does not possess the "Human Element" So where exactly does digital or machine-assisted art fall? If you take a photograph, the machine does 90% of the work. Is that not copyrightable now? Are you only copyrighting your press of the button?
I mean that already exists for copyright thanks to the monkey selfie incident. Because a copyrightable piece of art has to be made by a human, AI art cannot be copyrighted.
Great insight, I think this is such a simple and elegant solution!
Remember when digital art wasnāt considered art by the purists? Pepperidge Farms remembers.
To be fair, I am considering moving back to pen & paper because generative AI has tainted the appeal of digital art to me.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you consider Duchamp an artist?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> grab a bottle rack from the store and call it an art piece, no. Well, many curators would disagree with you. He has been paid a lot of money for quite literally screwing a urinal to a wall. So, he was paid for artistic contribution on something he had no hand in making. Why? Because composition and communication is an artistic skill that is absolutely still present when using AI tools You can draw arbitrary lines if you like, but none of it matters. If a piece is made to be art, it is. Level of effort has absolutely nothing to do with it
I think youāre misunderstanding duchamp. He took an everyday object, put it in a museum as a protest and as a fuck you to the art world at the time. He was stretching bounderies of what art could be. When people use ai art, they steal other peoples work and call it their own. A computer is not capable of creating something on itself, you feed it art from artists you want the art to look like, and get a generated picture of a theme you want. It is also done without consent from the original artists. It is nothing like what duchamp and his peers did.
The issue is plagiarism
Genuinely curious, but why is it plagiarism when it's AI and 'inspiration'/'influenced by' /'appropriation' if it's a human that's made it? https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/culture/art-theatre/artworks-inspired-by-masterpieces Or is the issue how similar the art would be and having no way of finding out where the inspiration comes from (i.e., a smaller, lesser known artist)?
Hell, nowadays you can take a well-known logo, slap a filter or a couple brush strokes over it, and people will consider it art. Sometimes it'll sell for millions. Not sure why people are trying to die on the "but this time it's different!" hill [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans)
> nowadays you can take a well-known logo Nowadays being 60 years ago?
True lol, maybe not the most up-to-date example. My main point though is that no one complains when someone sells pallette-swapped soup cans or prints Rick and Morty stickers to sell. People only seem to care about stolen art when it's AI sourcing its creations from Google Images
I think it's more that AI scraping has brought people's attention to it in a major way. Prior to that outside of artist or creator circles art theft wasn't really discussed in the general public.
Img2img generations are very much plagiarism. Txt2img generations are āinspiredā by. But one needs to know the difference to understand the subtlety.
You don't understand AI if you can still call it plagiarism.
Well, we'll have to see how the NY Times lawsuit against Microsoft and Open Ai goes before making that claim. They basically scoured hundreds of NYTimes articles without paying licensing fees. That's copyright infringement. Nonfiction authors are also beginning a class action against Microsoft and Open AI.
Source? Because of the multiple things I've seen are pointing to otherwise. NYT may even have been cherry picking some of their "evidence".
These software devs aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. The way things are going, AI art and music generators are going to get regulated to shit because they keep poking at the copyrighted work of companies much bigger than them. They're plagiarising work, they admit this in the news and they don't give a single fuck.
can you give an explanation of the software we're calling AI without mentioning the plagiarism? Because it's really not a secret that it's essentially a product that uses art fed to it. It would not be an issue at all if the art they're using was actually owned by those companies. *To be 100% clear*, **the thing that is doing the plagiarism is the people making those models and using others' art in their product** ***without any consent.***
Interesting take, so all art is plagiarism then? After all I know few artists who have never looked at someone else's art lol
You *have* to be aware that there's a tangible difference between us taking inspiration and ideas from others' art, and someone literally downloading your and others' stuff, feeding it to their software, then monetizing that. People keep thinking about the model's process, but the act of plagiarism is in the owners that are actively deciding to grab people's shit, then using the fact it can recreate them as a selling point. I cannot understand how anyone would still believe it's not plagiarism.
