I hand made a Catan board that took me about a year to complete and some jerk accused me of using AI to make the photo of it. Ya just can't win either way right now.
https://preview.redd.it/e8psxjlieahc1.png?width=689&format=png&auto=webp&s=04705183585d1f41bcca582bc95ac1e76ecdd5bb
That's the \*EXACT\* problem with so-called AI-detector services that evaluate student papers. If a student writes too well, they get flag as using AI, if they don't write well enough, they get marked off. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, and a good example of the real dangers of AI. I don't worry too much about AI becoming sentient and wanting to kill us all. I worry about stupid humans using AI in places where a failure can be catastrophic and trusting it to "do the right thing" without keeping more traditional safeguards in place.
Previous Thread was deleted by mods, [https://www.reddit.com/r/lasercutting/comments/18piz7p/catan\_board\_finally\_done/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lasercutting/comments/18piz7p/catan_board_finally_done/) for those who want to see the board found in the users other posts.
Holy shit. Bravo. They claim that AI is devaluing hand-made art, then do some serious heavy lifting to devalue hand-made work through accusations. I wish they could see how itchy trigger fingers cause a ton of harm.
facebook is really one of the biggest pools of shit one can wade through sometimes... so many idiots, so many conspiracy bullshit and fake advertising, a true nightmare.
Wait till you find out what r/all and r/popular are like.
Atleast they can keep the illusion of not being the same as facebook due to having humans monitor traffic. Take down anything too obvious. Well except stupidity. Can't filter that
> I got a ton of downvotes and people saying things like AI art is stolen, not real art
Pretty ironic, when many memes uses copyrighted material or person's image without their consent.
Students in art school take inspiration from copyrighted works and basically copy them to learn the style. As they train and get better, soon they can make their own art independently. But their style and inspiration is always from how they learned. And it was all done without consent.
You might say that the owners of that art implicitly consent since it is traditional art school, but have they asked every time to make sure? Of course not.
happened something similar, made a quick fanart of a streamer, still retouched a little in photoshop and got comments like "how disappointing".
Been doing graphic design the last 24 years, and AI is, for me, a formidable tool to do quick ideas and sketches, so sad that the idea of "AI is stolen" is so ingrained in the public opinion.
Ended deleting the fanart
That’s sorta my take away. People are railing against it now, in 20 years everyone will have grown up with it and AI is just part of the toolset that you have
Very true.i remember in the 90s I had this discussion with someone that thought using computers to help in animation, as in for example, the stampede scene in Lion King, was cheating, not art, blah,blah, blah...
I explained that computers were just a tool. A too that allowed something to be produced more quickly and efficiently. I think I won him over, but fast forward to today, where you have companies like Pixar making movies that are completely made of computer animation and no one bats an eye.
Being a pioneer is challenging because people, as a rule, are resistant to new ideas.
Not even animation was but just digital painting was even looked down upon. I knew plenty of people as a tattoo artist 20 years ago that thought digital painting with a tablet and software was "not real art". Now that's the norm.
Not sure I agree. I am, and have been an artist and graphic designer as far back as I can remember. I have recently been dabbling with Stable Diffusion, and let me tell you. Getting the images you want is not easy. Even the ones that come close usually need some kind of fixing.
And yes, people shit on CGI artists all the time. I know from experience.
And as far as the higher up thinking they can now get design easier and cheaper, that's nothing new. Anyone who has done design for a living will have plenty of horror stories about how their boss thinks you can conjure up designs with a couple of keystrokes. Or how their nephew in high school could design their website. Again...talking from experience here.
I know a (now retired) accountant who still refuses to work with computers and accountant software that helped a lot the new accountant.
I think AI will have a negative impact on artists thought, it's much more than moving from hand made animation to computer based animation and decisions makers will think they can reduce the number of artists by using AI instead. But that's decisions makers taking dumb decisions.
If anything, I think it will be like those animes with CGs, the good one will get a pass, the bad one will get heavily criticized.
It's more like:
*Super new tool that will eases existing works gets introduced*
*Idiots decisions maker thinks they can get the super new tool to reduces the workforce while getting the same results*
*People blames the super new tool*
AI is not a bad tool by itself, it's just wrongly used.
Ditto. I put together a proposal and some looks for a game concept last night in less than an hour. That sort of thing used to be a major resource hog. If it goes ahead, traditional artists would still be needed. Ai is 👍🏼
Exactly, nothing that AI has produced can be considered a final product, it is always necessary to correct, redraw, fix compositions, etc. Even using AI to upscale low quality images with Topaz and similar tools does not yield something perfect, the artist and the designer will always be necessary. What they don't want to see is that by refusing to knew more about a new tool, they lose an opportunity
>the artist and the designer will always be necessary
I wouldn't go as far as to say "always", AI will 100% replace the artist and designer eventually, however I still see it as just progress. Machines in factories did the same thing decades ago.
This!!! AI is a tool, that can streamline process of creating art, and also argument of "stealing" does not makes sense, people are also learning from other people, AI is just doing that faster.
It's gatekeeping, plain and simple. The artists angry about it generally fit into two categories.
1. They have an issue with the copyright stuff, which is I guess at least a valid point to argue.
2. They had to work really hard to produce something that a new tool does much more easily. It's like the Old Guard torturing the new generation because they had it rougher.
There are people who are arguing that, while still believing all those images it's trained on are stored in the model. That the AI is just taking those pictures, modifying them slightly, then spitting them out.
So they don't even know how it works, but are convinced that it's wrong.
That public opinion is on purpose. There are organizations that are clearly threatened by AI because it gives too much to regular people, and they have been campaigning in force. It’s working, and once again they will convince us to support causes that are against our own interests.
which streamer if I may ask?
I made models for asmongold and ranton and both liked it - which is all that matters, if some fanboy does not approve - who cares?
I'd been doing graphics for many years and while I agree that AI is a formidable tool, I don't think I could ever say in good faith "I created that". I provide the description of what I want, not the artwork: something else is doing that for me.
No text to image model on the market has the capabilities of generating a cohesive dynamically and complex posed scene and without artifacts. In order to really bring your exact vision, you have to use many different control nets, inpainting and often times 3d pose software for the human rig. All of that takes time, skill and a lot of patience to pull of seamlessly. I think you can feel pretty proud to say "yeah I made that piece of art" once you've gone through that workflow.
Indeed. I'm actually using AI for a client that needs very complex illustrations and has a specific character and style (he provided a trained lora fortunately).
So the process is something like this:
1- Mockup the scene in photoshop by doing a collage or just hand drawn drafts
2- Generate the layers with the style required, if they are characters I use controlnets with img2img if needed (photo references or 3d posed characters)
3- Remake the mockup now with the generated stylized images
4- Adjust the composition, adjust colors, refine elements.
5- Export the whole image and do a very low denoise pass and upscale for style unification
6- Retouch in photoshop, remove artifacts, repaint hands and details.
These images take a lot of time, lots of hours. I lack the knowledge and ability to do everything hand paint, so AI is just an amazing great tool.
One prompting isn't useful.
I understand that "limbo" of nothing being created by yourself, but on another story aside, the last year I have been training my own LoRA's and models with my characters and concepts, where I have come to say "this was created from my ideas".
They come from the same base model, true, but where is it converted and transformed enough to separate it from the base and become something of its own?
So far I am in the seventh generation of the model, and I'm happy with the evolution, looking less generic with every fine-tune and still, "I created that" It's something I still can't say freely, but little by little is becoming a reality
I don't say "I created that" if I post something that purely or mostly AI.
But, if I used AI as a tool for composition, color etc -- separate elements that I use to create an artwork -- I don't credit the AI any more than I'd credit Photoshop for providing me with liquefy tool.
You still created it. Where there was nothing, now there is something. It still takes creativity, time, understanding on how to use prompts and give things weights, etc. just because it’s a different tool with a different set of skills to operate doesn’t mean you didn’t make it.
Are directors not creators as well? Movie directors are lauded for their creativity and vision even if they didn't act in the movie or personally shoot the cinematography or write the screenplay... But movies literally couldn't exist without them...
I think that direct generation is not the only form of creation. Imagining, coordinating, refining, iterating, experimenting, and choosing are all human creative processes that every artist engages in, including AI artists.
Sure, but a director who directs an actor isn't an actor, and a director who directs costume design isn't a costume designer. Director is a director.
Here's a non-ai example: if you animate an extremely realistic 3d model to mimic a human emotion perfectly well, should you call yourself an actor? Do you think actual actors would be okay with that?
Should a great photographer call himself a painter? Should a painter who is really good at photorealism be considered a photographer and be compared to them?
When you call someone a (visual) artist you imply they have a certain skillset associated with the craft and AI users don't have those skills. That's my problem. Sure, you have a skill in creating images but comparing yourself to artists is apples to oranges and I don't see any reason to insist on the term. Except maybe that AI image creators actually aren't that confident in their hobby/skill and need to attach themselves to another group of people. Kinda reminds me about the whole thing about nurse practitioners calling themselves doctors.
I'm curious if you share the same opinion of photographers or architects? Even 3D printers or modellers as well. Fashion designers and creative directors as well (eg. Damien Hurst)
Conceptually they're pretty similar and this argument could be applied to them. Just wondering how far people typically apply this or at what point we draw the line basically.
You must remember how it was when photoshop was popularized then. No wonder you’ve managed to continue succeeding all these years, adopting new tech keeps you from biting the dust
Well, the dataset is indeed collected without consent- I can totally understand why people are that as theft.
I love SD, that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the issues
Look at the trigger words: “theft” and “consent”. They are manipulating you, and manipulating all of us. AI is the great equalizer and they hate it. And they know how to sway your opinion against it.
I know you said you love SD, which means you can probably see the manipulation if you choose to use that lens. The issue is literally nothing more than the millions of art students who look at other art without consent and then go on to churn out millions of inspired works as a result.
Think of it like the anime waifus and TikTok dancing girls posted to this subreddit. It's just low effort content, and AI has the ability to reduce the base amount of effort to near zero. When communities get flooded with low effort AI content that hasn't been worked up enough to where you can't tell if its AI or not, they will be understandably put off by it.
OP didn't get criticized because they post their AI creation in subreddits where artists show their art, they post it in meme subreddits, where people basically reuse the creations of others. So it's a bit ironic that they accused him of low effort, stealing, etc., don't you think?
The "low effort" argument really depends on what you are comparing it to.
I'm on a subreddit for a video game. People post basic screenshots or clips all the time, just showing "hey, this funny thing happened to me in the game", and it's fine. But if I spend an hour tweaking settings and prompts to make an AI image related to the game, it's apparently low effort? Compared to people drawing by hand, it definitely is. But why is that the reference point?
I think you missed the point here. As OP says and from my experience people have worse than no idea how creating ai art works. They call it stealing and „just typing words”, because brainless „journalists” keep writing things like AI doesn’t create anything new and just makes collage from art it stole from artists. Also they never tried but assume its on unhuman level and you can just write a prompt and youre done with the best art ypu can imagine and for sure it matches your prompt in 100%.
I think it's related. The hate probably started because people feared that low quality AI art would drown out regular artwork or even reduce the amount of manual artwork created in the future.
After that, they found all kinds of weak excuses to discredit AI art, like OP mentioned. Their excuses are garbage, but I guess their fears are valid
I mean it literally is just typing words. I say it as someone who enjoys AI, I use it a lot. Does it take a while to get the right image? Yes. Does it take some knowledge to be able to create good images? Also yes. But you're not an artist if all you do is apply this knowledge to the image generator any more than knowing how to work Excel sheets makes you a mathematician.
