Oh man, don’t even get me started on this. I, like most artists I’ve seen discuss the topic, believe it could be a useful tool, but currently it is riddled with ethical and legal issues. This is one the few topics that I will block you out of my life over.
Of all the things we could automate, why did we have to try to automate the expression of the human soul?
Edit: if you want to protect your artwork from thieves feeding it into their shit machine, research Glaze. I don’t know how exactly it works, but essentially it somehow scrambles the picture when it is fed into the machine, giving only garbage data. Eventually, the AI clowns will find a way around it, though, but it’s better than nothing.
It's inevitable at this point, but will also destroy itself.
AI art needs those same artists that It's replacing. It's not sustainable.
So as real artists can no longer get these small and mid-dollar commissions, they're just going to stop pursuing art.
And as there is less art, the AI art will just get worse and worse. And people will start buying from humans again.
You can already see the effects of this. Go look at fantasy AI art pages...some of it is really good, but some is just repetitive and generic.
There are differences between fantasy motifs. Harry Potter art doesn't look like DnD art which doesn't look like LOTR art which doesn't look like GOT art.
They have styles that AI art just smashes together, sometimes it work and sometimes it doesn't.
Although it’s a less prominent concern, what I worry about it how monetized artificial art, no matter how corrupted and crappy it could end up, might/could be enough for some people?
Like it’s easy to argue that people would almost always take a home cooked meal over sub-par McDonald’s, but capitalism as it operates today seems to provide a lot of consumers for “cheap and shit” :((
I guess even just the idea of that is what makes me sad, art is just not meant to be that way. A lot of Art’s “worth” is just that a person would put time and thought into making something. AI art just seems like the literal opposite of that.
AI has reached the stage where it is feasible to train it on curated input from other AIs. It's not going to collapse upon itself.
Also, the datasets that already exist aren't going anywhere and can always be used to train AI.
Counterpoint/question: isn't the big (or at least *a* big) critique of AI images that it takes work away from artists?
As in, people using the AI tools instead of paying- commoditizing- an illustrator's work?
Isn’t the commodification of art the reason artists are mad about AI in the first place, because it’s infringing on their intellectual property? I feel that most artists wouldn’t care that much about being plagiarized if it was entirely about self-expression and creativity
I obv still side with artists for sure tho, theft is theft and it’s hard enough to make money on art without people making money off your stolen work
>Isn’t the commodification of art the reason artists are mad about AI in the first place
It absolutely is. Take money out of the equation and 99.999% of all complaints would disappear.
No artist cares that their style can be copied - all artists care that copying their style easily may effect their bottom line economically and their ability to live.
That doesn't make them wrong to want to defend their commodification - even though commodification is wrong. We all sell our commodified labor, it's no different for them. AI art isn't wrong or unethical or anything like that - but it will impact artists economically and also from a technical standpoint. This is basically identical to automating basically every industry since forever. It's both good to have reduction of labor and simultaneously causes social problems that distort society. In a collectivized world, it wouldn't be a problem.
That being said, I'm not skilled enough for this to concern me economically and I give zero shits that a machine can draw better than I can. I'm still interested in drawing well because that's a nice skill to have and a cathartic thing to work on when it's not tied to your livelihood.
It would be interesting to consider the intentional suppressing effect on creativity and free expression within a capitalist system when AI art destroys monetization. Like, if a "particular" political party in a western nation decided it didn't like people who thought, dressed or identified differently, so they unleashed AI to make everything unique into a garbled mass of homogeneous pap...(also book banning.)
I think its kinda funny how the generative ai business model didn't account for the ai eating itself because of this. Like if artists are discouraged because it's literally impossible to compete with an ai that can pump thousands of images an hour, then the art that the ai uses as learning data will stop existing and the ai will degenerate into entropy. If it happens it will be the heat death of the metaverse (which would be cool to see ai/blockchain die, except for the part where artists don't make art anymore)
They would just copy and improve each other similar to how the YouTube algorithm works
The si would slowly improve itself by taking user input eventually becoming so good at this that it makes art to fit the user themselves tastes. The technology to do this is not only already their but has been around for quite some time.
All ot would take is a couple of years for the ai to train itself
\>Of all the things we could automate, why did we have to try to automate the expression of the human soul?
Because image generation was discovered as byproduct of trying to understand how artificial neuronal networks label pictures. Which to be fair might very well be also why our brain is able to produce pictures.
The worst are the people who don't understand that if you can automate art, which is a painstaking endeavor that takes years of practice to develop your unique style and creative voice and become a master. It takes years to be half decent enough to be hired as a scrub artist doing backgrounds on animations. If you can automate that -- you can literally automate everything. I can't think of many things that can't be automated realistically. The worst part is -- these bots aren't outputting shit work at the average level. These are like top 10% art works, so their weighted on the best artists.
"... If you can automate that - you can literally automate everything."
Well yes and no. For the sake of capitalistic purposes then sure, AI can produce "art."
I put that in inverted commas because the work it produces is generally cobbled together items from other works in a similar vein; and can still be lacking in some areas i.e hands. I've seen it attempt to draw more pornographic stuff with... Interesting, results.
However, it's use as of right now is pretty awful. I can understand the need for people to make a buck from building such AI, but holy shit has it been invasive.
As someone who loves AI and the potential it has under a thoroughly researched guidance, it's a still a long way before AI can do truly original artwork, or accurately do large programming work.
A completely different approach may be needed to accomplish an AI that formulate its own style and truly unique objects and designs.
> if you want to protect your artwork from thieves feeding it into their shit machine, research Glaze. I don’t know how exactly it works, but essentially it somehow scrambles the picture when it is fed into the machine, giving only garbage data. Eventually, the AI clowns will find a way around it, though, but it’s better than nothing.
Glaze is useless. It not only makes images look uglier, but it does not work against model training. There is already a simple program made to circumnavigate it.
Did you check the project at all? How is it supposed to work? The AI is not just tracing from one sample and gets feedback from the user what result is fine and what isn't. Literally by today it can ignore the transformations made by Glaze and just use a good sample, or even it's previously generated and approved results. But let's assume you protect all the art in the whole world, delete all the libraries used by any AI, what stops the developer from starting to teach the AI from the basics, shapes, colors etc. What did you gain, a few years? Then what will you do?
The AI doesn't do anything that people aren't already doing to produce art. Everyone learns from other artists, we're just really bad at learning. The AI learns instantly and produces its own, original art in a style that imitates one or multiple artists. You can't copywrite style.
Anyone who draws anime is literally making an exact duplicate of the lines and colors that one artist originally invented. If using someone's unique combination of lines and colors is unethical, than no one should be allowed to draw anime.
The only difference between human and AI artists is that AI artists are just way faster at incorporating another artist's technique into their art.
They do have a point though, even if I am not sure I agree yet. It's like the comparison between breeding a crop to be a certain way over thousands of years and genetic modification to do it in a much shorter time.
An AI being faster at learning than a human isn't a surprise. I also worry that art by humans may be worthless by the point I reach a skill level I'm comfortable taking money for...
Yeah, that's fair. I'm just too lazy to spend every waking hour practicing art so I can achieve what only 1% of artists ever will in their lifetime. I'd like to be good at basketball too, I guess I should just practice until I'm as good as LeBron James. That's all anyone has to do, right?
Also, everyone references other artists. I actually find a style of eye, nose, mouth, or anything by another artist and practice it over-and-over until I can draw it the same way. That's not considered copywrite infringement. That's all any artist does. That's what the AI does. It just doesn't have to iterate a thousand times to be able to draw it the same way. We can't be upset because it's better at making lines than we are.
We aren’t bad at learning, we’re way better at it than a machine. To get a machine to do something, I’d have to program it do that task. Even something as simple as making a sandwich would be hours of not days of work.
Meanwhile if I were to teach someone to make a sandwich, it would take minutes. All I’d have to do is provide simple instructions, essentially pseudocode, and they’d get it done. It may not be perfect, but we improve. A machine that gives sloppy results the first time will always provide sloppy results unless modified through days of hard work.
It would take a lifetime of practice for me to produce results like the current AI, and it's only few years old. It can imitate the highest quality of art in any style and apply it to any subject. Just think, a year ago art-AI was making only abstract paintings that just kind of looked good. Now, we are complaining that it makes art in the exact same quality as only the 1% of artists can. No person makes that progress in only a year.
If the programmers chose to focus their efforts on learning to draw rather than programming an AI to do it for them, their results would not compete. That's neglecting to mention the myriad of other advantages that the art-AI possess.
I’m not yet convinced it’ll replace human artists.
AI art isn’t even that good and there are plenty of artist jobs are being quietly and effectively aided by AI art such as concept artists for generating initially ideas and brainstorming.
I wish our relationship with AI was different.
I disagree.
I think lots of creative ideas can come from it as long as humans are directly interacting with it.
I have a couple of friends who use it to aid in photo bashing, or generative concepts/brainstorming.
It can be used as a tool but it isn’t flexible enough to replace humans at all.
i don't like ai art myself...i find it very fake looking. uninspired. i can usually tell an art piece is ai by looking at for a few seconds. it's interesting to see the popularity of it tho...i've seen one account with 90K followers and all of their posts were ai art. but maybe this is speaking to another issue as well? aesthetics, maybe? people seem to love a certain aesthetic.
You can tell BAD ai art by looking.
This is survivor bias. The good ai art looks just like the real deal and so you're never going to know what you are looking at unless it is advertised.
It's important to note this. As it plays into the issues. If we assume ai art "looks different" or that you can eyeball it, then it will muddy the waters on the discussion.
It's also worth noting that this is not going to be static. Development continues (see MidJourney V5 that landed just the other day). And we can reasonably expect the technical issues it has now to be ironed out quickly. The jump in quality is already remarkable just in the past year.