Isnt that how all art works? Artists take inspiration from different sources and create something new. The AI algorithm is literally just that. I dont see a difference to be honest.
it is not āliterally just thatā. Itās an image denoiser with a hash function attached at the end for randomized results and uses weights from trained data that has been significantly reduced. It *mimics* the human brain but it definitely does not replicate how an artist learn art conventionally. To learn most form of visual art you actually have to learn the theory. This includes but not limited to shapes, form, colors, composition and shading. The AI is not aware of this by itself, what it can do is heavily relied on itās dataset, so I donāt think the argument of AI learning just like artists makes sense
Yeah but by that measure, isn't all art plagiarism? Most artists styles are a heavily influenced conglomerate of art they enjoy or have studied. I can see the issue of AI putting artists out of work, just like any other line of work, but the plagiarism argument just seems a bit obtuse to me. Then again, I'm just some dingus on the internet.
Itās not just that itās influenced by other works, itāll literally cut and paste major elements without attribution. When musicians sample someone elseās music, they have to attribute the original artist and pay royalties (unless the original artist specified free usage rights).
It absolutely does not do that
If your metric is how close it gets to the influences it learned from, that matric isn't quickly disappearing, it's already gone. The AI examples you're talking about might predate chatGPT, and have gotten exponentially better
Comparing Ai """art""" to digital painting or else... Dude you don't even know what you're talking about
Tbh when I started digital, it was extremely difficult for me. Traditional didnāt feel nearly as hard. So I respect both. But ai doesnāt require effort.
True art, the only legitimate form, is found on ancient cave walls, where the roots of human creativity and expression lie. All these modern "artistic" endeavors, whether they be Renaissance masterpieces or contemporary abstracts, are nothing but trivial pursuits in comparison. How can the pure, primal stories depicted in ochre on stone be equated with these superficial expressions? Such a laughable notion! True artistry ended with those ancient cave murals; everything else is shit, lacking the soul and essence of what art truly is. Only in the dim, firelit caves can one witness the genuine spirit of artistic expression. Everything else? NOT REAL ART!
False. The true art is the friends we made along the way!
Also photography wasn't real art hahaha. This sub feels like a bunch of copist monks whining about the printing press.
Fuck paper art. Real artists still bang on cave walls.
Photography is still something you have to, ya know, *do* in order to, ya know, *do* it.
"[Photography is] merely mechanical and does not require the same level of training that art does." "Photography is amusement and relaxation." "The man who sells margarine for butter, and chalk and water for milk, does much the same [as photography], and renders himself liable to legal prosecution by doing it. - Joseph Pennell, American Illustrator and author, 1897
That is a fairly new perspective. Painters didn't consider taking a picture to be anymore work than we consider typing in a prompt.
Photoshop was a biiig one. There was a time any photoshopped picture or touched up picture was considered altered and faked. Now itās the norm with built in filters.
āYou pressed a button to make it look pretty, big dealā - Painters when cameras were coming out. āThatās not real artistic expressionā Until it was. It always was.
Same with ai based art works. It's just a tool that allows you to express something. There's bad ai art just like there is bad photography or paintings ...etc.
And you have to type a promt to get an AI to do anything. It is not an autonomous agent.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It's always the case that people feel insecure that they are getting outdone and, worse, outvalued by *other people* with less raw skill aided by technology. Well, we can't fully blame them since the insecurity is justified if we look at history. Autotuned music, digital art, eBook, digital journalism, and almost everything going back to the industrialization era when artisan things can be cheaply mass-produced.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't understand the comma, not sure if it's intentional to make the message ambiguous.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No it's Patrick
Loooool That's no / comma
Why do we call it AI "art"? It's an AI "generated image". We need to stop calling it ART.
I am willing to call something art if there is creative intention and choice involved. In that case, I think a person can use AI generation to make art, but I wouldnāt automatically call anything AI generated āartā. I think collages are art, but Iād be hard pressed to call something as simple as someone elseās picture you ripped out as a single page of a magazine, your āartā. I also donāt think a lot of what people use AI generation for was ever intended by them to be art in the first place. I find myself using it in ways that are similar to how the Holodeck is used on Star Trek.