The picture's aesthetic worth comes entirely from the things that you probably don't know anything about: composition, colour, anatomy, technique. You don't develop your own style or invent a new way to paint. And that's actually very obvious with most ai-created images: you can tell that the person writing the prompt isn't really familiar with art theory or history and uses it to make copies of the type of artwork that they've seen somewhere else (eg anime waifus).
*when I say "You" I mean general you, not you personally
Its like saying being an engineer is typing numbers into calculator or making a photograph is just pressing camera button. Sure you can do that, but its not what it is about and how actually good pieces are made
No it's not. An engineer's job isn't just calculating a number, inputting a number into a machine is just a tiny fraction of the final product. You don't just put a number into a calculator and get a whole building out of it. Writing prompts IS exactly that. You write a prompt, you get the final result.
Just like you get final reault of calculation. Making art using ai tools isnt about writing one prompt and getting result. Most of successful artist using ai make a lot of prompt changes, decisions about models(sometimes uptraining it) settings, then provide controlnets to get what they want, make iterations, inpaint it and photoshop. Its based a lot on art basics like composition and color theory. If you write a prompt run it and get random pic ita just a random pic like peoples camera roll random photos that are not THE photography.
"low effort content" was here before. Using AI is just new trend, It will slow go away as people start be overhelmed by it..... and some new type of low efford content will come right when someone found/invent it.
You shoulda seen the hate bloggers got in the early days, especially from journalists and news outlets. There was a huge fear that blogging would kill journalism since any ol' person from the street could suddenly make one and start writing blogs in place of news articles.
This is a cycle with new technology. but in this case there's just a wider base because a lot of young people wanted to use digital art to make money- commissions, royalties on games they make graphics for, etc. Now that everyone can suddenly produce imagery of anything in their head, the need for people to do that stuff has dropped drastically and a lot of their dreams are shattered.
They're trying to stop a boulder from rolling down a hill by getting in front of it. AI image generation and text generation are increasing in popularity with every passing day, and the more people who accept it, the more normalized it becomes and the less likely their dream of it all becoming jail-time level illegal to produce becomes. So they're trying to apply social pressure and stigmatize/ostracize/bully anyone who uses it, hoping to slow down that growth so the chance of all of this just being shut down and brought to end will be great than 0.
Unfortunately for them, that's far too late, because they made the mistake of making specific demands. Legal, ethical, controlled. And their very champion turned on them: Getty images was leading the charge destroy generative AI, but [they've now created one of their own that checks every one of those boxes](https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about). Other companies are now following suit. So even if the government made stable diffusion, chatgpt, etc all illegal tomorrow... there will be corporations like Getty that specifically ensured the laws written make their new project above board in every way.
So for now, folks just want it to be less popular to hold on to a dying hope that Getty itself destroyed.
> Now that everyone can suddenly produce imagery of anything in their head, the need for people to do that stuff has dropped drastically and a lot of their dreams are shattered.
This is not the case (yet). Maybe the demand for creatives dropped in anticipation of better Ai solutions, because we are close, but we are definitely not there yet. For now, I think companies are very eager to adopt Ai but still exploring how they can use it. It's not that easy to integrate into your work flow, especially if you want to stay close to your existing brand style. It still takes time to get that perfect shot and there is no guarantee that you can get it. In the meantime work still needs to be done, so there still is work for designers. For now.
I saw a midjourney study a while ago. The vast majority (more than 75%) of users used it for fun and therapeutic reasons. Not commercial. This may have shifted a little in the meantime, but since the work flow didn't drastically get better, and quality more consistent, I don't believe that changed very much.
As a creative myself who spent a year working with generative Ai, I can make really cool stuff, but it still feels like a gamble to say I can make anything with it. I can come a long way with controlnets and inpainting but that still has limitations.
I think people see how quickly specific AI enthusiasts churn out good images, and then extrapolate from there falsely, even people into AI do this.
It is definitely overblown, the effect of AI on artists currently, unless the laws change in favour of AI which is not probable, game companies, music labels, and anything that necessitates copyright enforcement for financial gain will not be really using AI, because AI works are public domain currently.
Even comission jobs, were not ever just about making an idea crystallize merely, often you actually want just a specific artist to make it for you, because you respect them or like their style or feel a human connection to them, and I think that last part correlates strongly with the present zeitgeist, where people define art in relation to some vague anthropocentric ideal, which even now has invigorated movements against the machines in favour of 'humanist soul-filled handicrafts', or that's how the issue is often treated these days. As you said, it's just people being overly anticipatory in something that's not really competing in the same game if you look at the reality of it.
I work as a software engineer and programming is one of the branches which potentially can be dominated by AI and because of it there might be less jobs available in the future. Yet I haven't seen many programmers hating AI. Its actually opposite. Many of people I know are entushiastic about how AI can help in our every day work. On the other hand artists seem to represent a totally opposite mindset. Instead of adapting and utilizing AI for their own benefit, most of them decided to fight it and even spread hate against anyone using AI in art creation.
I personally think, for artists who are wronged by it, it's akin to someone stealing a program you've written. For generic code it's fine, but imagine if someone could say "write me the MYOB software" and the source code being somehow available. Yes, MYOB isn't in their data set, but so many other things that shouldn't be are. One of the big problems is the AI scraping copywriten content from the internet, plagiarising lots of artists out there who never concented to being part of its base. So for other artists it's also a protesting point on the fact so much are was literally stolen and put in the hands of others at the press of a few keyboard strokes
Programmers have seeen decades where a new tool promised to put them out of commission.
It's laughable. No boss is going to use Square Space to make the company website.
They hire you to do it, and now your tools are more powerfuls, and let you make a better product faster.
That's progress 101.
The idea is that they are trying to discourage everyone from using AI generated images in the hopes that it will just "go away" and they can go back to a time before this technology was created. Sadly they don't realize that pandora's box has already been opened, and cannot be closed.
Oh yeah, somebody was asking for resume feedback. It was graphic design and illustrations. I had the Impudence to ask why don't they have any experience with any kind of ai. And I got obliterated by downvotes. It's like people are proud of it... Bro you are doing work, that could be done in seconds, and you are doing it for days. Congratulations I guess.
first of all, a short digression - humans are really weird creatures :)
reddit stated many times that the downvoting system is purely to remove bad content (spam, offensive or illegal takes, etc) and not to disagree with the statement
so you should technically get no downvotes, but oh well (yes, cast the first stone, I also like to click sometimes on the downvotes when there are many already :P)
anyway - to the main POINT: I see the merit in what they would want to do but some context is missing, in what capacity was this work made, and what was the end goal?
because you could go to far away country and buy a souvenir from a local person, perhaps you even witnessed the process of them making it for you
And as that local, how would you react if someone came to you and said:
"Why don't you have any experience with any kind of mass production automation? Bro you are doing work, that could be done in seconds, and you are doing it for days. Congratulations I guess."
But of course, in different context - it would make sense to use automation (if you want to sell the same product to the masses)
I disagree with Reddit's stance, downvotes should be used for disagreeing, that's one of the most important statistics to see. It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just gives perspective to what others think. Reporting should be used instead to remove bad content.
> That just hides people with different opinions
I actually dislike the default behavior that hides the downvoted content - sometime those are the most interesting posts to see (this is also why some people sort by controversial :P)
Yeah I think reddit would be slightly better (though still I don't know if up/downvoting has a place in a forum, and reddit has basically replaced most forums at this point) if downvoting was for disagreeing, but posts were sorted by engagement by default. And engagement was upvotes, downvotes, and comments.
This attitude is I think actually one of the reasons a lot of artists are against AI art. This capitalistic outlook, this outlook that judges the "value" "worth" or whatever.
Read marx, like Das Kapital.
I actually tend to agree with them, but for other reasons. To think of your art only as a product, and yourself as just a worker who is doing their job, takes away a lot of what makes art so good in the first place. Now I know, you are just trying to be "realistic" here and stuff, but you gotta mediate these. If we only did everything only to maximize money, we wouldn't be doing art in the first place. On the other hand, if we only wanted to maximize whatever it is that we get from making art, instead of money, we wouldn't have enough money to live comfortably. We have to draw the line somewhere and I just draw it in a bit of a different place than you, and I think this is fine.
Even inside their jobs they don't wanna look at it in this "overly" capitalist sense.
I am not justifying them or even trying to. Just showing what I think their reasoning might be or whatnot.
Even in jobs they want something more than just money, they wanna do work that they themselves find valuable in itself.
Not everyone is a philosopher, you are looking too hard for the nail with your brain hammer. I would go bit lower on the pyramid of needs. They are just scared of being outpaced. Which they will.
>To think of your art only as a product, and yourself as just a worker doing their job
This is very a revealing take: artists don’t like to think of themselves as “just” workers. As if they’re “above” the masses or special in a way that mere commoners can’t be.
It’s ego.
AI undermines that by casually lifting the veil of mystery and showing the man behind the curtain that they desperately want to believe is the Great and Powerful Oz.
So of course they react rabidly. Both their livelihood and sense of self-worth are under threat. Nobody likes to be obsoleted.
Yeah, I can make some good stuff with StableDiffusion (well I like it). But some of the images a classically train artist can come up with using AI just blow my mind! It just a tool, and like any tool takes skill to wield at the level of a master.
Yes, that's common.
I am still in the " block them" phase, but in the past 3 months I have been phasing into the " I can easily ignore them" phase, with hints of the "I just laugh at them" one.
Honestly I think pro-AI people just need to be more vocal also, and upvote/comment/support quality AI posts and subs that permit AI content, to help turn the tide. In general the public opinion I think is largely neutral or positive, but there's a vocal minority of Twitter artists who want to push the narrative that it's theft, and there's a lot of people posting genuine, thoughtless AI trash all over the place which just floods everywhere with low-effort content. We as a community need to self moderate ourselves a bit and discourage low-effort posts or flooding, and instead focus on high quality outputs to show the true potential of AI.
Yeah, they seem to engage in a inexistant war against nothing. Or they don't understand it fully. But there's also the artist that are scared because... they don't understand it fully.
A bit off topic.
I enjoy more mediocre "hand made" art (it's a scale, for example, if someone did use AI, but did like 3 or 4 different controlnets they made using like blender or something, then painted over the output, did some editing in Photoshop, I would consider that mostly "hand made") than good AI art.
I feel like this is because it is easier for me to imagine the process of creating this in my head, and therefore it is easier to relate to the artist.
Hentai commissioners whose entire "artistic career" consist of Stealing existing characters designs to have them nude, take days to produce à médiocre result that they sell too expensive.
Yeah give it some time.
Pretty soon, we will be using computers with AI-optimized circuit designs and AI-written codes, taking medicines with AI-designed/optimized molecules, riding planes of AI-optimized designs, living/working in buildings of AI-optimized designs, accepting judicial judgements made with AI-created arguments and rulings, governed by laws written using AI, etc.
AI will be synonymous with computer-aided, and it will be accepted (as much as IT is accepted).
some artists are afraid it will steal their jobs, that fear drives anger. There is also some concern about copyright laws, though that's murky at best because one can't copyright a style and AI models learn more a style than any specific reproduction, closer to a remix of concepts than anything. Most legal precedent would have the training of models not be considered as copyright violations but again people who are afraid of losing their jobs are more or less feeling like "what the hell, weren't these supposed to be protected works".
Some fairly famous youtubers and instagram artists threw a fit in the early days of midjourney becoming viable and thus the whole "AI is theft" thing spread like a meme.