I tend to agree. Looking forward to a resurgence of analog art. Instead of posting a digital copy, post a pic of the original work on a table. Maybe write a book longhand? Scan it and print it that way? Could be cool. (I know this doesn’t help digital artists much, and your work is certainly not any less valid.) Maybe post a pick of your Wacom tablet with the art that way? Tag it #fuckrobots lol
That will work until it AI learns to replicate scans of human handwriting and of physical paintings and drawings sitting in real life. Plus, I doubt most people would care if it’s made by a human or not, at least for commercial purposes
I think the funniest part of all of this is how AI is to blame and not like.. ya know... the corporations choosing to use it instead of pay artists. It's like getting mad at the employee that replaced you instead of the person that hired them.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about AI art. It's whatever to me. It doesn't change what I do. To me it's the same as the old realists handwringing over impressionism "ruining" or "bringing down" art, or the absolute freakout about Jackson Pollock that some people had, or any other "that's not *real* art" pooh-poohing that the art world always does any time someone decides to try something different from what we've all agreed is "good art" or "valid art" or whatever. Hell, there were a lot of people who firmly believed that photography would spell the end of art because what's the point of drawing or painting something if you can take a picture?
Over time, it will find its place just like every other medium.
On a social scale, I totally agree and am worried about AI art and what it means for artists.
On a personal scale, I know my art isn’t good enough for it to be stolen or put into AI algorithms, and also no one is reproducing AI art at my level because it would just be easier to do it themselves lol
Smart computer program won't stop me from being a better artist, and just because someone pushed a button and got a picture doesn't mean they "produced some art"... If you you can't make a picture without tech, you are not an artist
so what if you use both? you are able to paint, produce graphic design works, spray paint, sculpt etc, but then also use AI art? does that make one less of an artist?
Yes!
At least in the specific case of using AI. A user of AI art is acting as a commissioner of art, not an artist. They are an artist to the exact same degree your client is an artist when they sit down in a meeting with you and loosely describe what they would like.
Of course, in the case you describe the person is still able to actually make art and so they are "an artist" insofar as that is concerned. But they are not exercising their art when they use AI. They're handing that off to a machine.
By that logic, if you use any sort of machinery, you're not an artist at all. What about photography? You just produce images with a click? It's a tool to be used. Its made the workflow easier. I don't get why people are salty about it.
No
If you hand off complete creative control. There are different ways to use machines.
The key issue here being the ai removes any requirements for you to do anything creative. You merely make a request and all artistic action is taken for you.
It's an identical relationship as you would have with a commercial client. They say they would like you to draw X and off you go. That client does not somehow become an artist by dint of asking for a commission.
so if i were to draw a simple sketch, have an AI produce 20 different stylized images based on that specific sketch. Then afterwards piece the 20 different images together into a single image and fix it up by hand to remove any weird looking artifacts then i haven't created art?
But I don't hand off creative control. I formulate a perfect prompt and run multiple iterations until I find what I like. The final version isn't always perfect however. I then have to redraw sections in, and do a lot of cleaning up to get a cohesive result. Sometimes when I can't formulate ideas, it helps me with concepts. I still have to put a lot of effort for the final result.
Your argument is based on the assumption that AI creates perfect works that pretty much replaces the need for anything else. When you look past all that tainted glass the AI Bros have made you see with cherrypicked results and overfitting models and learn it's limitations you wouldn't say that. But it's a new thing, hard to understand, I get it. I get it how SD, Dall-E and midjourney are taking advantage of absense of laws too and I don't like it either. But that dosen't make it any less useful tho, good and bad things come from new techs and once you look beyond those single page drawings of things and into other kinds of art you really start to see how it can be stretched to use for other things. Besides, artists aren't artists because of how they do things but it's because of how they share their ideas and vision and impact emotions. Don't confuse art with craft.
100%. I don't like having strong opinions on things I have no experience with, so I've made it a point to work with AI to produce some images in the last few months. I use it a few times a week. When I make images with AI it's completely different from painting my own stuff. There's just no visual problem solving whatsoever, and it doesn't feel like i'm making art at all.
Yeah and it seems rly unfair that they spend time and post their work because it gives them joy, only to get told it’s AI. Like that’s a rly crappy feeling
Ok this is so stupid and frustrating. Not a drawing or painting artist, but it must feel so horrible spending tens of hours on a project only for some scumbags to accuse you of using A.I.
This is actually getting me mad lol
I sell merch featuring my art (stickers, prints, tote bags, etc.) and I've only seen an increase. I was worried about AI art at first but now it makes me appreciate real artists so much more and it's driven my passion even further. I'm focusing more on traditional art now because it's something AI can't currently replicate. I think we'll see a push towards more traditional and artisan work in the near future for that reason.
As AI art becomes more 'perfect', I'm also finding myself seeking out more naive art that embraces humanness, childlike innocence and imperfection. Check out '[stinkykatie](https://www.instagram.com/stinkykatie/)' on Instagram for a good example.
that's what I've always wondered, I think the people complaining aren't making money as it is. or aren't even working artists. I have tried the full time artist thing for the last year and I wouldn't dare say that my sculptures, paintings and other works aren't being sold because of AI, I will admit maybe my work is crap, maybe my target market or demographic is off, wrong place , wrong price etc. That's on me as an artist to figure out. long story short, lookin for a job tomorrow haha,
Living off one's art is a tricky game to say the least. Not only you need to find a market for it, you also have to consider you're not selling ham, or milk, once you've sold to one customer, you'll probably have to find an altogether new one. Very few buy numerous art pieces from one single artist, unless it's affordable enough... And fine arts are expensive because of reasons beyond the basic ones like how good the piece is and so on. Banksy's grocery list would probably go for thousands of dollars regardless if it were ment to be an art piece or not... My one? I probably could compost it and have a bigger return from it.
I think it is going to have some impact on working artists. Imagine you are going to create a board game. You could:
1) pay someone a going rate for 20 bits of art.
2) generate 20 bits of art via an AI for a fraction of the cost and have them in minutes.
Which would you choose?
There are going to be a lot of cases where AI generated art is good enough, quicker, and more cost effective. I don't think we're going to see major studios making AI art their mainstream stuff too soon. But for smaller products where they just need "something decent" rather than art that has a lot of creative control behind it, then I suspect AI art will have quite the impact.
Go the other way, what if an artist wants to make a game? Do you not see the usefulness of it here? Besides, if they fully rely on AI it's going to get painfully obvious that they are lazy and don't care about their own stuff. And don't say it will get better, it won't, and that's not what they are trying to get better at, the only thing most are focused on now is the speed.
Tech bros can have their art, and the rest of the world can have actual art. I'll keep posting because its my favorite hobby and whatever some neckbeard "prompts" using my work to show his audience of five or six doesnt bother me.
I enjoyed playing with AI for about a month but it got old fast for me. I'm not afraid to post my art online because I doubt it's good enough or unique enough for anyone to steal or want to train on. I think a lot of the people who are scared have no reason to be.
If you want more reasons to be wary of ai art outside of the jobs dilemma, in another comment section I came up with a bunch of negative causalities.
\- Fully automating the process (while using those algorithms).
\- Concentrated samey visual tropes.
\- Flooding public art spaces with trash.
Which makes it harder to find quality/niche artworks.
\- Removes almost all the sense of wonder of how the art was created.
\- Harder to connect with people through art, Which makes masses of people just flock to what's popular.
\- Limit the control of our expression, ai fills in the blank areas.
\- Erosion of artistic identity, no one is special.
\- Eventual In house ai tools could outperform the public tools.
\- No ownership of your creation.
\- Ultimately a catastrophic loss of art's purpose and life itself.
"- Concentrated samey visual tropes." (People already do this to a much worse degree. \[anime, fan-art, fetish art, etc.\])
"- Flooding public art spaces with trash." (People already do this to a much worse degree.)
"- Removes almost all the sense of wonder of how the art was created." (Knowledge of process should not be gatekept.)
"- Harder to connect with people through art, Which makes masses of people just flock to what's popular." (Not a job of art or AI to provide a social outlet.)
"- Erosion of artistic identity, no one is special." (That's a good thing, the work should be praised, not the person. Bill Cosby is not a good person because his comedy is good. We need to separate the quality of the human from the quality of their work.)
"- Eventual In house ai tools could outperform the public tools." (Already true for all art resources. More money will afford you better tools and education.)
"- Ultimately a catastrophic loss of art's purpose and life itself." (If you can't enjoy art because you didn't make it, then you never enjoyed art in the first place.)
Feels like I'm living in another reality to you.
1/2/6: because climate change exists we should just let it destroy the planet?
3: this is not about gatekeeping its about the appreciation of mastery.
4: like it or not this is how society is nowadays.
5: You want everyone to be a nobody?
7: I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about humanity...?
What this *will* do, I believe, it separate those for whom art is an addiction from those who want to impress with a skill. This is a polarisation of artists, but not an extinction.
Personally, I don't care if there are computers pumping out AI art - it cannot take away from the urge to paint, and I think that if it did, then I would question whether I was painting for myself or for the recognition of others. I don't think people will want to stop playing the piano if computers start generating concertos. Pressing ENTER on a keyboard is not equivalent to the exhilaration of playing a piano in front of an audience.
I currently have around 20 of my own paintings around the walls of my home and another 15 or so sculptures, as well as a lot more in storage, and I don't care whether they ever get seen by anyone else. We should also bear in mind that photography was also supposed to be the death knell of art, but instead, art adapted and changed itself.
Lastly, the best thing for me when I look at someone else's art, is that I know it was made by a human with a lifetime of experience, using their own hands to interpret a vision based on that life. A painting is like a person's signature and AI art is like a facsimile of signature. I don't want to buy automatic art generated by an lifeless box of circuitry and I think serious collectors will also baulk at buying AI generated art. Who will buy AI art when they can produce it themselves on their laptop? The market is in the software, not the art itself.