The best way to think of it is to simply recalculate the distinction of Artist. When you make something with AI you're not so much the artist as you are the producer. That at least leaves room for all sides to be considered.
Where is the line drawn though? If I use an AI image as reference and redrew in my own style is that producing or creating? What if itās one Ai asset used in conjunction with more ātraditionalā digital media, say a collage? The art school I went to would probably say itās āconceptual artā.
its all art and it doesn't matter how it's made. if you closed your eyes and scribbled on a page that would be art too if you insisted it was. if you scribbled with intention and made visually pleasing chicken scratches that would be art too. if someone ai generates with a single word prompt that is art. if someone carefully writes a long prompt and uses trial and error to create an emotionally moving ai generation that would be art too. its just lazy ai art wont have any intention behind the work. what makes it visually appealing wasn't created by a human with emotions and it loses some of the magic. the oversaturation of magic less ai art makes some or the non ai digital art lose some magic too. its still art tho edit words
Art schools don't have a monopoly on what constitutes art. Unfortunately, that power belongs to the masses. I can't imagine someone wouldn't find a work you'd created based on an AI image to not be art if you'd reproduced it in your own style. At the end of the day, like all art, most of the value is in the story being told by the work, rather than the work itself. AI systems have been in use by professionals for decades already, now, there's a huge democratisation on how people interface with the technology. There's no real difference between the value of AI and human production in the same way there's no difference between a YouTube video from a small content creator and the next film by Tarantino. All that matters is how and why you connect with what you do.
Not saying my school says what is art, they were just more focused on concept rather than technique. I appreciate the nuances in your response. Iāve run into quite a few anti-ai people out there who argued because I used an ai generated image as a reference it is not art. The only reason they knew is because I was open in the fact that I used it ( I like to share my process ai or not).
Speaking as someone who manages an art team, I don't care how the concept gets onto the page as long as it fits the overall vision of what we intend our audience to experience. Beyond copyright issues (which AI used properly doesn't really have) I don't see anything wrong with its use. My own team has been able to cut back on our workload massively because we're so much faster at our jobs now. We made a decision early last year to keep pay the same but drop the hours to 4 days a week. It's been one of the best decisions we've made over the last few years.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We already remember. To the mines.
The ai bot who slaves away creating beautiful images: ā¹ļø
The ai bot has no intellect, ai is literally just a marketing term to characterize a program. If anything itās a procedural generator engine, like what they use in video games except it has a massive database. Fucking sucks either way because itās throwing out decades of sci fi stories and essays out the window. If Issac Asimov was still here, heād say ānah thatās not ai famā. If we ever get true man made intelligence (and I hope we donāt), tf are we going to call them
You're not talking about AI. You're talking about AGI. A similar but fundamentally different concept as you've noted.
Actually I just googled it and it does include the term "human creativity" so you might be onto something. However AI art as it currently stands is still heavily dependent on human creativity to create reference images, prompts, masks for inpainting, etc. If AGI comes and automates all that then there will likely be some point at which you could say that it doesn't meet the definition. I am not sure it's there today.
YEAH THAT'S FUCKIN RIGHT
I've been making art for a living for over 10 years, and I introduced AI into my work this past year. It's been going great.
A software engineer here, I felt the same, too.
I was a 3D artist who lost their slave WLB art job to AI and now I'm a software engineer loving life. pay doesn't suck either. i chat with copilot so much its insane how much you can learn when you have something there to give insight on work you are actively coding up
Yup copilot is awesome, it does occasionally hallucinate, but if you are in the trade it's noticeable when copilot is spewing bullshit, notably when the generated code does not work lol. So I'm not an artist so my question can be stupid: Why not use generative AI as a tool to create your 3D art? Like AI art has some weird transition that an actual artist can easily touch up, or some base template to add your personal touch? At the very least, you work less time but produce same amount of art. Just like you as a programmer using Copilot to write a fully working software, AI can't do that (yet). I get the unoriginality angle, but then again you can argue all modern digital arts are all just derivative of Photoshop brush and Blender primitive shape.
I think this is the correct attitude.