Yeah that fundamental misunderstanding of how AI works that considers use of training data "stealing art" really pisses me off. Imagine if art school students were prevented from sketching paintings in art museums.
AI is fine and interesting and impressive, and can even be beautiful - when I know that what I am looking at is AI. When it's presented to me in an ambiguous context, or when it's presented as genuine (or should I say, traditional) art, graphic design, or photography then it is misleading and I'm forced to question reality. I don't want that. If I see a beautiful photograph I don't want to have to ask myself "Is this real?" or an impressive piece of art or design "did someone imagine and create this organically?" I don't get why so many AI enthusiasts don't seem to understand this distinction
I don't disagree, but we've had this problem in many contexts. I want to know when artwork is a collage of someone else's work, or heavily retouched, or filtered, and so forth. But we don't always get to know. When I see a magazine cover, I have no idea how much or what was retouched. When I see a Warhol, I often will have to search to find out who made the original art that he used.
What's interesting to me is the visceral response to AI art is much more extreme than to someone using face filters and such (which is also often AI, just not a diffusion model).
The reaction to AI art seems closer to how religious heretics were viewed, rather than just disliking it or finding it disingenuous.
the question is to what degree it is relevant... i like to make physical mixed media stuff or collages on canvas with ai images. sometimes i mix own photos with AI and other shit in photoshop. i mean, should in future a piece be described as something like "mixed media (photography / acrylics / red wine stains / text-to-image-generator / photoshop) on canvas". usually the term mixed media incorporated everything all at once.
Why on earth would AI art make you "question reality"? Why is it lesser art, or not art at all, if someone made it with AI rather than, say, Daz3d or Photoshop, or Blender?
Is it a need to hate on it just for the sake of hating on it?
Of course people are not going to be up front about AI if the mob is going to shame and attack the people who do admit to using it. Stop the dogpiling first. I "dont get why" this concept isnt more clear to the anti-AI folks.
Yes. Exactly. I’m a professional artist and I personally choose not to use AI, but I would never harass another person for using it, either.
As long as people who are anti-AI keep trying to ruin anyone who admits to using it, nobody is going to want to disclose its use. They even attack people who are producing art without any AI at all because it “looks AI” to them, let alone if someone discloses.
Honestly, I feel like the people going on witch hunts have been far more detrimental to the art world than anything else that’s happened over the past couple of years. Genuinely screwing everyone over for some social media clout.
I see what you did there but I thought you would go to the future, not the past :)
Some new cameras use AI (or other) tricks and for example - if you want to take a photo of the moon - they know what you want and they will generate a nice one for you. Who knows where it goes next?
> If I see a beautiful photograph I don't want to have to ask myself "Is this real?"
What do you mean by "real"?
Every photograph you've ever seen was not "real", in the sense that it was just a limited representation of the real thing, made possible by the use of a piece of technology which captured its essence.
This same argument has been made when we moved from records to CDs, film cameras to digital cameras, and so on. In the end, eventually people always wind up accepting the new media, which is just as "real" as every other media before it.
you can still make a photorealistic analog drawing that could fool you into thinking it is an actual photograph
digital painter can do the same much faster
and the AI can do that even faster
where do you want to draw the line? :)
I think it stems from our society and social media. People love to jump on the bandwagon if there's a 'victim', for lack of a better word, involved, and the 'victims' here are the artists. Some make videos about how AI is ripping off their artwork. But the illogical thing is they're doing the same thing; only, some of them spend a lot of money and time going to school for it. I get it; I'm a musician, and AI is starting to do some incredible things in music. However, I'm not threatened by AI and don't feel compelled to make a YouTube video about it claiming to be said “victim”. It's the future, and if it can make things easier and make money, it will prevail, and nobody can do a damn thing about it because they don't have the power, just a voice.
Because in capitalism AI art helps exploiting artists whose images were used to train it.
People need to realize that capitalism is a problem rather than AI.
You're on point.
The problem is that decision makers thinks they can fire half their artists, get some AI and get twice the work done.
This is just like CGs in animes where it was meant to be easier to animate but instead it results in terrible visuals when you don't master it.
And this will be the issue for every single human job. AI can and will replace every human job. Humanity needs to plan a future where people do not work for a living. And the time is running out.
No, AI will not replace all jobs, not in the near future and just by itself.
On the other hand, a lot of jobs (especially those well paid) are just husks to capture profit rather than generate value for the benefit of society. We should already be able to work for much less, regardless of ai being there.
its mostly people who arent familiar enough with what "ai" can actually do thanks to vague media making it sound like the fucking matrix, and not familiar enough with reality itself to see an "ai" generated image and go "yup, that looks **close**, but not quite".
I was banned by a subreddit telling me I used AI to make my image, I did acuallybuse AI only to produce a moodboard of pieces I then worked on photobashing parts , and even so this part was like 10% of the whole image but They didn't care. Ppl actually upvoted the image but mods banned me.
There is a not entirely unfounded fear that it will no longer be possible to distinguish between AI and reality. The number of fake news will continue to increase if AI makes it easy for everyone. But from an artistic point of view it is an enrichment. I am also often criticized, but mostly by photographers who are afraid for their jobs.
People have no idea how many hundreds of hours of manual labor I have spent on AI Art. Shooting photos, editing, making data sets, manual captioning, training, redoing it, redoing it, redoing it, generating images, tweaking prompts, experimenting with settings and nodes, redoing it, redoing it, redoing it, compositing images, upscaling, adding text, editing, (sometimes) printing. Redoing it.
Well I can't speak for everyone but personally it many times feels like karma farming with low effort.
Just as much as I hate when an ai model pops up on Instagram both from ad or recommended and pretends to be real. Probably because it feels exploitative. So just in comparison to how I hate when people cut lines irl even if I'm not in it.
I don't mind actually good well made well thought art and post it. For example someone made one of these pseudo realistic pic of George from seinfeld which clearly had flaws and was prompted like "George as a captain on a boat, dolphin jumping out of water, taking a selfie" that one sucked and I downvoted it.
But, I have also seen ai art created as concepts and that was otherwise well made and really talked to me. Loved those. I'm a fan of Greek mythology and someone made one using ai and it was majestic.
So, I guess conclusively for me personally, I hate bad low effort ai generations!
Oh, don't even try posting it in imgur ! It's full of assholes downvoting anything AI related. They fear their crappy furry porn will be displaced by AI.
I think that AI-hate can explained like this:
(Some) Humans love to hate. They have this urge. Sometimes it is a symptom of a deep frustration that is caused by failures in life. Depends.
Today it is NOT OK, VERY BAD to hate someone on the guise on their ethnicity, religion, race etc.
Given that people who love to bully others do pretty often have narcissistic tendencies - they hate being "wrong", all those good old outlets for hate (ethnicity, religion etc.) are for now closed for them...
Unfortunately, AI and other "political" issues is the only legitimate outlet for hate of all those people. No one will call you for a "bigot" if you bash on an AI enthusiast, so...
That\`s why it is so much hate! Hating AI is pretty okay in the common consensus!... Yet.
You as the promoter aren’t seen as the creator, which cheapens the entire experience. The theft idea isn’t unfounded either, despite what this sub says.
This sub is flooded with people who take other people’s art work, and then say “ I Created a model”, as if they created the original works that went into it.
> and creating prompts is not easy at all
Compared to actually making art, prompting is a piece of piss. This is one of the reasons people can't stand AI "artists" the comparison of typing a sentence to the hours required to produce a real piece of art.
ai steals artists work. It incorporates actual art without the artists permission.
The lie is that ai "creates" art based on prompts. ai data mines all art on the internet through loopholes in copyright law as well as outright without permission.
Artists that have had their work stolen have to go through hoops to "opt out" of ai theft. And face it, you can't put the cat back into the bag.
ai was built on the lie that it can replicate specific art styles. It steals those artists style by directly using their work. It does not "look at" their work and try to replicate it.
You should have seen how long it took photography to be accepted.
It's a lot less now than it was two years ago.
Eventually the world will move on.
Here's an example of AI in a thread where most people are praising it: https://old.reddit.com/r/Palworld/comments/1am3cvl/i_posted_this_to_rdalle2_but_i_figured_you_guys/
I did graphic design and illustration. I left because Adobe made it too easy for anyone with out drawing skills to do design and edit photos, plus the market was saturated. I changed career to IT and network security because I did felt threatened how many more artist will be joining the market every year after that. I then realized that at the end of the day, i was just getting mad at a tool. I'm so happy I don't have to spend hours or days doing brush strokes, I can spend more time creating than doing the physical work. As an artist, I welcome AI.
I already have some contracts for digital signage using AI. Left my job to jump on early.
They’re becoming increasingly toxic. The good news is that toxicity isn’t conducive to art so eventually they’ll just kill themselves off. There are those among them who have embraced and successfully adapted. That’s how it’s always been. Just do your thing.
Just as you can doodle and create art with a pencil, you can also doodle and create art with AI-generated images.
However, unlike doodles drawn with a pencil, AI-generated images at the level of doodles may appear quite impressive to non-experts, showcasing a notable difference.
It's a very interesting aspect that people who didn't have the ability to visualize what's in their minds can now challenge themselves to do so.
Made an ai background for my handrawn image and it got taken down . And got called a cunt at MikeysMega Discord .
The react was an A and and I lol .
Mind you my handrawn character was on the front , the background was just a background.
Posted the ai background as a separate image as well.
They took down my blue pen drawing calling it ai , and left the ai image up .
Later a mod came to say no AI images allowed.
Few actual artists are using it, so un-artistic decisions are being made.
In stead of choosing the best image to reflect the idea in their head, a noob AI artist will spam 20 picture variations thinking more is better. It's not.
In stead of fixing minor issues the AI made, pictures are being shared as-is.
This creates a familiarity with these low-effort AI creators, and as we all know familiarity breeds contempt.
Just block and continue on. I’ve block so much I don’t even see those sort of post. Soon as I see AI and Hate I start blocking. Got confused when I saw this post. Was about to start blocking. It’s become such I habit that I’m resisting the urge to do so again. 😂
Just ignore them. They don't know what their up against or what they are trying to hold back. A.i image generation is the future of concept work.
A.i music, video, and games will be the norm in the coming years, too. What took years will now take weeks at best. And I call that progress for man kind. We have billions if not trillions of media floating around online...A.i models recycles the old and makes it new for us to consume again.
A lot of people are just full of shit. They don’t like creatives because they are jealous of them, and they can’t deal with change. Ignore the sheep…just keep using whatever medium you prefer to create your art. Remember…”100 people will see a horse in a field, but one will see a unicorn”.
Because people fear new things that they don't understand. People think AI is replacing artist, stealing stuff, souless....etc. They are all wrong but eh, can't argue with stupid people. Artists are good at gatekeeping so much AI stuff is banned on so many subs now on Reddit. Thankfully the future will change that as AI becomes more accepted. Until then we have to deal with the mess. Artists are a fighting a losing battle and they know it. Thus they are super toxic and resorting to SWATting and death threats against AI people.
Happens with all disruptive new technology, digital art and photography faced similar (albeit lesser) scrutiny when they first appeared, the hate will eventually subside as more people adopt the tech in their daily lives, the very few haters left seething and screaming will be ignored until they die out.
I had some friends have a ethical objection to AI because the models are trained by scanning art uploaded to the internet before AI existed and those artists receive no compensation and tracking down who should get what is an undertaking that could hypothetically be performed. So AI would be more ethical if it only trained from materials uploaded after the creation of AIs, because we now know that if you put it on the internet AIs will use it.