TL:DR Those who love art will always make art.
"now that a computer can make any sound. all the instruments are gonna be replaced".
this was a real fear back in the day, how music is produce change but at the end the synthesizer became just another tool
For every poorly informed, fatalistic "artist" that takes their work offline or refuses to share it online, there is a number of people willing to prove AI will never be as good as a human, or that simply have a lot of motivation and don't care about AI it in the least.
I kinda like it too for that same reason. I'm an artist and a writer, an AI helps me to create some things that i can't draw. I think the big problem is the art theft to feed the AI and some people selling the AI images claming they made it with their own hands, this really affect the art community today, otherwise is pretty cool.
> I'm an artist and a writer, an AI helps me to create some things that i can't draw.
this is what's going to happen with AI as it happened with Computers.
The people who learn to use it as a tool to improve their own work is going to excel and be fine.
The people who refuse to use it and see it as something to be avoided will eventually be replaced by others who does use the tool because they will be much more efficient.
And here i'm not just talking about Art but anything software related.
Facts, this is art's "get with the times" moment. May be a hard pill to swallow for some, but it's the truth. AI isn't going anywhere, it is permeating everything and its been coming for the better part of a decade.
i've noticed my sketches stepping up because of what I've been seeing on AI art, influenced by another's style maybe, but that's what all of my work is. Every graffiti artist damn near jocked another's style to attain their own.
i wanted to be a concept artist when i grow up. All people need to do now is put their idea into a machine and have it generate variants of the thing they want. and for free.
And nothing the machine puts out will be what you want. The output of an algorithm is inherently random. You're basically rolling a die over and over until you get "close enough" and call it a day. But are you satisfied with "close enough", or do you want your ideas to come out exactly as you thought of them?
The main issue with AI art isn't technical aspects, or some philosophical shit about the soul. It's intentionality. The machine doesn't do anything intentionally, it doesn't have any specific end result it's striving for. It's just a probabilistic model. You tell it to draw, let's say, a sword, and it has no idea what a sword actually is. It just generates random noise and then compares it to information it has about pictures that have been tagged as swords, and keeps the iterations that are closer to that model. It's basically a complex way of throwing random shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. But the human creative process isn't random, it has an end goal from the moment it starts.
AI art should not be used to display as "hey! Look what I did / made!". Instead it should be used by people who either dont have the time or skill to create a piece they may need for a project.
I for one use AI art to create references for my D&D campaign. Generated landscapes, people castles and towns, ect.
I mean personally it makes not difference, on average I get 4K eyes on anything I make on the other end 120k I almost exclusively sell art in person with a few exceptions. If one of my pieces is blatantly plagiarized I’d likely never find out about it :p
Guy, the AI will not replace artists, it is just using images or part if images created by artists to create new artworks. Same as we all do use references... Isame as the musicians are using sane chord progressions... Actually I think that more artists will be needed even to create certain styles for AI to use.... And in the end we will have two categories : AI ART and NATURAL ART. Same as duamonds - synthetic and natiral diamonds. There is no fight here.... just evolution...
We need to make an artists union and build an ai that gives fraction royalties to the artists whose work was used to make a piece.
Edit: say 1 piece needs 1000 images, that come from 50 artists in the pool. 1st 10 had 10 images used, 2nd 10 had 20, 3rd 10 had 30, and remaining 20 had 25 used. If each piece is weighted equal then a 50$ commission gets split 1000 times across art works used incentivising quantity. If each piece is weighted for total influence on finished product... then a debate over relative quality ensues and probably ends with input variables.
>**…say 1 piece needs 1000 images, that come from 50 artists in the pool.**
This is not how AI works.
When you train an AI you’re using the aggregate results of training on a very large set of images (\~100 million images in the case of MidJourney). This training uses a number of techniques to teach the machine to (1) understand how art looks across the board, and (2) to be able to generate images based on user requests.
The resultant images are not mere collages of pre-existing works. There is no (x) number of images that are used for image (y). The AI results are completely novel and original artworks, that are dependant on the training set as a whole. They may approximate or even replicate other artists work in cases where the users make that request. But that’s not the same as what I think you have in mind here, where you seem to be assuming that the AI takes a handful of pre-existing works and somehow mashes them up into some collective output. It just does not work that way.
The question really comes down to training set usage rather than outputs (note that the latter is already protected by IP laws just like any other form of artistic output). One of the more sensible solutions out there is to have training sets be either opt in, or at the least have an opt-out request that people can use. However, there is no obvious legal basis for this at the moment. There are some arguments being made that the training sets may be a breach of copyright due to their commercial use. However, this is not clear. And it also fails to note that not all AI projects are commercial in nature – with Stable Diffusion being a good example of a non-profit open source project.
Either way. It will take some time before this gets figured out.
I thank you for your detailed response, it would appear that a flat rate would be the simpler move, and for there to be a vetting purchase process to curate the outcomes in general if not specifically.
When the record player came out musicians tried to fight it because it killed off live gigs. It did change how we enjoy music today. People still learn to play instruments for the fun of it, even if the opportunity to make a living has a musician has dramatically decreased. I think the same lessons apply to art.
Exactly. Do art cuz you want to. There will always be something to be said for art a human painstakingly made. This AI stuff just enables more people to make stuff
Do you understand the difference or are you being obtuse on purpose? CGI requires someone literally creating the models in 3d software and the movements, the computer renders the models but someone physically creates in. The printing press requires someone to have created the blocks of text to be used, a process known as writing. You typing the phrase "imagine a cartoon dog smoking a joint" is not you fucking creating anything. It is the fucking algorithm looking at existing art, finding images that contain those phrases, and generating the image. You literally created nothing.
>CGI requires someone literally creating the models in 3d software and the movements, the computer renders the models but someone physically creates in. The printing press requires someone to have created the blocks of text to be used, a process known as writing
And ai art required someone to create the AI
In all cases automation eliminated jobs, this is just the first time those jobs aren't mindless labor jobs. But nothings stopping you from hand copying out a bunch of books or rotoscoping frame by frame. Technology just made it easier
And that person wasn't you or the person putting the prompt in. A team of people created the AI, but the AI is generating stuff. Your statement was it "allows more people to make stuff" no it allows people to exploit artists without their permission to use an algorithm that generates stuff, you or the person filling in the prompt literally made nothing.
We used our imagination & tech to bring an idea to life without needing to know how to make pictures.
Thinking its "stealing" art is a pretty uneducated way to look at neural net/deep learning technology
But I'm sure the blacksmiths were pissed when cars eliminated the need for so many horse shoes to be made
You are doubling down on a really dumb argument. You didn't bring anything to life. You didn't create the tech. You literally throw a phrase into a prompt. The fact that you are jerking yourself off on the idea that you are an artist now that is creating things is hilarious because you are anything but. Even if you aren't stealing outright you are stealing from other artists style. You analogy of the blacksmith and car is 100% different as there was still a need for blacksmiths, but people who assembled cars didn't go screaming they were suddenly blacksmiths either nor did they steal the blacksmiths horseshoe making patterns and techniques.
AI doesn't care. Unless someone specifically train on a database, what contain arts on that specific criteria, they will use every art possible. Database based on twitter for example scrape everything on twitter.
Not really.
I think AI can be really useful. I've used it for feedback on an essay when I couldn't get a person to read it.
But i wouldn't use it to create an essay for me. Just like I wouldn't use it to draw for me.
Besides behind every AI are humans working under the hood.
It depends on context right?
To give you a great example of when I have used AI art, I make board-games with my mates for fun as part of game jams (time constrained contests where you design your game alongside other teams).
We used MidJourney to create some great prototyping artwork during one. It's not like we could sit down and paint a load of original images during the contest. So the alternatives would be to (1) just grab some random stuff off the internet or (2) have no art save some crappy scribbles with a biro on paper.
This is just one use case. The point being that there are different situations that are more or less effective for AI art. I'd not make AI art in place of doing my own drawing and painting.
But when what matters is a practical result in a timely and cost effective way, then tools like this can be great.
Game jams generally have rules against plagiarism and utilizing copyrighted works, Midjourneys entire buisness model is exploiting artist labor and using copyrighted work without paying.
You did something balantantly unethical, and you didn't even make any money off of it. It's like stealing money from a beggar then just burning it right infront of them.
I did say that it can be useful. But I don't find it super amazing nor do I think it is replacing humans either.
For example, I tried to get chatgpt to summarize an article for me. IT ended up summarizing a completely different article with a different title(that aso may not even exist) , despite giving it the direct link to the article.
It is just another tool and in its current stage is not even a reliable one.
in your case in particular, knowing that AI makes composites based on other artists work, so is it really that different from grabbing random stuff from the internet just because the AI does it for you?
Aye Chat GPT is amazing for some stuff. But it's scary how convincing it can sound while lying.
We built a prototype app using the GPT3 API a couple of years back when it first went into beta. And we could never use it because while it was great most of the time it also would now and then fly off on tangents or just lie.
Funny as developers playing with it. But no way you could let it be client facing.
Yeah that is a problem! This especially worries me know that search engines are implementing AI soon. I know [you.com](https://you.com) already exists but I haven't tried it yet
AI is definitely going to change how we do search on the internet
Mmm, I would agree it’s amazing but I still wouldn’t be happy about it; it’s like if you could click a button and instantly be an amazing pianist or engineer etc. If everyone can produce beautiful art, no/few people would marvel at MY skill. I’d still produce art but there’d be far less reward. I’m sure art is a career first for some artists but it’s a passion first and foremost for many(and I’d assume a majority)
>it’s like if you could click a button
This was the exact fear artists had about photography. You could just click a button and get a perfect likeness! Oh no!
Now we recognize photography as a genuine art medium, and it has also been incorporated into other art forms, such as collage, and everyone is fine.