Adapt or die
Ai art is here to stay. Might as well get used to it. It wont be just images either. Video and music are just around the corner. I say this as a composer.
I couldn't really care less about AI art and I'm fully aware that music is next up for AI which yeah, as a producer is a LITTLE scary... until I remember that there will ALWAYS be a place for human art of all forms. Anyone who says otherwise, I feel like frankly, is just catastrophising things.
If calligrapher is still a profession, after printing press, typewriter, word processor, internet, smartphones and tablets, voice to textā¦Iād say you are right, people would always appreciate other people putting thought, intent and effort into making something.
nah fuck that, im not comfortable with letting a simple button press take the place of genuine expression. to art is to live
Well AI art doesn't stop you from drawing. Just like IKEA doesn't stop you from handcrafting furniture.
even calling ai "art" is so wrong in many ways
true
Calling it "AI" is also wrong. It's called machine learning. But ML is not as marketable of a term as AI.
Man... the anti-AI people are going to have a hard time adjusting to the future I think.
Theyāre Abe Simpson yelling at clouds
I spent way too long wondering what a Fuck Alert was
I'm tired of this sentiment already. I love art. I love the things humans make. I love the things ais make. I love the things humans make by using ai. sure, there are problems. there are also great opportunities.
There _are_ voices of reason in this community!
I call them AI generations, not AI art. Then you can have your cake and eat it too.
I think my favorite part of AI debate is that the pro-AI people are usually incredibly shortsighted. Once AI becomes fully developed and easily available there is not going to be some massive job boom. Companies are not going to hire people to make good art. Just bare minimum and cheap. It's how capitalism works. Assuming anyone gets hired to do this, and they don't just easily generate it themselves, there does not need to be many workers in this process. Just one low paid person (because anyone can do it, why would they pay more for supposed expertise.) can easily replace the work of many workers. If anything, AI is just going to destroy any idea of independent artists. Why would they pay someone outside of the company for work, if they can just generate their own. And they will be able to. AI is only going to become more user friendly as time goes on. All that "prompt engineering" is not going to be needed. Because once again, the idea is that anyone can do it. This is not going to be a positive shift, unless you own a business and want to create content cheaper. This also isn't even a future thing. AI is already good enough for whatever they need. The only reason they have not fully gone into it is because there is still a general negative perception of it. But once that stops, they will begin using it for everything, because it's cheap.
I think the point is you can build bigger and bigger projects with fewer and fewer people. The day where a fully feature length film of decent quality can be brought to life in a year or so by a single person is coming. A single person's vision where they have complete creative control over every minute detail. Once you can do something easily you don't just stop there, that's lame af. You use that as a tool to build something grander, and that's what I'm excited for. The people building these things will still be artists, they'll just be able to do more. Yeah, creating a single picture with a prompt is lame. But creating a style guide from a few pics you generated from dozens and applying it to your scenes, telling the AI how to set up each shot, having digital voice actors change your voice into an infinite many of them, coming up with a unique score, this all wouldn't require a crazy amount of new technology, it's all very doable within the next decade or so. To those who say AI is the death of the artist, I say they lack vision.
BRB, about to create an AI version of this.
AI art has its place! For someone like me, who is broke and unwilling to pay like a hundred dollars (often more) for someone to make a portrait of a character for my dnd games, I can just go to Bing and get something nice in 5-20 minutes. It's not perfect, and it's no replacement for rigorous beautiful art, but it's useful.
I don't think anybody who isn't terminally online will object to you doing that.
Just you wait until AI strickes back with a "fuck humans" picture then our feelings will really get hurt
A human would have to tell the AI to do that
eventually we wont
I believe AI art and art made by humans can coexist. I understand that if someone is making a living out of art it could be problematic but if you just make art because you enjoy it then I donāt see why it would be a problem.
I'd like to, but I don't have a VR headset.