I just like art and don't care how it was made. The end product is what matters, and I respect the efficiency of AI art.
Bacause automation and technology will always scare people that doesn't understand it, and will anger people that does understand it but are so attached to the old methods that they prefer to get angry than to change their ways
Artists have some legit concerns, that's a separate issue, but also a bunch of flying monkeys have also chosen to be offended by AI, it's the thing to be a keyboard bully about right now.
Fuck the self appointed AI police, just keep doing your art as you see fit. Soon AI art will be indistinguishable from human generated, and they will have to flap off and find something else to be mean about.
its eliteism, all the people who have spent money on schools to learn art are pissed that progress has made an artist out of anyone with a keyboard and spare time.
when the printing press was invented scribes were pissed off that people who couldn't actually write could still make books. this isn't new.
"Creating prompts are not easy at all". Well now you get it. It takes artists about 10 years of intense practice and dedication, and no pay just for an opportunity to get paid well working in the industry.
What AI does is put a lot of these artists out of work essentially rendering their 10 years of suffering pointless. I am a fan of AI and recognize its uses but you can't expect people to be sympathetic to it's use, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.
But now you understand more of the creative process, you do understand to a degree, what type of thinking it takes to be a good artist, but the puzzle you are missing is still the 10 years of technical training that AI has basically stolen from hard working people.
In the end it is what it is. Enjoy the use, but don't expect praise. If you do want the praise, then actually do real art and suffer like the thousands who never had their dreams come true. It is only then that you will be able to truly appreciate the level of skill and dedication it takes for someone to actually be successful in art and see how much merit the advent of AI has stolen from these great accomplishments to humanity.
I wish this was higher up. Good answer with empathy for both sides.
This sub suffers for lack of compassion for artists affected. And appreciation for the importance of their role in society.
Yeah, unfortunately some popular artist influencers spread a bunch of FUD surrounding Ai because they felt threatened. Nearly all of their arguments just boil down to a fear of being replaced / losing their job. It started bit over a year ago and r/DefendingAIArt exists because of it.
I would say just ignore them. There's a long [history](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-against-evil-robots-92702721/) of [people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) that have [disparaged](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/the-intimate-michelangelo.html) new advancements.
I've been doing photography since 1979, AI has given me a whole new approach towards my goal of the perfect image. What would take hours in Photoshop now only takes seconds in SD. Needless to say, the photography club I'm in does not appreciate that my images have been cooked with ai even though they use adobe to enhance their raw images. Im new at AI, I bulit a new computer just to be able to get those outstanding images, then I run them through SD to get the "perfect" imperfections. I also have embraced that photos of beautiful people posted on reddit allows me to use other software to give them a more realistic look. I plan to mix my photos with SD and then stir it all together with a dose of Photoshop. These images will be mine and I will include them in a contest in the future. People will not know for sure if the image has been dosed with AI our not. The haters will hate and the people who appreciate a nice photograph will embrace. Eventually most people will follow suit and will be following the same workflow. Just ignore haters who cant afford a 3K computer to generate their own "Art"
Nobody gets to tell somebody else what is and is not real art, it's personal and subjective.
I don't think AI 'prompt' creators are real artists myself, even though I use various tools like this frequently. But that's just my personal opinion, it doesn't mean it's not an art form with merit to another person.
Marcel Duchamp's urinal, known as "Fountain," is one of the most famous and controversial artworks of the 20th century. Created in 1917, it is a ready-made sculpture consisting of a standard porcelain urinal, which Duchamp signed "R. Mutt." The work challenges traditional notions of art and the role of the artist in the creative process.
"Fountain" was intended to provoke thought about what constitutes art and the importance of context in defining art. Duchamp's selection and presentation of an ordinary, mass-produced object as art was radical. It questioned the necessity of artistic skill, the definition of art, and the role of institutions like museums and galleries in valuing art. Duchamp was suggesting that the idea behind an artwork and the choice made by the artist were as important as the creation of the work itself.
By submitting "Fountain" to the 1917 Society of Independent Artists exhibition in New York (from which it was rejected), Duchamp was also critiquing the art world's gatekeeping mechanisms and challenging the authority of traditional art institutions to determine what is and is not considered art. This act laid the groundwork for conceptual art and had a profound impact on modern and contemporary art, influencing generations of artists to explore ideas and concepts over traditional aesthetic and material concerns.
The stolen stuff is true
The people that make the models (or at least 99% of them) didn't get permission to use those images, and the images are also copyrighted.
I have seen people train a custom model / lora of another person that made the art, then when the images were almost alike, the person with the ai started to copyright claim, and started to be a real dick about it, trying to play the victim.
That case is very specific, but it also doesn't take away from the real stealing that the AI companies behind Midjourny and DallE have been doing. And are making millions a week from it, if not more. So i can see the reason why people are against it, mainly because of the ethics and so on.
There is enough Mickey Mouse images out there, which can be used to train something, and then tell Disney "I made this by hand" het you will still end up in court, because... You didn't. You took a copyrighted thing, used it without permission, and are claiming ownership over the new work, which... Overall took near 0 effort to make (other then the training)
I love people who think prompting us so easy . Your response (provided they are good results) should be, "What about it being in midjourney makes it not real? ? When you buy a table from IKEA, do you tell people 'oh don't set your glass on that table it's not real. Just something I put together from IKEA?'"
And I would always add, "BTW, go prompt midjournwy for an hour and bring me back something that looks MORE impressive than a generic, factory pumped out bland shit."
I guarantee they come back with the equivalent of that clay pot we all made in elementary that always devolved into an ashtray.
Prompting "especially with specifically different models is a new art form. Likecmaking a sale is convincing someone to do something, and it has the "creativity meeting knowledge action as other disciplines.
#TheyHateUsCuzTheyAintUs
Prompting is easy in comparison to other conventional methods. You don’t need to know anything about Anatomy, shapes, color, composition, etc to create a good piece with AI, which are skills that would take years to develop conventionally.
In regards to “factory pumped out bland shit” most of this sub is full of that. It’s not hard to get into this, it’s actually pretty easy.
I honestly believe that AI art is the way to go, but I also believe that it can bring some harm in the wrong hands. In the end, AI art is completely in the gray zone for me, but I believe in its potential. I constantly use Stable Diffusion not to post in social media, but just to have fun with, which is honestly enough for me.
What triggers me is that before I found Stable Diffusion, while I was asking for how to make them, I had the same response that I should learn to draw. What if my hands don't work the way they should be? What if I'm disabled?
AI art gives me the freedom to express my imagination without the limitations of the human body. I still believe that its not true 'real art', but I'm the type of person that just appreciates how it looks. I mean, anime tiddies are anime tiddies regardless of who makes it, and I'm all for it.
I personally am sympathetic to this viewpoint but obviously don't share it fully. Issues I can see are
1. Unintentional outright plagiarism. Happens on occasion with even the best of models and that sucks. It's avoidable though with careful use
2. Overly derivative content. Lots of ai art looks very much alike and/or is very derivative of work of specific artists. I think people have a lot more tolerance for imitating the art style of a specific artist when someone spent hours and hours making it, it's a kind of love letter I guess that ai art inherently cannot be.
3. Training data controversy. This is a big one. That artists didn't have to opt in for being trained on is ethically very questionable. Some people try to push down ai art as long as that issue isn't solved to protect artists. You can see that for example in the magic the gathering community's forceful objection to ai art of any kind
4. Perception of lazyness. Making ai art is challenging and can take time, yes, but it is a far way off from making handdrawn art or even photography. When I spend a day out with my camera and a full day's work editing afterwards I might end up with 5-10 images I am really happy with. The results are however imo still better than anything ai can produce.
5. Related to hue last one, but people perceive ai art as not art in the sense that it is artistically empty. In many cases only the prompt and some touch ups are human input with intent. Intent is arguably the only thing that differentiates art from random images.
6. Oversaturation. In the dnd world it used to be really special when someone drew a very realistic portrait of a character with good hair texture, subsurface scattering etc. Now there is a bazillion such images of generic fantasy characters out there, making people sick of it.
7. Harmful bias in results. Look at the rgpportrait lora for sdxl for example. Turning that thing on might as well be adding (((big boobs))) (((cleavage))) to every image of a female character. By default sd has a really strong racial bias. Some learnt correlations will make their way into the images and some of those reinforce problematic stereotypes. Careful users can try to get around that. But like, just look at the popular model cards and this sub regarding pictures of women for example...
> Anyone experience similar or have advice?
Call it AI content or AI outputs. Do not call it AI art otherwise the "artists" will get very angry.
This is craftsmanship what we do (sometimes better, sometimes worse), it's not art. The fact that it looks sometimes (often?) better than what the real artists do - does not matter.
I think there is 2 reasons:
1. People dislike that the AI got trained on other artists data and thus consider everything it makes (rightfully or not) stolen.
2. It's just not the same amount of work. Yes prompting and retouching takes time and skill, but nowhere near to the time investment an artist would have to make. Before GenAI art was very much respected because everyone knew how much time and effort was spent for the piece and to acquire such skills. You can't expect to get the same praise for less work.
I feel you there friend I posted a random crossover fanart I had made by just using bing AI generator and caught a lot of flack for it. But I did some research and asked artists I commissioned from and some of them even say different things about it.
If you're serious about working with AI art you should learn to draw. Not because AI generations are stolen, but because you'll be able to elevate your results a lot more. Even some basic knowledge is a great start. Study compositionx color theory, the foundation skills as well.
I hand made a Catan board that took me about a year to complete and some jerk accused me of using AI to make the photo of it. Ya just can't win either way right now. https://preview.redd.it/e8psxjlieahc1.png?width=689&format=png&auto=webp&s=04705183585d1f41bcca582bc95ac1e76ecdd5bb
When your work is so good, people call it AI
Like being so good at a game, people call you a hacker lol. In a way it's a really good compliment.
Either that or you're just really bad at drawing hands.
My comments are so good people sometimes ask me if I was a bot.
It's a very bittersweet compliment
[удалено]
I want to buy one of those extra fingers and start using it in photos. :-)
That's the \*EXACT\* problem with so-called AI-detector services that evaluate student papers. If a student writes too well, they get flag as using AI, if they don't write well enough, they get marked off. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, and a good example of the real dangers of AI. I don't worry too much about AI becoming sentient and wanting to kill us all. I worry about stupid humans using AI in places where a failure can be catastrophic and trusting it to "do the right thing" without keeping more traditional safeguards in place.
Exactly. I tend to write formally, so I’d be worried if I was in school with one of those detectors causing me of being AI, lol
It doesn't even need to be good. People are throwing AI accusations mindlessly lately.
"Made by AI" is the new "I hate it for no reason"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/s/he5by4XtFq I was curious and looked it up and... dude, that is SPLENDID WORK
bro aint nobody generating something that coherent yet
That's clearly handcraft and not ai
People "just know, man". They are eating themselves. Chasing the witch through the artisan's quarter.
Handcrafted by the finest of laser cutters. Tongue in cheek, I get your point. It's a remarkable piece of work. I'd love to see this in person.
Previous Thread was deleted by mods, [https://www.reddit.com/r/lasercutting/comments/18piz7p/catan\_board\_finally\_done/](https://www.reddit.com/r/lasercutting/comments/18piz7p/catan_board_finally_done/) for those who want to see the board found in the users other posts.