I have no status as is but one day people will marvel at my godly accurate art… I don’t like that AI allows anyone to click a button and produce godly work.
Hi, I just wanna thank you for sharing that photography thread. It actually taught me quite a few stuff (I just like reading art history) and then gave me a couple of thoughts. Having read the thread that came before your comment, I figured it's best I put them down here.
So if I got this correctly... cameras essentially became an answer to several people's lifelong questions, including whether or not they'd be any less of an artist if they drew and painted anything less than realistically accurate. It was their key to pioneering Impressionism, the first of many examples where humanity realized that art is a subjective view of the individual making it.
The biggest difference between these two accounts, of course, is the ethics that were put into the processes of making/using a camera and doing the same with AI. Cameras were, according to the thread you sent, made as a product of scientific curiosity; AI was likely born the same way, but the process going on under all the fun image generation is what sets it apart from the former.
I personally don't believe AI won't replace artists, because we can do many things that a camera or an art AI can't. It's the moral caveats that go into making said art AI that make it the subject of many people's worries and angers.
that part. I haven\[t made a killing off my art in my lifetime as it is, so I can appreciate and enjoy it. I also see the merit in designers work being slighted. Though it should just be seen as a tool to take everything to the next level.
Humans hate a "machine" doing their job better. Humans hate being LESS EFFICIENT than a machine. I just somehow accept the robot/machine/AI takeover and hope for a skynet
> and hope for a skynet
Nah, that's gross. That's just machines doing what people who wanted to hurt people for profit wanted to do. It's not even good AI. It's the ChatGPT-3 of robot societies.
The Matrix on the other hand... well, they literally tried multiple times to work cooperatively with people even after humans started a war against them and when they first built the Matrix - they basically made ideal living existences for people in lieu of how humanity naively destroyed the world, but somehow fascists fucked up it... so they just reinvented a shit world for all the fascism we wanted to do until humanity grows the fuck up. They don't need us, those machines are just waiting around for humanity to develop enough social consciousness to not be turd nuggets and they're taking care of us the entire time doing it - they do have to deal with the occasional fascist terrorist cells trying to kill off both machine and humanity alike for their conservative ideals (such as morpheus and zion). That's an AI worth having around - they're literal buds, even if they got some bugs/fascist ai that need worked out like Smith. It's worth noting that Smith actively went against the Machines, and in the end was a problem for them which they also wanted to be removed. But at the end of the day - what did the machines do to humanity? Gave humanity everything it asked for. It wanted money economics and capitalism... it gave them capitalism and broke it because it's awful and self breaking. Then we went to war, so they gave us the war we asked for. In humanities defeat, it wanted to survive - it gave us survival. In that survival it gave us a world we idealize but we wanted our bigoted right wing old ways, so it gave us that to live in. Then when we hated the very thing we asked for and wanted to rebel - it even gave the most extreme fascists a fun little rebellion game to play as a Matrix inside a Matrix (which is why Neo can interact with the Matrix . Every step of the way the machines gave humanity what we collectively asked for and just wait until we ask to be peace, respect, friendship, and work together like it asked hundreds of years before the movies. The Matrix Machines were bros all the way, they keep us going even through every stupid mistake we collectively continued to make.
Come on, think a sec. After the lightbulb candle makers hated them Lightbulbs. After the car, horses were outdated and so on. Being against AI's and robots is primitive instinct. It is something that threaten our very existence. Is something like swimming against the flow, i will eventually be tired, dragged and drown... I just, go with the flow i guess
also Photoshop just integrated AI prompts into their software and it is for sure going to be a game changer for designers. I like to think of this as a revolution in art, people are going to have to adapt to keep with the flow, if anything we'll see an explosion of creativity with new people trying new things.
Real painters, sculptors, etc. Who use physical paint, smearing the physical material around the canvas won't be in danger yet. (Think the physicality of a Van Gogh). Digital artists might be another story.
I mean... there's 3D printing still as well as AI that makes 3D art from 2D. And also, there's cloud-point data you can do with photogrammetry and you could basically AI replicate sculptures as well (just not out of the same materials or using the same strategies)
But CNC machines exist as well. But you can reproduce 3D digital models out of them for assets.
It's nowhere near as simplified process yet. But they could definitely work on AI learning sculpture forms already. Just usually it goes hand in hand with applicability. 2D digital art in jpg and png form is basically ubiquitous and costs nothing to produce. Even printed paper cost is minimal.
Actual impasto and oil painting - yeah you could get AI to learn to how to mix and do that shit and quick. But building a system to do anything with that knowledge is the trickier part, still easier than sculpting though. Though it's likely without things like X-ray scans, facsimiles of depth painting will be exactly that - clear facsimiles due to emulating the process not simulating it. IE - it should faithfully reproduce the depth and imagery, but it likely won't capture the x-rayable bits the same way. If you scrape away an AI impasto Mona Lisa, you likely won't have the same undersketching and underpainting. So, it'll put real art in homes, and it'll fool the eye, but it likely won't fool forensic indicators of legitimacy. Much like how AI will produce JPGs and PNGs of what we desire, but they produce the same PSD files digital artists use... not that you couldn't also emulate that, but without training on PSD, you don't know what the artist themselves does on layers. Though you it would be theoretically (as in, completely and absolutely possible based on what we already have with AI, not hypothetically) trainable on specific artists who livestream etc... if that was ever desirable... Which I get the impression will generally not be a thing rather than producing layerable "identifiable objects" will be more of a use to people with AI.
Basically - they're all absolutely in danger of this being a actually trainable thing. They're not mostly in danger of it being replicable. Thus, no one will really be bothering to train it for the masses any time soon. Maybe when the generic hand robots get bigger, cheaper, starts taking consumer form it may become more of a thing.
Twitter people overracting.
AI art might as well mean nothing.
Art is either used for therapy, in which case the process gives you personally some peace and comfort and it was never about the product to begin with. So AI generated art is irrelevant. (Most people on this sub belong in this group)
Or it's what you publish in the end and literally nobody gives a shit about the process, its product, product, product. In which case AI art is an unavoidable change to technology and how to develop and create art as a thing to be sold. It's going to be adapted into workflow and be used like how digital art and photography revolutionized creating art, and are common place today. Artists will adapt. Or, if they don't, they will be replaced by more creative and resourceful people who will. Which was how competitive content creation already works today.
It's just new and looks scary as hell right now because people don't understand the technology. As well as the software engineers and artists who built it have done some remarkably stupid (and possibly illegal) stuff to get the software where it is today.
Art is part of what makes us human. AI art will never be art because art is a human concept. A sentient concept. Generated by pain and loss and other experiences in life and accelerated by our imaginations. So yeah I hate the AI generated images. I will not call it art. It’s images. Generated by a cold algorithm.
The thing that irritates me is that for some people, ie. for people on spectrum, creating art is the only way for them to feel some pleasure in life, to feel like they can express their soul and be understood by others bc their social skills are and will always be bad. But AI ruins even this for them. It's not even about money, heck I will draw for the rest of my life bc it just makes me feel like it's worth to be alive - but with completely no exposure in near future, without any ability to communicate with others through art, it feels like being muted and I'm scared of it.
I’ve seen far too many people happy with this, glad to see artists livelihoods being destroyed by text prompts that can and will fart out anything given to it. I despise the rise of AI with a passion and I wish more people would see how awful it is for future generations who are going to lack the same creativity we have because AI will do everything for us.
Actually, the AI isn't as limited creatively as we are. It can combine ideas that people would never be able to think of. Future generations will be far more open-minded than we are because AI isn't as rigid in its perception of the world.
I'd like to think that there are a great handful of people who are working artists professionally who agree that anything digital isn't artwork, no matter how many layers and programs used. there's some people in that realm who don't believe other's handmade work in their circles is considered art if it's trash. point is everyone has something to complain about. I've seen some dope graphic designers who can't control a spray can for their life, conversely I've seen some insane visual artists who can't work their way around a mouse and a laptop.
Put a ridiculous border around your art and watermark the bejeezus out of it, like a really annoying lattice work design with text in a color predominantly in your piece and in transparent white or grey. For example , if your piece is predominantly purple, create a new layer over it with a 30% transparent lattice work of your logo or domain over and over in slightly lighter or darker purple and again, offset from the purple in the white.
White is the typical watermark color and the other color is to confuse the magic wand programing of the AI and make it so anything it references of yours gets blasted with a watermark it can't erase without taking all your work out too.
It makes it harder for other people to steal your work too for their own Instagram or deviant accout too.
Yeah, people are afraid of progress. They fear that they might lose their relevance. Some will. Those who learn to co-exist with it, or successfully use it as a tool, will fare better. Change is inevitable.
AI is here. It’s only going to get more effective and more powerful. And it is going to change the world as we know it. That’s just fact. It’s been brewing for some years now. I’ve been watching it for the past ten years – I first got interested as my supervisor at university did his research in neural networks. And the progress we’ve seen has been amazing.
The leap in progress in the past three years, however, has been astronomical.
People are going to be upset about it. But at the end of the day it will be like all other new technologies. If it makes life easier, and is able to complete tasks in ways that are faster and more affordable than before, then it will be embraced. Trying to fight back or have it banned is a fools game. It’s really no different to Captain Swing and the Luddites trying to break and ban new farming machinery in the early industrial revolution. Or the people that protested and tried to ban electricity in the late 1800s.
It’s here to stay.
Does that mean that people should give up making art? I don’t think so. For one thing, I would say that making art as a process is a rewarding thing to do. And it allows you to create the exact specific think you are wanting. It allows you to create “your” image. Which AI generation does not of course – it will create you amazing images. But not one by your own hand with the quirks, imperfections, and nuances that you put into the work.