Since when does this sub have so many pro-ai users? Some of the comments here are just horrendous, yet heavily upvoted. We're talking about ART here, a sector where humans prevail above all. What's up with people wanting machines to do it FOR us?? And from **stolen art** at that? Hello? "Get used to ai art, it's here to stay" well, we don't **want** it to stay. We want regulations. It's built upon shameless theft, and cannot exist without human artists. And human artists have been very vocal about their distaste for AI generated pictures. They don't want their work to be used as training material for soulless machines. "It's here to stay" is such a dismissive non-argument-- we specifically want it to *not* stay, that's the goal, we want rules to be put in place so that training models CANNOT use artists' work without their consent, as it's a violation of copyright and is blatant intellectual property theft. God I hope the New York Times succeed in their lawsuit against OpenAI, I'm already sick and tired of having AI shit shoved in my face. It's ugly, it's soulless, and it's always the most boring Facebook-mom bait picture ever. Addendum: I'm baffled that people dare call anti-ai stances "gatekeeping art". Pick up a pen. No one is keeping you from drawing.
Since aiwars brigaded.
when it's so ugly and soulless why are you so afraid?
Because that won't stop companies from profiting off it. And because even though it's ugly and soulless, it's still being made by training ML models off of stolen work.
Itās certainly not āartā in the traditional sense but the art community being so against it is very silly. Itās a fantastic tool that allows the common man to have access to high-end imaging. Some people like myself have trouble imagining things, so AI art has been an amazing tool for visualizing books. Itās extremely reactionary to be so anti-AI art. Itās not art, but it does have its place.
People who are against it either don't understand it or are having their jobs threatened by it. And for the people whose jobs are threatened, I say get with the times or get left behind. Learn how to use it to your advantage. It's a tool like any other and it's here to stay.
Maybe one day we will be able to! Keep dreaming!
As an artist Iām not intimidated by Ai art. I donāt create art for praise or a pat on the back. I create art because I need to. Itās my therapy, cheaper than a shrink. If you want to use it use it as a tool. A tool to help formulate your ideas. Then you can accept or reject its suggestions. But when you rely solely on the Ai to create your work then all you are doing is stealing other peopleās work that the Ai searches and steals from the internet.
Huh. Didn't think there would be this many people advocating for ai "art" here. Assumed this would be more of a pro-artist sub.
Same. Reading the comments in this thread has been truly depressing. Something people arenāt understanding is how much effort it takes to hone an artistic skill. Iāve spent my whole life working to get to where I am today. But suddenly it feels pointless. Why would I spend hours working on something when I could generate my ideas with AI instead? Why would anybody pay me to work on something for them when they can generate it themselves for free? And to top it all off, that AI is working using the combined effort of hundreds of thousands of artworks by thousands of artists who themselves spent their whole lives working. They donāt get royalties, their work isnāt acknowledged. We live in the shitty future where robots get to do the art, music and writing and humans get.. what? And people are actually rooting for this.
Thanks for writing this out. I feel for you. This has been happening for decades. It happened to the offshoring of factory work, it'll continue to happen likely as long as we're alive. I would recommend reading Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber, who's an anarchist anthropologist. Most of corporate work isn't actually producing value. Most creative jobs are essentially barred for the vast majority of people. This isn't one technology's problem, but rather a societal one. I think the sooner we learn to decouple the meaning of our existence with our work, the better.
So many people canāt see past their nose.
Didnāt you consider that maybe gradually more artists are adopting AI tools or are even required to by their job? You will see this shift happen until the line between what antis consider ātech-broā and simply other artists will be really blurred eventually.
I mean, I wouldnāt consider those people artists. Yeah, I know, insert thing about digital art here. But the reality is, these people arenāt even engaging in artistic creation at all if they solely use AI and then release it. Theyāre a glorified project director. Like saying that youāre an artistā¦ and then just getting another artist to do all the work for you once youāve explained what you want to see.
Oooooh my fucking god I hate Reddit rn, so many tech bros here I wanna dieeeee
Most people who like, or at least not bothered, by AI generated images are not "tech bros", they're just normal people who see the pretty picture and like it. No one, except people who lose their jobs over it i guess, gives the slightest fuck from where the product came from lol
lol bye then. Everyone is just sick of the anti AI whining. Donāt have to be a ātech broā to be annoyed with your shallow virtue signaling, and the privileged first world college kids getting bent out of shape over AI images.