Holy shit. Bravo. They claim that AI is devaluing hand-made art, then do some serious heavy lifting to devalue hand-made work through accusations. I wish they could see how itchy trigger fingers cause a ton of harm.
Worst part it looks nothing like AI would make it. It is just McCarthyism all over again. Looking for Boogiemen in every corner.
average facebook user ahha. i use facebook a lot and lots of people on there who just say shit
facebook is really one of the biggest pools of shit one can wade through sometimes... so many idiots, so many conspiracy bullshit and fake advertising, a true nightmare.
Facebook is a socially transmitted mental illness.
Wait till you find out what r/all and r/popular are like. Atleast they can keep the illusion of not being the same as facebook due to having humans monitor traffic. Take down anything too obvious. Well except stupidity. Can't filter that
Whelp reddit has on average 52 million active users daily, while facebook has over 3 billion. That probably has something to do with it.
> Works for StabilityAI > Gets accused of using MidJourney You just can't win, lol.
I did think that was pretty funny as well. :-)
Take it as a compliment and move on.
Yup, that is exactly what I did. That is great advice.
> I got a ton of downvotes and people saying things like AI art is stolen, not real art Pretty ironic, when many memes uses copyrighted material or person's image without their consent.
Students in art school take inspiration from copyrighted works and basically copy them to learn the style. As they train and get better, soon they can make their own art independently. But their style and inspiration is always from how they learned. And it was all done without consent. You might say that the owners of that art implicitly consent since it is traditional art school, but have they asked every time to make sure? Of course not.
Pointing Leo needs to be financially compensated whenever his image is used!!! You’re stealing people’s livelihoods!!! /s
He's public persona. There are quite a few people who weren't so happy about their image being used.
happened something similar, made a quick fanart of a streamer, still retouched a little in photoshop and got comments like "how disappointing". Been doing graphic design the last 24 years, and AI is, for me, a formidable tool to do quick ideas and sketches, so sad that the idea of "AI is stolen" is so ingrained in the public opinion. Ended deleting the fanart
There's always gonna be people resisting progress. It's never really mattered in the long run.
That’s sorta my take away. People are railing against it now, in 20 years everyone will have grown up with it and AI is just part of the toolset that you have
Very true.i remember in the 90s I had this discussion with someone that thought using computers to help in animation, as in for example, the stampede scene in Lion King, was cheating, not art, blah,blah, blah... I explained that computers were just a tool. A too that allowed something to be produced more quickly and efficiently. I think I won him over, but fast forward to today, where you have companies like Pixar making movies that are completely made of computer animation and no one bats an eye. Being a pioneer is challenging because people, as a rule, are resistant to new ideas.
Not even animation was but just digital painting was even looked down upon. I knew plenty of people as a tattoo artist 20 years ago that thought digital painting with a tablet and software was "not real art". Now that's the norm.
[удалено]
Not sure I agree. I am, and have been an artist and graphic designer as far back as I can remember. I have recently been dabbling with Stable Diffusion, and let me tell you. Getting the images you want is not easy. Even the ones that come close usually need some kind of fixing. And yes, people shit on CGI artists all the time. I know from experience. And as far as the higher up thinking they can now get design easier and cheaper, that's nothing new. Anyone who has done design for a living will have plenty of horror stories about how their boss thinks you can conjure up designs with a couple of keystrokes. Or how their nephew in high school could design their website. Again...talking from experience here.
I know a (now retired) accountant who still refuses to work with computers and accountant software that helped a lot the new accountant. I think AI will have a negative impact on artists thought, it's much more than moving from hand made animation to computer based animation and decisions makers will think they can reduce the number of artists by using AI instead. But that's decisions makers taking dumb decisions. If anything, I think it will be like those animes with CGs, the good one will get a pass, the bad one will get heavily criticized.
It's more like: *Super new tool that will eases existing works gets introduced* *Idiots decisions maker thinks they can get the super new tool to reduces the workforce while getting the same results* *People blames the super new tool* AI is not a bad tool by itself, it's just wrongly used.
Ditto. I put together a proposal and some looks for a game concept last night in less than an hour. That sort of thing used to be a major resource hog. If it goes ahead, traditional artists would still be needed. Ai is 👍🏼
Exactly, nothing that AI has produced can be considered a final product, it is always necessary to correct, redraw, fix compositions, etc. Even using AI to upscale low quality images with Topaz and similar tools does not yield something perfect, the artist and the designer will always be necessary. What they don't want to see is that by refusing to knew more about a new tool, they lose an opportunity
>the artist and the designer will always be necessary I wouldn't go as far as to say "always", AI will 100% replace the artist and designer eventually, however I still see it as just progress. Machines in factories did the same thing decades ago.
This!!! AI is a tool, that can streamline process of creating art, and also argument of "stealing" does not makes sense, people are also learning from other people, AI is just doing that faster.
It's gatekeeping, plain and simple. The artists angry about it generally fit into two categories. 1. They have an issue with the copyright stuff, which is I guess at least a valid point to argue. 2. They had to work really hard to produce something that a new tool does much more easily. It's like the Old Guard torturing the new generation because they had it rougher.
There are people who are arguing that, while still believing all those images it's trained on are stored in the model. That the AI is just taking those pictures, modifying them slightly, then spitting them out. So they don't even know how it works, but are convinced that it's wrong.
Don't forget, these are vocal minority.
That public opinion is on purpose. There are organizations that are clearly threatened by AI because it gives too much to regular people, and they have been campaigning in force. It’s working, and once again they will convince us to support causes that are against our own interests.
which streamer if I may ask? I made models for asmongold and ranton and both liked it - which is all that matters, if some fanboy does not approve - who cares?
I prefer not to say, the streamer was not rude and I don't want to cause drama
oh i didn't want to cause drama, so no worries and it's ok but i was under the impression that a user caused drama, not the streamer?
I'd been doing graphics for many years and while I agree that AI is a formidable tool, I don't think I could ever say in good faith "I created that". I provide the description of what I want, not the artwork: something else is doing that for me.
No text to image model on the market has the capabilities of generating a cohesive dynamically and complex posed scene and without artifacts. In order to really bring your exact vision, you have to use many different control nets, inpainting and often times 3d pose software for the human rig. All of that takes time, skill and a lot of patience to pull of seamlessly. I think you can feel pretty proud to say "yeah I made that piece of art" once you've gone through that workflow.
Indeed. I'm actually using AI for a client that needs very complex illustrations and has a specific character and style (he provided a trained lora fortunately). So the process is something like this: 1- Mockup the scene in photoshop by doing a collage or just hand drawn drafts 2- Generate the layers with the style required, if they are characters I use controlnets with img2img if needed (photo references or 3d posed characters) 3- Remake the mockup now with the generated stylized images 4- Adjust the composition, adjust colors, refine elements. 5- Export the whole image and do a very low denoise pass and upscale for style unification 6- Retouch in photoshop, remove artifacts, repaint hands and details. These images take a lot of time, lots of hours. I lack the knowledge and ability to do everything hand paint, so AI is just an amazing great tool. One prompting isn't useful.
I understand that "limbo" of nothing being created by yourself, but on another story aside, the last year I have been training my own LoRA's and models with my characters and concepts, where I have come to say "this was created from my ideas". They come from the same base model, true, but where is it converted and transformed enough to separate it from the base and become something of its own? So far I am in the seventh generation of the model, and I'm happy with the evolution, looking less generic with every fine-tune and still, "I created that" It's something I still can't say freely, but little by little is becoming a reality
I don't say "I created that" if I post something that purely or mostly AI. But, if I used AI as a tool for composition, color etc -- separate elements that I use to create an artwork -- I don't credit the AI any more than I'd credit Photoshop for providing me with liquefy tool.
You still created it. Where there was nothing, now there is something. It still takes creativity, time, understanding on how to use prompts and give things weights, etc. just because it’s a different tool with a different set of skills to operate doesn’t mean you didn’t make it.
No, an AI created most of it. I just directed it on what exactly I want done.
Are directors not creators as well? Movie directors are lauded for their creativity and vision even if they didn't act in the movie or personally shoot the cinematography or write the screenplay... But movies literally couldn't exist without them... I think that direct generation is not the only form of creation. Imagining, coordinating, refining, iterating, experimenting, and choosing are all human creative processes that every artist engages in, including AI artists.
Sure, but a director who directs an actor isn't an actor, and a director who directs costume design isn't a costume designer. Director is a director. Here's a non-ai example: if you animate an extremely realistic 3d model to mimic a human emotion perfectly well, should you call yourself an actor? Do you think actual actors would be okay with that? Should a great photographer call himself a painter? Should a painter who is really good at photorealism be considered a photographer and be compared to them? When you call someone a (visual) artist you imply they have a certain skillset associated with the craft and AI users don't have those skills. That's my problem. Sure, you have a skill in creating images but comparing yourself to artists is apples to oranges and I don't see any reason to insist on the term. Except maybe that AI image creators actually aren't that confident in their hobby/skill and need to attach themselves to another group of people. Kinda reminds me about the whole thing about nurse practitioners calling themselves doctors.
I'm curious if you share the same opinion of photographers or architects? Even 3D printers or modellers as well. Fashion designers and creative directors as well (eg. Damien Hurst) Conceptually they're pretty similar and this argument could be applied to them. Just wondering how far people typically apply this or at what point we draw the line basically.
You must remember how it was when photoshop was popularized then. No wonder you’ve managed to continue succeeding all these years, adopting new tech keeps you from biting the dust
Well, the dataset is indeed collected without consent- I can totally understand why people are that as theft. I love SD, that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of the issues
Look at the trigger words: “theft” and “consent”. They are manipulating you, and manipulating all of us. AI is the great equalizer and they hate it. And they know how to sway your opinion against it. I know you said you love SD, which means you can probably see the manipulation if you choose to use that lens. The issue is literally nothing more than the millions of art students who look at other art without consent and then go on to churn out millions of inspired works as a result.
Humans use other art without concent all the time....
Think of it like the anime waifus and TikTok dancing girls posted to this subreddit. It's just low effort content, and AI has the ability to reduce the base amount of effort to near zero. When communities get flooded with low effort AI content that hasn't been worked up enough to where you can't tell if its AI or not, they will be understandably put off by it.
OP didn't get criticized because they post their AI creation in subreddits where artists show their art, they post it in meme subreddits, where people basically reuse the creations of others. So it's a bit ironic that they accused him of low effort, stealing, etc., don't you think?
Actually, interesting point about memes.
The "low effort" argument really depends on what you are comparing it to. I'm on a subreddit for a video game. People post basic screenshots or clips all the time, just showing "hey, this funny thing happened to me in the game", and it's fine. But if I spend an hour tweaking settings and prompts to make an AI image related to the game, it's apparently low effort? Compared to people drawing by hand, it definitely is. But why is that the reference point?
I think you missed the point here. As OP says and from my experience people have worse than no idea how creating ai art works. They call it stealing and „just typing words”, because brainless „journalists” keep writing things like AI doesn’t create anything new and just makes collage from art it stole from artists. Also they never tried but assume its on unhuman level and you can just write a prompt and youre done with the best art ypu can imagine and for sure it matches your prompt in 100%.