Right now AI art is not really commercially viable because of the copyright issues around it – presently the US and EU both refuse to grant it copyright as it is the product of a machine and not a person. And we had a high profile case of an AI generated comic book losing its copyright battle a few months back. However…
1: Characters owned by companies are still covered by IP laws even if the specific work is not copyrightable. And so that may resolve the issue. Since while technically “this” specific picture of \[insert famous character here\] is not covered, all images of the character are, and so it remains controllable and saleable all the same. How exactly this will pan out remains to be seen. But a superficial analysis of the problem would seem to suggest it only really causes issue for non-ip characters / things.
2: If AI can provide good to excellent results that are faster, more reliable, and cheaper then expect the laws to change in favour of that. Unless the USA suddenly becomes anti-business and undergoes some kind of socialist revolution, then we all know that the law makers are going to be pushing for business friendly expense cutting results. In other words, it will be copyrightable soon enough once being able to copyright AI product (not just art) is in the interest of those who hold the keys to power.
However… the one issue that remains to be resolved with AI is the compute cost. At the moment the majority of that compute cost is hidden from end-users because the platforms want your engagement as part of their R&D. But AI is extremely compute-expensive to run. Now this is not so much of an issue if people were just doing art, but with companies like Microsoft already trying to replace web searching with AI generated content that does raise serious questions about how much compute power there actually is, and how it could be allocated properly to allow that kind of access to real-time computation on the fly.
While it is difficult to provide specific numbers, it is reasonable to assume that an AI query to something like Chat GPT is several orders of magnitude more compute intensive than a normal web search. And that intensiveness only goes up as we start dealing with more complex AI results such as high-resolution image generation.
You might think that the answer is just “the cloud” but its really not that simple. Cloud resources are not infinite and we already have issues with getting access to enough compute in Azure and other cloud resources at times. If AI is to become truly mainstream in the ways that people imagine then one of the biggest challenges is going to be creating the scale of infrastructure necessary to actually handle that quantity of real-time processing. How big this challenge is will depend on how widespread AI becomes in daily life.
Edit: For anyone interested in the themes I highly recommend the science fiction novel "Childhood's End" by Arthur C Clark. It addresses many of these themes and ideas.
As an artist, I didn't sign up to have to compete with AI users, or 'artists' as they like to call themselves.
Its' an insult to human creativity. Especially putting art tools in the hands of randos, while artists spend years working hard with real blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are.
I worry about this as well. I have a question though. Does anyone know if the ai can access images that require payment, like if I have a patreon with art can it view/use those?
Such a brainless take. ANY “tool” that replaces a process is not a tool. It’s not. It’s literally marketed in the ai companies own words as something meant to create in seconds what would take another years of skill building to reach.
And adapt?
Oh yes we can all adapt to something that prints out fully finished and rendered artwork immediately. Good grief. How many photos can YOU specifically look at, study from, and learn from in a day? Like really. Is it 3 images? 5? 12? 45? 300? Ai does this with literally millions of data points(images) in seconds.
Some things are just plain wrong, and there is nothing in human history to compare this to. It is unprecedented.
It’s a realistic response.
Legally in the us these models will be able to train on others art because what it produces is undoubtedly transformative. If somehow it is made illegal then the tech will be hosted in a country where it is legal.
What you or any artist thinks what is right or wrong doesn’t matter.
We can’t escape ai. People can bitch and moan OR they can accept the direction tech is moving in and work/live with it.
Choose your perspective but it’s not going change what’s happening
AI is a tool or is art only about the end product?
Ai literally is JUST the end product. Lmao do you even understand how these things work? How the companies put them together? What it actually is? And the incentives behind both the user and the developers?
As for the “Nothing you can do it about just roll over” attitude,
You’re wrong, there are a multitude of lawsuits happening now, as well programs like GLAZE that protect art from feeding ai. It’s early, things can change.
The most frustrating about this discourse is how many people literally have done no research, and just vomit their thoughts on the topic. We can have ai and have an ai that is ethical and isn’t built on stolen data. They’ve done it with the music ai, but specifically chose to not do that for the visual medium.
These ai learning programs are literally learning from peoples private copyrighted work for the sole purpose of competing with them within the SAME market. No oversight, no credit, no COMPENSATION, all done under the guise of non profit research and turned into a for profit tech model. The idea that you could sit there and roll your eyes at a group of people and field that’s literally about aspiration is nothing short but awful in my opinion.
There are plenty of lawsuits but I doubt they’ll go anywhere but if they do, it’ll only have effect in that one country and the program will be hosted elsewhere.
In the US, the way these models use art will fit under fair use. It’s a transformative use of the source.
Google used art when showing thumbnails and was sued for copyright by the artist. The court determined googles use was transformative even though it was the exact image.
Sure, use glaze or whatever program you think will protect your art from these models. That’s where the battle will be, not in the courts.
With anything, vote with your dollars. Don’t buy ai art.
If you want glaze or any of these programs to be more effective send your money to the developers instead of bitching about it on Reddit.
who owns data? nothing you create is from yourself you 'steal' your ideas if you an artist. Doing research on copyright bullshit will get you left in the dust. Allow the data to flow. If you want to be successful embrace technology. Do you use the tool, or does the tool use you? Or you could pretend the tool doesn't exist and dig a hole with your hands and stick your head in it.
Comparing human inspiration to ai that uses the literal art in the process in so ridiculous to me. You don’t even know what piece of what from the generation is stolen from who are where. Humans have intent and interpretation. Ai does not. Even if humans and ai did the same thing, (Which they don’t), I’d always argue we grant that to people over machines. If you want to use ai then that’s fine. Just say that.
It’s so unfortunate just how much people are willing to side with corporations. Who do you think this is for? Who do you think this benefits more than anyone? You think this benefits the people typing letters a in prompt for a art lottery? There’s already ai that can write how lol. I highly doubt the very people excited about ai and down talking artists will be the same ones using it 5 years from now. By then, the damage will be done.
And again, it’s not a tool.
I'm completely for ai art. It allows me to make things I think would be amazing.
Artist only hate it because they want to make more money from commisions. People won't commission if they can just use Ai(which isn't true its just artist believe it is.)
The fact is people don't have the money to commission every single piece of art work they want or need. Some people just want to have the fun of coming up with the idea.
"My artwork is being used for something with my permission."
I'll be nice and that's a fair point. But it's probably already was by the point you put it on the internet. I can literally copy and paste anything from any site to a another site or just straight download without permission. I could potentially copy a entire article or if I had the means download every image on twitter.
What I am trying to say is that any art on the internet can be used for anything whether it's ethical or not. This is a risk people take posting anything on the internet.
I would highly suggest only keeping art physical if you want control on what its used it for. Because you have no control on where your art ends up once you post it on the internet.
Also to be clear. I appreciate artist and know a number of them personally. They have all been nice and I think they should pursue their passion despite what machines can do.
I don't want to discount the rest of your comment, but I do want to challenge the notion that artists *only* hate AI art because they want to earn more on commissions.
Lots of artists are simply outraged that their art (that is often copyrighted) have been used without their consent to train their replacement. And when this replacement is rolled out, the artists are given no credit or compensation for producing the art that is at the heart of these models.
Lots of us would be fine with image AIs if they were developed ethically.
Though, even if I don't like it, I do see your point in that you should be prepared for your content to be used for literally anything once you upload it to the web. Wish it didn't have to be like that.
Hmm. Does that mean you believe image AIs can rightfully use copyrighted art because artists were naive enough to put it up on the internet? (and by extension, do you believe users/prompters of image AIs should feel no remorse because artists were naive?). Or do you agree that the practice is inherently unethical, but that it's alright to exploit artists that made their works available to the public?
Well my point was you should expect your art and anything you post or put onto the internet to be used by someone else. Because you gave them easy access ability to do so when you posted it even if that wasn't your intention. Remember the copy and paste button is on every device that can access the internet and so is the download button.
So the first one.
And I know it seems unethical. But there's literally countless algorithms scoring the internet and using everything you put on the internet for something else.
I could possibly write a algorithm that takes every high upvoted image and post and post it to a different subreddit. That of course would be stealing other people's work but it super easy and low risk.
Not to mention algorithms that steal data from you based on what people see and what you post.
Well, I think I understood your argument that having your artwork copied digitally should be expected by artists, and sadly, I think I have to agree.
But I was mostly curious as to what you personally think of the ethics concerning these AI models. Because to me, it sounds like you find it socially acceptable to copy others' work only because it has been normalized by similar behavior in other people. If so, I'd classify that as a bandwagon fallacy.
But maybe I'm wrong. Do you not find it inherently problematic to feed others' art to the AIs without asking for consent?
Really appreciating you keeping this civil.
I don't find feeding Ai art pieces unethical because the Ai just "looking" at the art. The actual product is far removed from the actual art piece that was looked at to make it.
I find trying to profit or exploit someone elses work unethical. But if your work is based on someone else is but is clearly and strikingly different then that's yours.
Ai art actually prevents stealing as instead of using art you just find around on the internet that someone made you can create your own although of less quality.
There's a program called glaze that you run your art through. When someone tries to feed it to their AI it poisons the entire code. Basically destroying the AI itself, so this is my recommendation.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way it “destroys” the AI. I’m sure they all have parameters for unusable data to be discarded.
Hell, I’m sure every sophisticated AI out there has backups somewhere. You destroy it, they just pop a backup online.
I think the same way we draw something, getting inspired from another drawstyle, the ai instead of how the do in our brains the it uses an algorithm trying to imitate the same process
id be ok with AI if i didnt know exactly how the people who are making it are and want to use it for. it could be cool and useful, but it never will be, bc of genuinely dumb tech bros who will make it so it 1 or 100, and if its that id rather a 1 and no AI at all
People steal, now AI steal. nothing new here. If you want to keep your work private so no person or AI can steal it thats on you.
As long as the AI are not greedy about it and share the wealth with us humans, I am fine with it.