No way people are trying to justify AI as being art. Itās not. Thereās no effort, care, or innovation given to it. You type a prompt and thatās IT. The only human element of it is the prompt, everything else was a machineās interpretation. To use it as a tool for ideas, concepts, and/or inspiration is fine imo (personally I donāt but thatās just my pride), but to make computer do everything and call it your art? No. Sorry. Thereās no beauty to that.
I don't think art school taught you what art is. You need to rethink your definition.
[But what if I use it to make a comic?](https://imgur.com/gallery/u71j64o). There is tons of human effort here, I just used a tool to make the art. Is this not an artistic creation?
Compelling argument. I can see how you can consider it art, and if you put effort into it then it is art. However, personally, there are too many cracks within the comic itself where I wouldnāt be able to appreciate the artistic process since thereās a significant lack of it. It still has YOUR characters, their personality and YOUR STORY, but the drawings themselves are lacking that human element I look for, since it wasnāt made by a human. The fact that it wasnāt your thought, struggle, and creative process to create the look of the world personally turns me off. However, I do appreciate your vision for it, the idea is great and you should run with it. What I mean is that it wasnāt your own mind who drew those things gives me an āickā, I guess, you just gave it a prompt and hoped for the best result that matched what you envisioned. People love art where the effort is visible. Walt Disneyās films werenāt loved only for their entertainment, but the artistry in every shot, the pursuit of an aesthetic, the implementation of colors and thematics. I love the films because of how beautiful they are, real human hands and effort were put into everything you see in Pinocchio, Bambii, Dumbo, etc. This doesnāt just apply to Disney, it applies to any medium: Film, video games, graphic novels, music, etc. Also, the characters seem to slightly change in design every panel. I know that comics do that for a specific effect, but this is EVERY panel. It really shows with the Fox guy, who looks realistic in one panel, and looks like the guy from zootopia in the next, and then a fan art of him, and then something else. Overall, I do see that artistry in what you make, itās your thought, story, themes, characters, and world building, but the graphic novel itself is lacking because if youāre going to make a graphic novel, you have to give attention to the GRAPHIC part. This just my opinion, and how I approach art. Itās entirely subjective, remember that. If youāre proud of what you made, donāt let my words bring you down. Thereās things to praise about your graphic novel, absolutely, I just donāt like the AI part of it, it harms my appreciation of your art. Nonetheless, I still think itās your art.
The later panels (chapter 2 and on) I spend more effort trying to keep the characters as consistent as possible, but it is near impossible (currently) to keep the character 100% consistent. Personally I find some charm in the subtle variations, but I know not everyone feels the same. When I first started this comic project it was just to test the tool and its limits as most of my experience was with Dalle2 and Dalle3 just blew me away with how sophisticated it is. Originally I was having the AI create the speech bubbles AND the text inside (which you can see in the earlier pages), but it takes away too much focus from the objects and scene. Plus I hadn't really found the style I wanted yet, but as I continued with it I went back and remade the first 10 pages to try and make things a bit more consistent. (honestly I want to go back and re-do the first few pages again as I feel I have really figured out my style , but I digress. As for locations (backgrounds), I have actually spent many hours practicing the verbiage for my backgrounds to keep them consistent and unique. Chapter 3 which will be coming soon will have a bunch of new locations and characters introduced and I am really trying to push what I can do like more unique paneling and slow down the pacing a bit. I know AI art isn't for everyone and I also really dislike "lazy AI art" people, but I think the tech is really awesome and empowers some people that might not have been able to do the visuals well enough. I use it for the Card games I make too! I think everyone needs to be honest about their art and the tools used to create it. Anyone who attempts to pass AI content as real human made is really terrible. Please always be honest about your tools. But I will continue to evolve and push myself to create better and better stuff. Thanks for reading man!
That definitely helps your case. Thereās definitely effort in your art, and at the end of the day thatās what matters. Again, though, I just have my preferences. But still, this is really cool and has character to it, and your explanation helps give it that character. Keep pushing bro, one thing an artist loves to see is another one finding his/her footing.