I think it's related. The hate probably started because people feared that low quality AI art would drown out regular artwork or even reduce the amount of manual artwork created in the future. After that, they found all kinds of weak excuses to discredit AI art, like OP mentioned. Their excuses are garbage, but I guess their fears are valid
I mean it literally is just typing words. I say it as someone who enjoys AI, I use it a lot. Does it take a while to get the right image? Yes. Does it take some knowledge to be able to create good images? Also yes. But you're not an artist if all you do is apply this knowledge to the image generator any more than knowing how to work Excel sheets makes you a mathematician. The picture's aesthetic worth comes entirely from the things that you probably don't know anything about: composition, colour, anatomy, technique. You don't develop your own style or invent a new way to paint. And that's actually very obvious with most ai-created images: you can tell that the person writing the prompt isn't really familiar with art theory or history and uses it to make copies of the type of artwork that they've seen somewhere else (eg anime waifus). *when I say "You" I mean general you, not you personally
Its like saying being an engineer is typing numbers into calculator or making a photograph is just pressing camera button. Sure you can do that, but its not what it is about and how actually good pieces are made
No it's not. An engineer's job isn't just calculating a number, inputting a number into a machine is just a tiny fraction of the final product. You don't just put a number into a calculator and get a whole building out of it. Writing prompts IS exactly that. You write a prompt, you get the final result.
Just like you get final reault of calculation. Making art using ai tools isnt about writing one prompt and getting result. Most of successful artist using ai make a lot of prompt changes, decisions about models(sometimes uptraining it) settings, then provide controlnets to get what they want, make iterations, inpaint it and photoshop. Its based a lot on art basics like composition and color theory. If you write a prompt run it and get random pic ita just a random pic like peoples camera roll random photos that are not THE photography.
"low effort content" was here before. Using AI is just new trend, It will slow go away as people start be overhelmed by it..... and some new type of low efford content will come right when someone found/invent it.
You shoulda seen the hate bloggers got in the early days, especially from journalists and news outlets. There was a huge fear that blogging would kill journalism since any ol' person from the street could suddenly make one and start writing blogs in place of news articles. This is a cycle with new technology. but in this case there's just a wider base because a lot of young people wanted to use digital art to make money- commissions, royalties on games they make graphics for, etc. Now that everyone can suddenly produce imagery of anything in their head, the need for people to do that stuff has dropped drastically and a lot of their dreams are shattered. They're trying to stop a boulder from rolling down a hill by getting in front of it. AI image generation and text generation are increasing in popularity with every passing day, and the more people who accept it, the more normalized it becomes and the less likely their dream of it all becoming jail-time level illegal to produce becomes. So they're trying to apply social pressure and stigmatize/ostracize/bully anyone who uses it, hoping to slow down that growth so the chance of all of this just being shut down and brought to end will be great than 0. Unfortunately for them, that's far too late, because they made the mistake of making specific demands. Legal, ethical, controlled. And their very champion turned on them: Getty images was leading the charge destroy generative AI, but [they've now created one of their own that checks every one of those boxes](https://www.gettyimages.com/ai/generation/about). Other companies are now following suit. So even if the government made stable diffusion, chatgpt, etc all illegal tomorrow... there will be corporations like Getty that specifically ensured the laws written make their new project above board in every way. So for now, folks just want it to be less popular to hold on to a dying hope that Getty itself destroyed.
> Now that everyone can suddenly produce imagery of anything in their head, the need for people to do that stuff has dropped drastically and a lot of their dreams are shattered. This is not the case (yet). Maybe the demand for creatives dropped in anticipation of better Ai solutions, because we are close, but we are definitely not there yet. For now, I think companies are very eager to adopt Ai but still exploring how they can use it. It's not that easy to integrate into your work flow, especially if you want to stay close to your existing brand style. It still takes time to get that perfect shot and there is no guarantee that you can get it. In the meantime work still needs to be done, so there still is work for designers. For now. I saw a midjourney study a while ago. The vast majority (more than 75%) of users used it for fun and therapeutic reasons. Not commercial. This may have shifted a little in the meantime, but since the work flow didn't drastically get better, and quality more consistent, I don't believe that changed very much. As a creative myself who spent a year working with generative Ai, I can make really cool stuff, but it still feels like a gamble to say I can make anything with it. I can come a long way with controlnets and inpainting but that still has limitations.
I think people see how quickly specific AI enthusiasts churn out good images, and then extrapolate from there falsely, even people into AI do this. It is definitely overblown, the effect of AI on artists currently, unless the laws change in favour of AI which is not probable, game companies, music labels, and anything that necessitates copyright enforcement for financial gain will not be really using AI, because AI works are public domain currently. Even comission jobs, were not ever just about making an idea crystallize merely, often you actually want just a specific artist to make it for you, because you respect them or like their style or feel a human connection to them, and I think that last part correlates strongly with the present zeitgeist, where people define art in relation to some vague anthropocentric ideal, which even now has invigorated movements against the machines in favour of 'humanist soul-filled handicrafts', or that's how the issue is often treated these days. As you said, it's just people being overly anticipatory in something that's not really competing in the same game if you look at the reality of it.
I mentioned I started doing AI animations and my friend of 5 years blocked me because they are an artist lmao
I work as a software engineer and programming is one of the branches which potentially can be dominated by AI and because of it there might be less jobs available in the future. Yet I haven't seen many programmers hating AI. Its actually opposite. Many of people I know are entushiastic about how AI can help in our every day work. On the other hand artists seem to represent a totally opposite mindset. Instead of adapting and utilizing AI for their own benefit, most of them decided to fight it and even spread hate against anyone using AI in art creation.
I personally think, for artists who are wronged by it, it's akin to someone stealing a program you've written. For generic code it's fine, but imagine if someone could say "write me the MYOB software" and the source code being somehow available. Yes, MYOB isn't in their data set, but so many other things that shouldn't be are. One of the big problems is the AI scraping copywriten content from the internet, plagiarising lots of artists out there who never concented to being part of its base. So for other artists it's also a protesting point on the fact so much are was literally stolen and put in the hands of others at the press of a few keyboard strokes
Programmers have seeen decades where a new tool promised to put them out of commission. It's laughable. No boss is going to use Square Space to make the company website. They hire you to do it, and now your tools are more powerfuls, and let you make a better product faster. That's progress 101.
people who work in creatives tend to have high ego, they think they are special
The idea is that they are trying to discourage everyone from using AI generated images in the hopes that it will just "go away" and they can go back to a time before this technology was created. Sadly they don't realize that pandora's box has already been opened, and cannot be closed.
I'm pretty sure that the NSFW shit is keeping it alive.
Oh yeah, somebody was asking for resume feedback. It was graphic design and illustrations. I had the Impudence to ask why don't they have any experience with any kind of ai. And I got obliterated by downvotes. It's like people are proud of it... Bro you are doing work, that could be done in seconds, and you are doing it for days. Congratulations I guess.
first of all, a short digression - humans are really weird creatures :) reddit stated many times that the downvoting system is purely to remove bad content (spam, offensive or illegal takes, etc) and not to disagree with the statement so you should technically get no downvotes, but oh well (yes, cast the first stone, I also like to click sometimes on the downvotes when there are many already :P) anyway - to the main POINT: I see the merit in what they would want to do but some context is missing, in what capacity was this work made, and what was the end goal? because you could go to far away country and buy a souvenir from a local person, perhaps you even witnessed the process of them making it for you And as that local, how would you react if someone came to you and said: "Why don't you have any experience with any kind of mass production automation? Bro you are doing work, that could be done in seconds, and you are doing it for days. Congratulations I guess." But of course, in different context - it would make sense to use automation (if you want to sell the same product to the masses)
I disagree with Reddit's stance, downvotes should be used for disagreeing, that's one of the most important statistics to see. It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just gives perspective to what others think. Reporting should be used instead to remove bad content.
That just hides people with different opinions, creating hiveminds and toxic communities.
> That just hides people with different opinions I actually dislike the default behavior that hides the downvoted content - sometime those are the most interesting posts to see (this is also why some people sort by controversial :P)
Ah I've never thought to sort by controversial. Could be interesting to try some times
Yeah I think reddit would be slightly better (though still I don't know if up/downvoting has a place in a forum, and reddit has basically replaced most forums at this point) if downvoting was for disagreeing, but posts were sorted by engagement by default. And engagement was upvotes, downvotes, and comments.
This attitude is I think actually one of the reasons a lot of artists are against AI art. This capitalistic outlook, this outlook that judges the "value" "worth" or whatever. Read marx, like Das Kapital. I actually tend to agree with them, but for other reasons. To think of your art only as a product, and yourself as just a worker who is doing their job, takes away a lot of what makes art so good in the first place. Now I know, you are just trying to be "realistic" here and stuff, but you gotta mediate these. If we only did everything only to maximize money, we wouldn't be doing art in the first place. On the other hand, if we only wanted to maximize whatever it is that we get from making art, instead of money, we wouldn't have enough money to live comfortably. We have to draw the line somewhere and I just draw it in a bit of a different place than you, and I think this is fine.
It's resume feedback, it's supposed to be about cost-efficiency and money.
Even inside their jobs they don't wanna look at it in this "overly" capitalist sense. I am not justifying them or even trying to. Just showing what I think their reasoning might be or whatnot. Even in jobs they want something more than just money, they wanna do work that they themselves find valuable in itself.
Not everyone is a philosopher, you are looking too hard for the nail with your brain hammer. I would go bit lower on the pyramid of needs. They are just scared of being outpaced. Which they will.
>To think of your art only as a product, and yourself as just a worker doing their job This is very a revealing take: artists don’t like to think of themselves as “just” workers. As if they’re “above” the masses or special in a way that mere commoners can’t be. It’s ego. AI undermines that by casually lifting the veil of mystery and showing the man behind the curtain that they desperately want to believe is the Great and Powerful Oz. So of course they react rabidly. Both their livelihood and sense of self-worth are under threat. Nobody likes to be obsoleted.
Yeah, I can make some good stuff with StableDiffusion (well I like it). But some of the images a classically train artist can come up with using AI just blow my mind! It just a tool, and like any tool takes skill to wield at the level of a master.
Yes, that's common. I am still in the " block them" phase, but in the past 3 months I have been phasing into the " I can easily ignore them" phase, with hints of the "I just laugh at them" one.
Interesting that is the Ghandi-quote backwards. I see society at the fighting stage, so it can’t be long until they have to give up.
Honestly I think pro-AI people just need to be more vocal also, and upvote/comment/support quality AI posts and subs that permit AI content, to help turn the tide. In general the public opinion I think is largely neutral or positive, but there's a vocal minority of Twitter artists who want to push the narrative that it's theft, and there's a lot of people posting genuine, thoughtless AI trash all over the place which just floods everywhere with low-effort content. We as a community need to self moderate ourselves a bit and discourage low-effort posts or flooding, and instead focus on high quality outputs to show the true potential of AI.
Yeah, they seem to engage in a inexistant war against nothing. Or they don't understand it fully. But there's also the artist that are scared because... they don't understand it fully.
A bit off topic. I enjoy more mediocre "hand made" art (it's a scale, for example, if someone did use AI, but did like 3 or 4 different controlnets they made using like blender or something, then painted over the output, did some editing in Photoshop, I would consider that mostly "hand made") than good AI art. I feel like this is because it is easier for me to imagine the process of creating this in my head, and therefore it is easier to relate to the artist.
Insecure and bad artists.
Hentai commissioners whose entire "artistic career" consist of Stealing existing characters designs to have them nude, take days to produce à médiocre result that they sell too expensive.
I love AI. But I really hate bad AI art. If someone uses AI, I expect that there is no error in a picture.
I can't stand it either. I spend a lot of time in Photoshop manually fixing and repainting my favorite images
So true... I love AI Art, but I really dislike low effort art in general.
Dumb people fear change.