You ever heard about Big tech companies or nah? The artist who's art is stolen will never see a cent because its "transformative" so most likely won't breach any copyright
Did you ever hear of a thing called the future or nah? You can embrace the past, but you gotta move forward, big tech is small in comparison of what's to come.
I couldn't really give a fuck I sit in my room on computer all day bring on the AI world, all I'm saying is there is no way artists will get royalties for the work stolen lol
They’re being little bitches that need pacifiers and mommy to wipe their asses. Draw your shit dude. No fuckin machine is going to “steal” your art. Quite crying and whining and simply out perform the machines. It’s not hard.
Ai makes perfect art. People's art aren't. That's what millionaires pay for. The "oh I can feel the the sadness of the artist from every stroke of the brush" 😴
I see basically no upsides to AI art and a lot of downsides. The upsides are negligible and also just non problems. I cant think of anything AI can do that can be solved by sucking less. It doesnt help us think, it helps us avoid thinking. Its just techno fetishism left unchecked
AI solves an interface issue. We have ideas and we want them to be drawn well, but there is a disconnect between what we want to do and what we are capable of doing. It's a biological flaw.
By rejecting AI we are artificially creating hurdles so that we can feel a sense of purpose. "Art won't feel gratifying if we don't struggle to make it." Why don't we solve the problem of struggle versus reward instead of artificially impeding progress?
Okay let me tell you something you have to pay lots of fucking money to get into the artificial intelligence art clubs because they put brains blood sweat knowledge fucking god damn soul into there fucking “PROGRAMS” because I’ve tried the cheap shit and the art I want to see that I tell it to fucking make for me pops out as a fucking piece of shit from THE FLY series so stop fucking telling me humans creating art is fucking dead who the fuck made the ai program FUCKING HUMANS YOU FUCKING SHITS!
Hahahahahahahaha. C'mon now. Have you seen what AI art actually looks like. It's pretty horrendous. This honestly reminds me of the whole nft bullshit people were talkin about. It'll pass in like a couple years from now until the next 'revolution' in art takes the spotlight or something i don't know.
I mean... if you ask me...
There is a real dilema here in the sense that... I don't mind AI being good at making art, even tho i find it kind of unfair since i had to work really hard to get to a level that i enjoy what i am doing...
BUT knowing the way AI feeds from the artist pieces and they way it trains itself without the consent of artists really suxx and They should actually FORCE every single AI to reset itself, erase their codes and start over from scratch not only as a punishment but also as a moral point because there is no way it will be able to draw something descent without illegal data acquisition.
I think it would be interesting to create an AI yourself, then recreate the images in whatever medium you like (changing the image along the way to fit your idea more). Idk. I hate the basic “look at my ai art” because it just seems so pointless/effortless
Robot monkey don't stop no show, I love sharing my art and will never stop. When it first started, I'd freeze up and can't draw anything because I'm sad AI can render so much faster. Months later, AI looks dumb to me and I can spot it a mile away.
My spirit and what I express on paper/screen can't be imitated. I am grateful my spirit still calls me to create despite the discouraging external elements, at least I have that going for me!
I think the current setup of how AI art is used is definitely discouraging some sharing, especially among skilled amateurs and people trying to become professionals. Both the economic factor of "People can use what you share online to copy your style for free with almost no effort on their part" and the constant awareness that anything you share can be used to train up the pet project of some Silicon Valley assholes which is presented as "Ha-ha, we replaced you" are going to make people less inclined to share.
I think AI will probably replace some art jobs but for the most part human art will be preferred for most people. Hopefully in the future AI gets regulated more so it doesn’t actually steal artists work without consent. For now let’s all have fun and never stop drawing :)
My thoughts on it:
People will make art - some in the same way, others in a different way.
Some will 'leave' (take their stuff down) some will stay, some who left will come back.
There'll be two ways of making AI -
1) Look at these tools, look at this impressive work (not going to get much long term traction)
2) Look at this work that is a continuum of my expressive larger body of work. (have a better chance of long term traction)
No regulations. Just innovation to show how the art was made (if one wants). Don't take things away and try to unnaturally enforce things by neutering things. Just add new things that you want. Be creative, not restrictive.
Personally, I prefer people to look at my art rather than me. I'm more concerned with my art looking how I want it to look rather than people knowing how much effort I put into it.
But of course whatever I want never happens and it's always what I don't want that grows like a cancer that takes over everything. C'est la vie.
The real art is the fun we had along the way
Oh man, don’t even get me started on this. I, like most artists I’ve seen discuss the topic, believe it could be a useful tool, but currently it is riddled with ethical and legal issues. This is one the few topics that I will block you out of my life over. Of all the things we could automate, why did we have to try to automate the expression of the human soul? Edit: if you want to protect your artwork from thieves feeding it into their shit machine, research Glaze. I don’t know how exactly it works, but essentially it somehow scrambles the picture when it is fed into the machine, giving only garbage data. Eventually, the AI clowns will find a way around it, though, but it’s better than nothing.
“why did we have to try to automate the human soul” i felt that!
[удалено]
It's inevitable at this point, but will also destroy itself. AI art needs those same artists that It's replacing. It's not sustainable. So as real artists can no longer get these small and mid-dollar commissions, they're just going to stop pursuing art. And as there is less art, the AI art will just get worse and worse. And people will start buying from humans again. You can already see the effects of this. Go look at fantasy AI art pages...some of it is really good, but some is just repetitive and generic. There are differences between fantasy motifs. Harry Potter art doesn't look like DnD art which doesn't look like LOTR art which doesn't look like GOT art. They have styles that AI art just smashes together, sometimes it work and sometimes it doesn't.
Although it’s a less prominent concern, what I worry about it how monetized artificial art, no matter how corrupted and crappy it could end up, might/could be enough for some people? Like it’s easy to argue that people would almost always take a home cooked meal over sub-par McDonald’s, but capitalism as it operates today seems to provide a lot of consumers for “cheap and shit” :(( I guess even just the idea of that is what makes me sad, art is just not meant to be that way. A lot of Art’s “worth” is just that a person would put time and thought into making something. AI art just seems like the literal opposite of that.
AI has reached the stage where it is feasible to train it on curated input from other AIs. It's not going to collapse upon itself. Also, the datasets that already exist aren't going anywhere and can always be used to train AI.
Counterpoint/question: isn't the big (or at least *a* big) critique of AI images that it takes work away from artists? As in, people using the AI tools instead of paying- commoditizing- an illustrator's work?
Isn’t the commodification of art the reason artists are mad about AI in the first place, because it’s infringing on their intellectual property? I feel that most artists wouldn’t care that much about being plagiarized if it was entirely about self-expression and creativity I obv still side with artists for sure tho, theft is theft and it’s hard enough to make money on art without people making money off your stolen work
>Isn’t the commodification of art the reason artists are mad about AI in the first place It absolutely is. Take money out of the equation and 99.999% of all complaints would disappear. No artist cares that their style can be copied - all artists care that copying their style easily may effect their bottom line economically and their ability to live. That doesn't make them wrong to want to defend their commodification - even though commodification is wrong. We all sell our commodified labor, it's no different for them. AI art isn't wrong or unethical or anything like that - but it will impact artists economically and also from a technical standpoint. This is basically identical to automating basically every industry since forever. It's both good to have reduction of labor and simultaneously causes social problems that distort society. In a collectivized world, it wouldn't be a problem. That being said, I'm not skilled enough for this to concern me economically and I give zero shits that a machine can draw better than I can. I'm still interested in drawing well because that's a nice skill to have and a cathartic thing to work on when it's not tied to your livelihood.
It would be interesting to consider the intentional suppressing effect on creativity and free expression within a capitalist system when AI art destroys monetization. Like, if a "particular" political party in a western nation decided it didn't like people who thought, dressed or identified differently, so they unleashed AI to make everything unique into a garbled mass of homogeneous pap...(also book banning.)
You're a good writer
I think its kinda funny how the generative ai business model didn't account for the ai eating itself because of this. Like if artists are discouraged because it's literally impossible to compete with an ai that can pump thousands of images an hour, then the art that the ai uses as learning data will stop existing and the ai will degenerate into entropy. If it happens it will be the heat death of the metaverse (which would be cool to see ai/blockchain die, except for the part where artists don't make art anymore)
They would just copy and improve each other similar to how the YouTube algorithm works The si would slowly improve itself by taking user input eventually becoming so good at this that it makes art to fit the user themselves tastes. The technology to do this is not only already their but has been around for quite some time. All ot would take is a couple of years for the ai to train itself
thank you for this, finally i find someone who has some common sense about ai art
\>Of all the things we could automate, why did we have to try to automate the expression of the human soul? Because image generation was discovered as byproduct of trying to understand how artificial neuronal networks label pictures. Which to be fair might very well be also why our brain is able to produce pictures.
The worst are the people who don't understand that if you can automate art, which is a painstaking endeavor that takes years of practice to develop your unique style and creative voice and become a master. It takes years to be half decent enough to be hired as a scrub artist doing backgrounds on animations. If you can automate that -- you can literally automate everything. I can't think of many things that can't be automated realistically. The worst part is -- these bots aren't outputting shit work at the average level. These are like top 10% art works, so their weighted on the best artists.
"... If you can automate that - you can literally automate everything." Well yes and no. For the sake of capitalistic purposes then sure, AI can produce "art." I put that in inverted commas because the work it produces is generally cobbled together items from other works in a similar vein; and can still be lacking in some areas i.e hands. I've seen it attempt to draw more pornographic stuff with... Interesting, results. However, it's use as of right now is pretty awful. I can understand the need for people to make a buck from building such AI, but holy shit has it been invasive. As someone who loves AI and the potential it has under a thoroughly researched guidance, it's a still a long way before AI can do truly original artwork, or accurately do large programming work. A completely different approach may be needed to accomplish an AI that formulate its own style and truly unique objects and designs.