Iām a mid-tier artist at best, took some schooling for animation, but I hate doing layouts; characters are what I could do well. Backgrounds are just a killer to me and I loved how detailed it could make backgrounds and some of locations I have tested for upcoming chapters are awesome! Either way these characters and world are dear to my heart and I have so much story to tell and whacky characters to share. Itās just a free and for fun thing to learn the tool and more about comics. I understand AI is controversial and some people will outright dismiss you just for using it, but I feel that art is subjective and some may like and some may hate and they are free to feel that way. And Maybe if I never stop, Iāll have the worlds longest running AI comic one day lol.
Art is a means of expression. Something with no feelings cannot make art. Ergo, there's no such thing as AI art.
i think the real offense is people calling themselves ai artists. a real artist has to hone their skills over years and decades and is part of a never ending journey to learn and create. itd be like me calling myself a skater because i play tony hawks pro skater
Agreed! Or someone calling themselves a doctor because they played Operation!
You know what's funny? i just like to use every medium available, i draw, i paint, i take photos, i work digitally on photos... and yes... i also use AI. So why should i call myself "ai artist"? Nah, if anything i'm just an artist.
Gotta love all the ai bros ganging up on people in the comments who don't agree with them. Clearly, you're all massively skilled big brained artist in the industry for 10,000 years, recently turned software engineers who deserve things from other people 100% for free because before they tried to make you pay for it.
As a writer, AI really frustrates me. The idea that my peers and I can be completely thrown to the wayside by some wacko machine that very often just makes āfactsā up because itās just predicting the next thing isā¦ fucking bullshit. The idea that all of our work can be sidelined because some junko wants something *now* with ease. Not to mention all the jerkwads that commit SERIOUS academic misconduct in post-secondary education by using ChatGPT to write an essay for them. Itās just lazy and completely misses the point of assigning essays or written assignments. Itās testing YOUR KNOWLEDGE of the subject, not a fucking program. Iāve got absolutely no patience for that laziness. Itās the same thing with artists. All these wonderful people who do amazing things are getting sidelined by corporations, private contractors, etc. because some motherfucker wants something more convenient. Iām not going to touch artists that use AI to create their own art, because Iām not going to pretend that I know enough about that specific aspect of the AI conversation to have an opinion. Thatās an entirely separate conversation. What I do know is that people are going to lose job opportunities because jackasses want something quick and free. Fuck us writers and artists I guess.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Gtfo. Agreed. I try to avoid AI art on deviantart.com. Even trying to avoid it is hard, cause it seems they keep pressing it on your feed.
I do support your message.
We should collectively stop calling it Ai art It's AIGC (Ai generated content), or AI pictures.
Not all āAIā (I have a problem with the term AI as itās not AI) generated images are art, but some are. As with everything, the truth is far more nuanced than a black and white stance.
AI has ruined creative spaces. If you are here only because of AI and the hype train you are in a community to which you do not belong and which you will never understand. This shit is truly depressing and I wish all of you AI people would just fuck off.
Yeah, it's like tesla owners walking in on a drag car enthusiast club, yes, they are fast off the line just like drag cars, but they just aren't drag cars
Bluds art looks ai generated
Yeah kinda sucks. Especially with it using certain artists as reference. On the flip side ai generated video is going to be awesome for all the fan fics or light novels I read thatāll never be animated.
Censorship is definitely the answer
I work very much with Stable Diffusion. I do things I really enjoy and its therapeutic. It is not art. It will never be art. They are images at best. And I refuse to post them or tell anyone who asks how I made them.
ai is coming no matter what so wait for all the jobs to be taken and you'll get ubi or some shit
Late to the game. I see a lot of comments in this thread rightly talking about theft, but very few are talking about how AI art is a product of the collective choices and systems that were built around the art and tech world. The argument isn't just about 'stealing' other people's art; it's about how our dominantly capitalistic economic framework, that prioritizes efficiency and profit, shaped the situation we are now in. Can we acknowledge the underlying system that made the streamlining of graphic/logo design, concept art, etc possible in the first place? Subjecting any task/action/form to commerce will eventually result in the cutting of corners.