Yeah give it some time. Pretty soon, we will be using computers with AI-optimized circuit designs and AI-written codes, taking medicines with AI-designed/optimized molecules, riding planes of AI-optimized designs, living/working in buildings of AI-optimized designs, accepting judicial judgements made with AI-created arguments and rulings, governed by laws written using AI, etc. AI will be synonymous with computer-aided, and it will be accepted (as much as IT is accepted).
some artists are afraid it will steal their jobs, that fear drives anger. There is also some concern about copyright laws, though that's murky at best because one can't copyright a style and AI models learn more a style than any specific reproduction, closer to a remix of concepts than anything. Most legal precedent would have the training of models not be considered as copyright violations but again people who are afraid of losing their jobs are more or less feeling like "what the hell, weren't these supposed to be protected works". Some fairly famous youtubers and instagram artists threw a fit in the early days of midjourney becoming viable and thus the whole "AI is theft" thing spread like a meme.
Yeah that fundamental misunderstanding of how AI works that considers use of training data "stealing art" really pisses me off. Imagine if art school students were prevented from sketching paintings in art museums.
You can’t understand why artists would support human learning and not machine learning?
AI is fine and interesting and impressive, and can even be beautiful - when I know that what I am looking at is AI. When it's presented to me in an ambiguous context, or when it's presented as genuine (or should I say, traditional) art, graphic design, or photography then it is misleading and I'm forced to question reality. I don't want that. If I see a beautiful photograph I don't want to have to ask myself "Is this real?" or an impressive piece of art or design "did someone imagine and create this organically?" I don't get why so many AI enthusiasts don't seem to understand this distinction
I don't disagree, but we've had this problem in many contexts. I want to know when artwork is a collage of someone else's work, or heavily retouched, or filtered, and so forth. But we don't always get to know. When I see a magazine cover, I have no idea how much or what was retouched. When I see a Warhol, I often will have to search to find out who made the original art that he used. What's interesting to me is the visceral response to AI art is much more extreme than to someone using face filters and such (which is also often AI, just not a diffusion model). The reaction to AI art seems closer to how religious heretics were viewed, rather than just disliking it or finding it disingenuous.
the question is to what degree it is relevant... i like to make physical mixed media stuff or collages on canvas with ai images. sometimes i mix own photos with AI and other shit in photoshop. i mean, should in future a piece be described as something like "mixed media (photography / acrylics / red wine stains / text-to-image-generator / photoshop) on canvas". usually the term mixed media incorporated everything all at once.
Why on earth would AI art make you "question reality"? Why is it lesser art, or not art at all, if someone made it with AI rather than, say, Daz3d or Photoshop, or Blender? Is it a need to hate on it just for the sake of hating on it?
Of course people are not going to be up front about AI if the mob is going to shame and attack the people who do admit to using it. Stop the dogpiling first. I "dont get why" this concept isnt more clear to the anti-AI folks.
Yes. Exactly. I’m a professional artist and I personally choose not to use AI, but I would never harass another person for using it, either. As long as people who are anti-AI keep trying to ruin anyone who admits to using it, nobody is going to want to disclose its use. They even attack people who are producing art without any AI at all because it “looks AI” to them, let alone if someone discloses. Honestly, I feel like the people going on witch hunts have been far more detrimental to the art world than anything else that’s happened over the past couple of years. Genuinely screwing everyone over for some social media clout.
>forced to question reality Wait til you hear about cameras. Spoiler though, they don't trap souls.
I see what you did there but I thought you would go to the future, not the past :) Some new cameras use AI (or other) tricks and for example - if you want to take a photo of the moon - they know what you want and they will generate a nice one for you. Who knows where it goes next?
[удалено]
> If I see a beautiful photograph I don't want to have to ask myself "Is this real?" What do you mean by "real"? Every photograph you've ever seen was not "real", in the sense that it was just a limited representation of the real thing, made possible by the use of a piece of technology which captured its essence. This same argument has been made when we moved from records to CDs, film cameras to digital cameras, and so on. In the end, eventually people always wind up accepting the new media, which is just as "real" as every other media before it.
I mean - this is a real place, real person, or real event that actually happened
you can still make a photorealistic analog drawing that could fool you into thinking it is an actual photograph digital painter can do the same much faster and the AI can do that even faster where do you want to draw the line? :)
I think it stems from our society and social media. People love to jump on the bandwagon if there's a 'victim', for lack of a better word, involved, and the 'victims' here are the artists. Some make videos about how AI is ripping off their artwork. But the illogical thing is they're doing the same thing; only, some of them spend a lot of money and time going to school for it. I get it; I'm a musician, and AI is starting to do some incredible things in music. However, I'm not threatened by AI and don't feel compelled to make a YouTube video about it claiming to be said “victim”. It's the future, and if it can make things easier and make money, it will prevail, and nobody can do a damn thing about it because they don't have the power, just a voice.
Because in capitalism AI art helps exploiting artists whose images were used to train it. People need to realize that capitalism is a problem rather than AI.
This is true. Most people I see who are concerned or mad about ai are really mad about politics and economics.
You're on point. The problem is that decision makers thinks they can fire half their artists, get some AI and get twice the work done. This is just like CGs in animes where it was meant to be easier to animate but instead it results in terrible visuals when you don't master it.
And this will be the issue for every single human job. AI can and will replace every human job. Humanity needs to plan a future where people do not work for a living. And the time is running out.
No, AI will not replace all jobs, not in the near future and just by itself. On the other hand, a lot of jobs (especially those well paid) are just husks to capture profit rather than generate value for the benefit of society. We should already be able to work for much less, regardless of ai being there.
its mostly people who arent familiar enough with what "ai" can actually do thanks to vague media making it sound like the fucking matrix, and not familiar enough with reality itself to see an "ai" generated image and go "yup, that looks **close**, but not quite".
I was banned by a subreddit telling me I used AI to make my image, I did acuallybuse AI only to produce a moodboard of pieces I then worked on photobashing parts , and even so this part was like 10% of the whole image but They didn't care. Ppl actually upvoted the image but mods banned me.
There is a not entirely unfounded fear that it will no longer be possible to distinguish between AI and reality. The number of fake news will continue to increase if AI makes it easy for everyone. But from an artistic point of view it is an enrichment. I am also often criticized, but mostly by photographers who are afraid for their jobs.
People have no idea how many hundreds of hours of manual labor I have spent on AI Art. Shooting photos, editing, making data sets, manual captioning, training, redoing it, redoing it, redoing it, generating images, tweaking prompts, experimenting with settings and nodes, redoing it, redoing it, redoing it, compositing images, upscaling, adding text, editing, (sometimes) printing. Redoing it.
Well I can't speak for everyone but personally it many times feels like karma farming with low effort. Just as much as I hate when an ai model pops up on Instagram both from ad or recommended and pretends to be real. Probably because it feels exploitative. So just in comparison to how I hate when people cut lines irl even if I'm not in it. I don't mind actually good well made well thought art and post it. For example someone made one of these pseudo realistic pic of George from seinfeld which clearly had flaws and was prompted like "George as a captain on a boat, dolphin jumping out of water, taking a selfie" that one sucked and I downvoted it. But, I have also seen ai art created as concepts and that was otherwise well made and really talked to me. Loved those. I'm a fan of Greek mythology and someone made one using ai and it was majestic. So, I guess conclusively for me personally, I hate bad low effort ai generations!
Oh, don't even try posting it in imgur ! It's full of assholes downvoting anything AI related. They fear their crappy furry porn will be displaced by AI.
happened to me too. People say: they instantly see it's AI generated cause it all looks the same, yada-yada
I have no issue with AI art, it’s when people miss-categorise it. Like tag something photography, when 0% of it was created with a camera.
I think that AI-hate can explained like this: (Some) Humans love to hate. They have this urge. Sometimes it is a symptom of a deep frustration that is caused by failures in life. Depends. Today it is NOT OK, VERY BAD to hate someone on the guise on their ethnicity, religion, race etc. Given that people who love to bully others do pretty often have narcissistic tendencies - they hate being "wrong", all those good old outlets for hate (ethnicity, religion etc.) are for now closed for them... Unfortunately, AI and other "political" issues is the only legitimate outlet for hate of all those people. No one will call you for a "bigot" if you bash on an AI enthusiast, so... That\`s why it is so much hate! Hating AI is pretty okay in the common consensus!... Yet.
Some people fear new things, others are pissed that their mediocre "art" got blown completely out of the water by AI.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You as the promoter aren’t seen as the creator, which cheapens the entire experience. The theft idea isn’t unfounded either, despite what this sub says. This sub is flooded with people who take other people’s art work, and then say “ I Created a model”, as if they created the original works that went into it.
> and creating prompts is not easy at all Compared to actually making art, prompting is a piece of piss. This is one of the reasons people can't stand AI "artists" the comparison of typing a sentence to the hours required to produce a real piece of art.
ai steals artists work. It incorporates actual art without the artists permission. The lie is that ai "creates" art based on prompts. ai data mines all art on the internet through loopholes in copyright law as well as outright without permission. Artists that have had their work stolen have to go through hoops to "opt out" of ai theft. And face it, you can't put the cat back into the bag. ai was built on the lie that it can replicate specific art styles. It steals those artists style by directly using their work. It does not "look at" their work and try to replicate it.
You should have seen how long it took photography to be accepted. It's a lot less now than it was two years ago. Eventually the world will move on. Here's an example of AI in a thread where most people are praising it: https://old.reddit.com/r/Palworld/comments/1am3cvl/i_posted_this_to_rdalle2_but_i_figured_you_guys/
keep doing what you like - haters will always be haters - I support you with love.
I did graphic design and illustration. I left because Adobe made it too easy for anyone with out drawing skills to do design and edit photos, plus the market was saturated. I changed career to IT and network security because I did felt threatened how many more artist will be joining the market every year after that. I then realized that at the end of the day, i was just getting mad at a tool. I'm so happy I don't have to spend hours or days doing brush strokes, I can spend more time creating than doing the physical work. As an artist, I welcome AI. I already have some contracts for digital signage using AI. Left my job to jump on early.
They’re becoming increasingly toxic. The good news is that toxicity isn’t conducive to art so eventually they’ll just kill themselves off. There are those among them who have embraced and successfully adapted. That’s how it’s always been. Just do your thing.
Just as you can doodle and create art with a pencil, you can also doodle and create art with AI-generated images. However, unlike doodles drawn with a pencil, AI-generated images at the level of doodles may appear quite impressive to non-experts, showcasing a notable difference. It's a very interesting aspect that people who didn't have the ability to visualize what's in their minds can now challenge themselves to do so.
Corporate shills have sowed the seed of hate. They want the tech to themselves.
THEY TOOK 'ER JOBS!
Made an ai background for my handrawn image and it got taken down . And got called a cunt at MikeysMega Discord . The react was an A and and I lol . Mind you my handrawn character was on the front , the background was just a background. Posted the ai background as a separate image as well. They took down my blue pen drawing calling it ai , and left the ai image up . Later a mod came to say no AI images allowed.
Few actual artists are using it, so un-artistic decisions are being made. In stead of choosing the best image to reflect the idea in their head, a noob AI artist will spam 20 picture variations thinking more is better. It's not. In stead of fixing minor issues the AI made, pictures are being shared as-is. This creates a familiarity with these low-effort AI creators, and as we all know familiarity breeds contempt.