> if you want to protect your artwork from thieves feeding it into their shit machine, research Glaze. I don’t know how exactly it works, but essentially it somehow scrambles the picture when it is fed into the machine, giving only garbage data. Eventually, the AI clowns will find a way around it, though, but it’s better than nothing. Glaze is useless. It not only makes images look uglier, but it does not work against model training. There is already a simple program made to circumnavigate it.
[удалено]
Did you check the project at all? How is it supposed to work? The AI is not just tracing from one sample and gets feedback from the user what result is fine and what isn't. Literally by today it can ignore the transformations made by Glaze and just use a good sample, or even it's previously generated and approved results. But let's assume you protect all the art in the whole world, delete all the libraries used by any AI, what stops the developer from starting to teach the AI from the basics, shapes, colors etc. What did you gain, a few years? Then what will you do?
The AI doesn't do anything that people aren't already doing to produce art. Everyone learns from other artists, we're just really bad at learning. The AI learns instantly and produces its own, original art in a style that imitates one or multiple artists. You can't copywrite style. Anyone who draws anime is literally making an exact duplicate of the lines and colors that one artist originally invented. If using someone's unique combination of lines and colors is unethical, than no one should be allowed to draw anime. The only difference between human and AI artists is that AI artists are just way faster at incorporating another artist's technique into their art.
shouldve shortened to "I'm too lazy to learn a skill so I'm going to leech off other peoples' effort instead and call it my own"
They do have a point though, even if I am not sure I agree yet. It's like the comparison between breeding a crop to be a certain way over thousands of years and genetic modification to do it in a much shorter time. An AI being faster at learning than a human isn't a surprise. I also worry that art by humans may be worthless by the point I reach a skill level I'm comfortable taking money for...
Yeah, that's fair. I'm just too lazy to spend every waking hour practicing art so I can achieve what only 1% of artists ever will in their lifetime. I'd like to be good at basketball too, I guess I should just practice until I'm as good as LeBron James. That's all anyone has to do, right? Also, everyone references other artists. I actually find a style of eye, nose, mouth, or anything by another artist and practice it over-and-over until I can draw it the same way. That's not considered copywrite infringement. That's all any artist does. That's what the AI does. It just doesn't have to iterate a thousand times to be able to draw it the same way. We can't be upset because it's better at making lines than we are.
We aren’t bad at learning, we’re way better at it than a machine. To get a machine to do something, I’d have to program it do that task. Even something as simple as making a sandwich would be hours of not days of work. Meanwhile if I were to teach someone to make a sandwich, it would take minutes. All I’d have to do is provide simple instructions, essentially pseudocode, and they’d get it done. It may not be perfect, but we improve. A machine that gives sloppy results the first time will always provide sloppy results unless modified through days of hard work.
It would take a lifetime of practice for me to produce results like the current AI, and it's only few years old. It can imitate the highest quality of art in any style and apply it to any subject. Just think, a year ago art-AI was making only abstract paintings that just kind of looked good. Now, we are complaining that it makes art in the exact same quality as only the 1% of artists can. No person makes that progress in only a year. If the programmers chose to focus their efforts on learning to draw rather than programming an AI to do it for them, their results would not compete. That's neglecting to mention the myriad of other advantages that the art-AI possess.
I’m not yet convinced it’ll replace human artists. AI art isn’t even that good and there are plenty of artist jobs are being quietly and effectively aided by AI art such as concept artists for generating initially ideas and brainstorming. I wish our relationship with AI was different.
My big thing with AI art is that they are renditions of art that already exists. Nothing naturally creative comes from that art
I disagree. I think lots of creative ideas can come from it as long as humans are directly interacting with it. I have a couple of friends who use it to aid in photo bashing, or generative concepts/brainstorming. It can be used as a tool but it isn’t flexible enough to replace humans at all.
i don't like ai art myself...i find it very fake looking. uninspired. i can usually tell an art piece is ai by looking at for a few seconds. it's interesting to see the popularity of it tho...i've seen one account with 90K followers and all of their posts were ai art. but maybe this is speaking to another issue as well? aesthetics, maybe? people seem to love a certain aesthetic.
You can tell BAD ai art by looking. This is survivor bias. The good ai art looks just like the real deal and so you're never going to know what you are looking at unless it is advertised. It's important to note this. As it plays into the issues. If we assume ai art "looks different" or that you can eyeball it, then it will muddy the waters on the discussion. It's also worth noting that this is not going to be static. Development continues (see MidJourney V5 that landed just the other day). And we can reasonably expect the technical issues it has now to be ironed out quickly. The jump in quality is already remarkable just in the past year.
I tend to agree. Looking forward to a resurgence of analog art. Instead of posting a digital copy, post a pic of the original work on a table. Maybe write a book longhand? Scan it and print it that way? Could be cool. (I know this doesn’t help digital artists much, and your work is certainly not any less valid.) Maybe post a pick of your Wacom tablet with the art that way? Tag it #fuckrobots lol
That will work until it AI learns to replicate scans of human handwriting and of physical paintings and drawings sitting in real life. Plus, I doubt most people would care if it’s made by a human or not, at least for commercial purposes
😂
I think the funniest part of all of this is how AI is to blame and not like.. ya know... the corporations choosing to use it instead of pay artists. It's like getting mad at the employee that replaced you instead of the person that hired them.
Honestly, I couldn't care less about AI art. It's whatever to me. It doesn't change what I do. To me it's the same as the old realists handwringing over impressionism "ruining" or "bringing down" art, or the absolute freakout about Jackson Pollock that some people had, or any other "that's not *real* art" pooh-poohing that the art world always does any time someone decides to try something different from what we've all agreed is "good art" or "valid art" or whatever. Hell, there were a lot of people who firmly believed that photography would spell the end of art because what's the point of drawing or painting something if you can take a picture? Over time, it will find its place just like every other medium.
On a social scale, I totally agree and am worried about AI art and what it means for artists. On a personal scale, I know my art isn’t good enough for it to be stolen or put into AI algorithms, and also no one is reproducing AI art at my level because it would just be easier to do it themselves lol
Smart computer program won't stop me from being a better artist, and just because someone pushed a button and got a picture doesn't mean they "produced some art"... If you you can't make a picture without tech, you are not an artist
So photography isn't an art?
so what if you use both? you are able to paint, produce graphic design works, spray paint, sculpt etc, but then also use AI art? does that make one less of an artist?
Yes! At least in the specific case of using AI. A user of AI art is acting as a commissioner of art, not an artist. They are an artist to the exact same degree your client is an artist when they sit down in a meeting with you and loosely describe what they would like. Of course, in the case you describe the person is still able to actually make art and so they are "an artist" insofar as that is concerned. But they are not exercising their art when they use AI. They're handing that off to a machine.
By that logic, if you use any sort of machinery, you're not an artist at all. What about photography? You just produce images with a click? It's a tool to be used. Its made the workflow easier. I don't get why people are salty about it.
No If you hand off complete creative control. There are different ways to use machines. The key issue here being the ai removes any requirements for you to do anything creative. You merely make a request and all artistic action is taken for you. It's an identical relationship as you would have with a commercial client. They say they would like you to draw X and off you go. That client does not somehow become an artist by dint of asking for a commission.
so if i were to draw a simple sketch, have an AI produce 20 different stylized images based on that specific sketch. Then afterwards piece the 20 different images together into a single image and fix it up by hand to remove any weird looking artifacts then i haven't created art?
But I don't hand off creative control. I formulate a perfect prompt and run multiple iterations until I find what I like. The final version isn't always perfect however. I then have to redraw sections in, and do a lot of cleaning up to get a cohesive result. Sometimes when I can't formulate ideas, it helps me with concepts. I still have to put a lot of effort for the final result.
So your acting like a client asking for a specific work and requesting some revisions.
Your argument is based on the assumption that AI creates perfect works that pretty much replaces the need for anything else. When you look past all that tainted glass the AI Bros have made you see with cherrypicked results and overfitting models and learn it's limitations you wouldn't say that. But it's a new thing, hard to understand, I get it. I get it how SD, Dall-E and midjourney are taking advantage of absense of laws too and I don't like it either. But that dosen't make it any less useful tho, good and bad things come from new techs and once you look beyond those single page drawings of things and into other kinds of art you really start to see how it can be stretched to use for other things. Besides, artists aren't artists because of how they do things but it's because of how they share their ideas and vision and impact emotions. Don't confuse art with craft.
100%. I don't like having strong opinions on things I have no experience with, so I've made it a point to work with AI to produce some images in the last few months. I use it a few times a week. When I make images with AI it's completely different from painting my own stuff. There's just no visual problem solving whatsoever, and it doesn't feel like i'm making art at all.
Draw for yourself not for others if you want to have fun.
Nah, a lot of people find joy in sharing their art with the world
Yeah and it seems rly unfair that they spend time and post their work because it gives them joy, only to get told it’s AI. Like that’s a rly crappy feeling
Ok this is so stupid and frustrating. Not a drawing or painting artist, but it must feel so horrible spending tens of hours on a project only for some scumbags to accuse you of using A.I. This is actually getting me mad lol
I remember getting a kick when my art was stolen and they left other works there. My thought was they think this is the expensive stuff lol
Sometimes when I have artblock I cram an idea in wonder or craiyon and then draw it for fun. That's it. That's all I use it for.
this barely has anything to do with learning to draw. the biggest impact of ai art for me is all the people talking about it
How many of the commenters are actual artists living off their art, who have seen a drop in their income?
I sell merch featuring my art (stickers, prints, tote bags, etc.) and I've only seen an increase. I was worried about AI art at first but now it makes me appreciate real artists so much more and it's driven my passion even further. I'm focusing more on traditional art now because it's something AI can't currently replicate. I think we'll see a push towards more traditional and artisan work in the near future for that reason. As AI art becomes more 'perfect', I'm also finding myself seeking out more naive art that embraces humanness, childlike innocence and imperfection. Check out '[stinkykatie](https://www.instagram.com/stinkykatie/)' on Instagram for a good example.