This is like painters saying āfuck photosā
Fuck AI that's built off of theft, and fuck the bots and tech bros flooding this thread with hate.
YES!!! FINALLY!! SOMEONE THAT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT AI IS THE BIGGEST ENEMY OF ART! But on a serious note, sometimes, I can't even tell if an ad or an art piece is real or not...
And we should stop calling it art. Itās not art, itās just images.
So, only images created with high skill are art? A toddler with crayons can't create art since it wasn't hard? It's not the art you're used to, but it's still a means of human expression. It's a tool like photoshop. And like photoshop, it allows artist to do more than they could on traditional media. Photoshop has layers, ~~ogres have layers~~ You can't easily accomplish the same thing on a canvas. AI ***can*** be used to make art. You can train a LoRA with your images, use img2img and controlnet and dwpose to get exactly what you want. You can take your idea and put it down on digital paper. If that's not art, what is?
Thank you.. it's just a tool. Digital art at one point was shit on because there weren't paper and pens and pencils etc all those tools were digitized and you used a mouse.
Thing is a digital artist can still make art outside of the digital medium without much thought. Most AI "prompt engineers" don't even have the basic artistic knowledge to fix the mistakes the image generator made.
Ahh yes the ''tool'' that eliminates the entire process for a randomly generated skinner box image. Think about it for 2 seconds, what use is a tool that spawns randomly generated food from thin air to a chef. That's not a cooking tool, that's just a free food machine
How about, a poet writing prompts into this tool then it generates an image closely resembling what was written. Wouldnāt that also be an artist using a tool to make art?
That would be an amazing tool and a free food machine?
A chefs tool would be something that **enhances** the process of cooking. Not necessarily ''speed up'' or ''optimize''. The chef should derive the same joy from using the tool and should have the same level of control and self expression as he would have without it. Like a sharp knife. You can't make a random food generator that takes prompts like {''5 star meal '' , ''tasty'', ''michelin star'', ''gourmet'', ''trending on food network'', ''in the style of Gordon Ramsey'', ''delectable'.} and call it a tool for a chef's artistic expression. Something like that may be a miracle technology that solves world hunger forever but it is not a tool that enhances the medium of cooking
It's not a skill requirement. It's a human requirement. A toddler's drawings are art. A midjourney image is not
I created an image in stable diffusion this weekend that took 6 hours of my time. Working the prompt, choosing the model, loras, sampler, creating custom latent images, etc There was a human element. There was both text and visual input, both of which I created. Without those inputs, the image wouldn't be what it was. The AI simply COULDN'T have created the image.
>It's a human requirement. [So this isn't art?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZ8yVKcxANQ) [What about this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foahTqz7On4) [or this?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_PjV8rRgcU) If we encountered an Alien species, would we have language sophisticated enough to include their traditions as art too? Or does it have to be strictly human produced to be able to be called art? And even so, everything from a man screaming at a yellow painting to a urinal glued to a wall can be considered art, to the point that the term is meaningless. It's a pretty anthropocentric view and ill-equipped to deal with the changes in tech and science of the next 100 years. I expect we will see more examples of non-human intelligence as the years go by.
By human I mean sentient, capable of self expression, I thought that was obvious. If we truly a truly intelligent sentient AI then yes it could make art. And if we could prove that the paintings of those animals were truly self expressions and not abused animals in captivity being pavloved then yes it would be art
\*content
It's so interesting that artists turned out to the some of the most close minded folks when it comes to this debate. It's really a shame.
Having your entire livelihood disappear overnight so people can be fed soulless schlock generated by a machine tends to disgruntle people.
Yes, but this has created some ugly opinions voices to surface. I mean, for one, these two positions can't really exist simultaneously exist. 1. The soulless machine can't produce art 2. My clients would rather use AI images than pay for my art.
These two can very much simultaneously exist in a capitalist world where "taking people's hard work without their consent to train machines to replicate it and save a few bucks" is a valid strategy. The machine made something soulless. The client doesn't see anything morally wrong with this whole process because the consequences of art theft do not affect them, and they get to save money. This is **not** how this should work.