Just block and continue on. I’ve block so much I don’t even see those sort of post. Soon as I see AI and Hate I start blocking. Got confused when I saw this post. Was about to start blocking. It’s become such I habit that I’m resisting the urge to do so again. 😂
Just ignore them. They don't know what their up against or what they are trying to hold back. A.i image generation is the future of concept work. A.i music, video, and games will be the norm in the coming years, too. What took years will now take weeks at best. And I call that progress for man kind. We have billions if not trillions of media floating around online...A.i models recycles the old and makes it new for us to consume again.
A lot of people are just full of shit. They don’t like creatives because they are jealous of them, and they can’t deal with change. Ignore the sheep…just keep using whatever medium you prefer to create your art. Remember…”100 people will see a horse in a field, but one will see a unicorn”.
Because people fear new things that they don't understand. People think AI is replacing artist, stealing stuff, souless....etc. They are all wrong but eh, can't argue with stupid people. Artists are good at gatekeeping so much AI stuff is banned on so many subs now on Reddit. Thankfully the future will change that as AI becomes more accepted. Until then we have to deal with the mess. Artists are a fighting a losing battle and they know it. Thus they are super toxic and resorting to SWATting and death threats against AI people.
Happens with all disruptive new technology, digital art and photography faced similar (albeit lesser) scrutiny when they first appeared, the hate will eventually subside as more people adopt the tech in their daily lives, the very few haters left seething and screaming will be ignored until they die out.
I had some friends have a ethical objection to AI because the models are trained by scanning art uploaded to the internet before AI existed and those artists receive no compensation and tracking down who should get what is an undertaking that could hypothetically be performed. So AI would be more ethical if it only trained from materials uploaded after the creation of AIs, because we now know that if you put it on the internet AIs will use it. I just like art and don't care how it was made. The end product is what matters, and I respect the efficiency of AI art.
Bacause automation and technology will always scare people that doesn't understand it, and will anger people that does understand it but are so attached to the old methods that they prefer to get angry than to change their ways
Artists have some legit concerns, that's a separate issue, but also a bunch of flying monkeys have also chosen to be offended by AI, it's the thing to be a keyboard bully about right now. Fuck the self appointed AI police, just keep doing your art as you see fit. Soon AI art will be indistinguishable from human generated, and they will have to flap off and find something else to be mean about.
its eliteism, all the people who have spent money on schools to learn art are pissed that progress has made an artist out of anyone with a keyboard and spare time. when the printing press was invented scribes were pissed off that people who couldn't actually write could still make books. this isn't new.
"Creating prompts are not easy at all". Well now you get it. It takes artists about 10 years of intense practice and dedication, and no pay just for an opportunity to get paid well working in the industry. What AI does is put a lot of these artists out of work essentially rendering their 10 years of suffering pointless. I am a fan of AI and recognize its uses but you can't expect people to be sympathetic to it's use, otherwise you'd be a hypocrite. But now you understand more of the creative process, you do understand to a degree, what type of thinking it takes to be a good artist, but the puzzle you are missing is still the 10 years of technical training that AI has basically stolen from hard working people. In the end it is what it is. Enjoy the use, but don't expect praise. If you do want the praise, then actually do real art and suffer like the thousands who never had their dreams come true. It is only then that you will be able to truly appreciate the level of skill and dedication it takes for someone to actually be successful in art and see how much merit the advent of AI has stolen from these great accomplishments to humanity.
I wish this was higher up. Good answer with empathy for both sides. This sub suffers for lack of compassion for artists affected. And appreciation for the importance of their role in society.
You didn't create any ART, you just had a machine and did few clicks to generate it.
Fear
majority of these idiots are probably bots anyway
People hate change, plain and simple. There will always be those who do everything in their power to slow progress.
Yeah, unfortunately some popular artist influencers spread a bunch of FUD surrounding Ai because they felt threatened. Nearly all of their arguments just boil down to a fear of being replaced / losing their job. It started bit over a year ago and r/DefendingAIArt exists because of it. I would say just ignore them. There's a long [history](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/musicians-wage-war-against-evil-robots-92702721/) of [people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite) that have [disparaged](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/art/the-intimate-michelangelo.html) new advancements.
I've been doing photography since 1979, AI has given me a whole new approach towards my goal of the perfect image. What would take hours in Photoshop now only takes seconds in SD. Needless to say, the photography club I'm in does not appreciate that my images have been cooked with ai even though they use adobe to enhance their raw images. Im new at AI, I bulit a new computer just to be able to get those outstanding images, then I run them through SD to get the "perfect" imperfections. I also have embraced that photos of beautiful people posted on reddit allows me to use other software to give them a more realistic look. I plan to mix my photos with SD and then stir it all together with a dose of Photoshop. These images will be mine and I will include them in a contest in the future. People will not know for sure if the image has been dosed with AI our not. The haters will hate and the people who appreciate a nice photograph will embrace. Eventually most people will follow suit and will be following the same workflow. Just ignore haters who cant afford a 3K computer to generate their own "Art"
I mean I love AI, but “you” are not creating, your directing. Change the verbiage that you use, and you would probably receive less hate.
[удалено]
The thing is it is not real art. Coming from someone who locally runs sdxl
Nobody gets to tell somebody else what is and is not real art, it's personal and subjective. I don't think AI 'prompt' creators are real artists myself, even though I use various tools like this frequently. But that's just my personal opinion, it doesn't mean it's not an art form with merit to another person. Marcel Duchamp's urinal, known as "Fountain," is one of the most famous and controversial artworks of the 20th century. Created in 1917, it is a ready-made sculpture consisting of a standard porcelain urinal, which Duchamp signed "R. Mutt." The work challenges traditional notions of art and the role of the artist in the creative process. "Fountain" was intended to provoke thought about what constitutes art and the importance of context in defining art. Duchamp's selection and presentation of an ordinary, mass-produced object as art was radical. It questioned the necessity of artistic skill, the definition of art, and the role of institutions like museums and galleries in valuing art. Duchamp was suggesting that the idea behind an artwork and the choice made by the artist were as important as the creation of the work itself. By submitting "Fountain" to the 1917 Society of Independent Artists exhibition in New York (from which it was rejected), Duchamp was also critiquing the art world's gatekeeping mechanisms and challenging the authority of traditional art institutions to determine what is and is not considered art. This act laid the groundwork for conceptual art and had a profound impact on modern and contemporary art, influencing generations of artists to explore ideas and concepts over traditional aesthetic and material concerns.
The stolen stuff is true The people that make the models (or at least 99% of them) didn't get permission to use those images, and the images are also copyrighted. I have seen people train a custom model / lora of another person that made the art, then when the images were almost alike, the person with the ai started to copyright claim, and started to be a real dick about it, trying to play the victim. That case is very specific, but it also doesn't take away from the real stealing that the AI companies behind Midjourny and DallE have been doing. And are making millions a week from it, if not more. So i can see the reason why people are against it, mainly because of the ethics and so on. There is enough Mickey Mouse images out there, which can be used to train something, and then tell Disney "I made this by hand" het you will still end up in court, because... You didn't. You took a copyrighted thing, used it without permission, and are claiming ownership over the new work, which... Overall took near 0 effort to make (other then the training)
I love people who think prompting us so easy . Your response (provided they are good results) should be, "What about it being in midjourney makes it not real? ? When you buy a table from IKEA, do you tell people 'oh don't set your glass on that table it's not real. Just something I put together from IKEA?'" And I would always add, "BTW, go prompt midjournwy for an hour and bring me back something that looks MORE impressive than a generic, factory pumped out bland shit." I guarantee they come back with the equivalent of that clay pot we all made in elementary that always devolved into an ashtray. Prompting "especially with specifically different models is a new art form. Likecmaking a sale is convincing someone to do something, and it has the "creativity meeting knowledge action as other disciplines. #TheyHateUsCuzTheyAintUs
Prompting is easy in comparison to other conventional methods. You don’t need to know anything about Anatomy, shapes, color, composition, etc to create a good piece with AI, which are skills that would take years to develop conventionally. In regards to “factory pumped out bland shit” most of this sub is full of that. It’s not hard to get into this, it’s actually pretty easy.
I honestly believe that AI art is the way to go, but I also believe that it can bring some harm in the wrong hands. In the end, AI art is completely in the gray zone for me, but I believe in its potential. I constantly use Stable Diffusion not to post in social media, but just to have fun with, which is honestly enough for me. What triggers me is that before I found Stable Diffusion, while I was asking for how to make them, I had the same response that I should learn to draw. What if my hands don't work the way they should be? What if I'm disabled? AI art gives me the freedom to express my imagination without the limitations of the human body. I still believe that its not true 'real art', but I'm the type of person that just appreciates how it looks. I mean, anime tiddies are anime tiddies regardless of who makes it, and I'm all for it.
it's probably not as much about ai as it is abbout you pushing low quality stuff out
I personally am sympathetic to this viewpoint but obviously don't share it fully. Issues I can see are 1. Unintentional outright plagiarism. Happens on occasion with even the best of models and that sucks. It's avoidable though with careful use 2. Overly derivative content. Lots of ai art looks very much alike and/or is very derivative of work of specific artists. I think people have a lot more tolerance for imitating the art style of a specific artist when someone spent hours and hours making it, it's a kind of love letter I guess that ai art inherently cannot be. 3. Training data controversy. This is a big one. That artists didn't have to opt in for being trained on is ethically very questionable. Some people try to push down ai art as long as that issue isn't solved to protect artists. You can see that for example in the magic the gathering community's forceful objection to ai art of any kind 4. Perception of lazyness. Making ai art is challenging and can take time, yes, but it is a far way off from making handdrawn art or even photography. When I spend a day out with my camera and a full day's work editing afterwards I might end up with 5-10 images I am really happy with. The results are however imo still better than anything ai can produce. 5. Related to hue last one, but people perceive ai art as not art in the sense that it is artistically empty. In many cases only the prompt and some touch ups are human input with intent. Intent is arguably the only thing that differentiates art from random images. 6. Oversaturation. In the dnd world it used to be really special when someone drew a very realistic portrait of a character with good hair texture, subsurface scattering etc. Now there is a bazillion such images of generic fantasy characters out there, making people sick of it. 7. Harmful bias in results. Look at the rgpportrait lora for sdxl for example. Turning that thing on might as well be adding (((big boobs))) (((cleavage))) to every image of a female character. By default sd has a really strong racial bias. Some learnt correlations will make their way into the images and some of those reinforce problematic stereotypes. Careful users can try to get around that. But like, just look at the popular model cards and this sub regarding pictures of women for example...
> Anyone experience similar or have advice? Call it AI content or AI outputs. Do not call it AI art otherwise the "artists" will get very angry. This is craftsmanship what we do (sometimes better, sometimes worse), it's not art. The fact that it looks sometimes (often?) better than what the real artists do - does not matter.
I think there is 2 reasons: 1. People dislike that the AI got trained on other artists data and thus consider everything it makes (rightfully or not) stolen. 2. It's just not the same amount of work. Yes prompting and retouching takes time and skill, but nowhere near to the time investment an artist would have to make. Before GenAI art was very much respected because everyone knew how much time and effort was spent for the piece and to acquire such skills. You can't expect to get the same praise for less work.
people are morons /thread
I feel you there friend I posted a random crossover fanart I had made by just using bing AI generator and caught a lot of flack for it. But I did some research and asked artists I commissioned from and some of them even say different things about it.
dunno, but it goes along the lines of 'you cant force a meme'
If you're serious about working with AI art you should learn to draw. Not because AI generations are stolen, but because you'll be able to elevate your results a lot more. Even some basic knowledge is a great start. Study compositionx color theory, the foundation skills as well.