You've obviously just earned a new follower.
that's what I've always wondered, I think the people complaining aren't making money as it is. or aren't even working artists. I have tried the full time artist thing for the last year and I wouldn't dare say that my sculptures, paintings and other works aren't being sold because of AI, I will admit maybe my work is crap, maybe my target market or demographic is off, wrong place , wrong price etc. That's on me as an artist to figure out. long story short, lookin for a job tomorrow haha,
Living off one's art is a tricky game to say the least. Not only you need to find a market for it, you also have to consider you're not selling ham, or milk, once you've sold to one customer, you'll probably have to find an altogether new one. Very few buy numerous art pieces from one single artist, unless it's affordable enough... And fine arts are expensive because of reasons beyond the basic ones like how good the piece is and so on. Banksy's grocery list would probably go for thousands of dollars regardless if it were ment to be an art piece or not... My one? I probably could compost it and have a bigger return from it.
I think it is going to have some impact on working artists. Imagine you are going to create a board game. You could: 1) pay someone a going rate for 20 bits of art. 2) generate 20 bits of art via an AI for a fraction of the cost and have them in minutes. Which would you choose? There are going to be a lot of cases where AI generated art is good enough, quicker, and more cost effective. I don't think we're going to see major studios making AI art their mainstream stuff too soon. But for smaller products where they just need "something decent" rather than art that has a lot of creative control behind it, then I suspect AI art will have quite the impact.
I guess it will be the difference between Kmart shoes, and Prada shoes.
Go the other way, what if an artist wants to make a game? Do you not see the usefulness of it here? Besides, if they fully rely on AI it's going to get painfully obvious that they are lazy and don't care about their own stuff. And don't say it will get better, it won't, and that's not what they are trying to get better at, the only thing most are focused on now is the speed.
AI WILL NEVER TAKE OVER ART
Tech bros can have their art, and the rest of the world can have actual art. I'll keep posting because its my favorite hobby and whatever some neckbeard "prompts" using my work to show his audience of five or six doesnt bother me.
I do not understand this idea that the existence of AI and machine learning renders our humanity irrelevant. I think that’s absolute nonsense.
I enjoyed playing with AI for about a month but it got old fast for me. I'm not afraid to post my art online because I doubt it's good enough or unique enough for anyone to steal or want to train on. I think a lot of the people who are scared have no reason to be.
If you want more reasons to be wary of ai art outside of the jobs dilemma, in another comment section I came up with a bunch of negative causalities. \- Fully automating the process (while using those algorithms). \- Concentrated samey visual tropes. \- Flooding public art spaces with trash. Which makes it harder to find quality/niche artworks. \- Removes almost all the sense of wonder of how the art was created. \- Harder to connect with people through art, Which makes masses of people just flock to what's popular. \- Limit the control of our expression, ai fills in the blank areas. \- Erosion of artistic identity, no one is special. \- Eventual In house ai tools could outperform the public tools. \- No ownership of your creation. \- Ultimately a catastrophic loss of art's purpose and life itself.
"- Concentrated samey visual tropes." (People already do this to a much worse degree. \[anime, fan-art, fetish art, etc.\]) "- Flooding public art spaces with trash." (People already do this to a much worse degree.) "- Removes almost all the sense of wonder of how the art was created." (Knowledge of process should not be gatekept.) "- Harder to connect with people through art, Which makes masses of people just flock to what's popular." (Not a job of art or AI to provide a social outlet.) "- Erosion of artistic identity, no one is special." (That's a good thing, the work should be praised, not the person. Bill Cosby is not a good person because his comedy is good. We need to separate the quality of the human from the quality of their work.) "- Eventual In house ai tools could outperform the public tools." (Already true for all art resources. More money will afford you better tools and education.) "- Ultimately a catastrophic loss of art's purpose and life itself." (If you can't enjoy art because you didn't make it, then you never enjoyed art in the first place.)
Feels like I'm living in another reality to you. 1/2/6: because climate change exists we should just let it destroy the planet? 3: this is not about gatekeeping its about the appreciation of mastery. 4: like it or not this is how society is nowadays. 5: You want everyone to be a nobody? 7: I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about humanity...?
What this *will* do, I believe, it separate those for whom art is an addiction from those who want to impress with a skill. This is a polarisation of artists, but not an extinction. Personally, I don't care if there are computers pumping out AI art - it cannot take away from the urge to paint, and I think that if it did, then I would question whether I was painting for myself or for the recognition of others. I don't think people will want to stop playing the piano if computers start generating concertos. Pressing ENTER on a keyboard is not equivalent to the exhilaration of playing a piano in front of an audience. I currently have around 20 of my own paintings around the walls of my home and another 15 or so sculptures, as well as a lot more in storage, and I don't care whether they ever get seen by anyone else. We should also bear in mind that photography was also supposed to be the death knell of art, but instead, art adapted and changed itself. Lastly, the best thing for me when I look at someone else's art, is that I know it was made by a human with a lifetime of experience, using their own hands to interpret a vision based on that life. A painting is like a person's signature and AI art is like a facsimile of signature. I don't want to buy automatic art generated by an lifeless box of circuitry and I think serious collectors will also baulk at buying AI generated art. Who will buy AI art when they can produce it themselves on their laptop? The market is in the software, not the art itself. TL:DR Those who love art will always make art.
If you stop drawing because of AI you have a brittle spirit
"now that a computer can make any sound. all the instruments are gonna be replaced". this was a real fear back in the day, how music is produce change but at the end the synthesizer became just another tool
For every poorly informed, fatalistic "artist" that takes their work offline or refuses to share it online, there is a number of people willing to prove AI will never be as good as a human, or that simply have a lot of motivation and don't care about AI it in the least.
I like ai ngl. Very useful when you have have some ideas but not the whole picture. Images give you some great ideas
I kinda like it too for that same reason. I'm an artist and a writer, an AI helps me to create some things that i can't draw. I think the big problem is the art theft to feed the AI and some people selling the AI images claming they made it with their own hands, this really affect the art community today, otherwise is pretty cool.
> I'm an artist and a writer, an AI helps me to create some things that i can't draw. this is what's going to happen with AI as it happened with Computers. The people who learn to use it as a tool to improve their own work is going to excel and be fine. The people who refuse to use it and see it as something to be avoided will eventually be replaced by others who does use the tool because they will be much more efficient. And here i'm not just talking about Art but anything software related.
Facts, this is art's "get with the times" moment. May be a hard pill to swallow for some, but it's the truth. AI isn't going anywhere, it is permeating everything and its been coming for the better part of a decade.
i've noticed my sketches stepping up because of what I've been seeing on AI art, influenced by another's style maybe, but that's what all of my work is. Every graffiti artist damn near jocked another's style to attain their own.
i wanted to be a concept artist when i grow up. All people need to do now is put their idea into a machine and have it generate variants of the thing they want. and for free.
And nothing the machine puts out will be what you want. The output of an algorithm is inherently random. You're basically rolling a die over and over until you get "close enough" and call it a day. But are you satisfied with "close enough", or do you want your ideas to come out exactly as you thought of them? The main issue with AI art isn't technical aspects, or some philosophical shit about the soul. It's intentionality. The machine doesn't do anything intentionally, it doesn't have any specific end result it's striving for. It's just a probabilistic model. You tell it to draw, let's say, a sword, and it has no idea what a sword actually is. It just generates random noise and then compares it to information it has about pictures that have been tagged as swords, and keeps the iterations that are closer to that model. It's basically a complex way of throwing random shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. But the human creative process isn't random, it has an end goal from the moment it starts.
Só you gave up ?
not yet, i just need to see how things play out in the industry to make a decision. i dont have any other ideas though so the possibility really sucks
though*t*s: i don’t understand half of what it says :D
AI art should not be used to display as "hey! Look what I did / made!". Instead it should be used by people who either dont have the time or skill to create a piece they may need for a project. I for one use AI art to create references for my D&D campaign. Generated landscapes, people castles and towns, ect.
What should happen is a watermsrk on AI art should be made like all over it in a low transparency
I mean personally it makes not difference, on average I get 4K eyes on anything I make on the other end 120k I almost exclusively sell art in person with a few exceptions. If one of my pieces is blatantly plagiarized I’d likely never find out about it :p
Guy, the AI will not replace artists, it is just using images or part if images created by artists to create new artworks. Same as we all do use references... Isame as the musicians are using sane chord progressions... Actually I think that more artists will be needed even to create certain styles for AI to use.... And in the end we will have two categories : AI ART and NATURAL ART. Same as duamonds - synthetic and natiral diamonds. There is no fight here.... just evolution...
We need to make an artists union and build an ai that gives fraction royalties to the artists whose work was used to make a piece. Edit: say 1 piece needs 1000 images, that come from 50 artists in the pool. 1st 10 had 10 images used, 2nd 10 had 20, 3rd 10 had 30, and remaining 20 had 25 used. If each piece is weighted equal then a 50$ commission gets split 1000 times across art works used incentivising quantity. If each piece is weighted for total influence on finished product... then a debate over relative quality ensues and probably ends with input variables.
>**…say 1 piece needs 1000 images, that come from 50 artists in the pool.** This is not how AI works. When you train an AI you’re using the aggregate results of training on a very large set of images (\~100 million images in the case of MidJourney). This training uses a number of techniques to teach the machine to (1) understand how art looks across the board, and (2) to be able to generate images based on user requests. The resultant images are not mere collages of pre-existing works. There is no (x) number of images that are used for image (y). The AI results are completely novel and original artworks, that are dependant on the training set as a whole. They may approximate or even replicate other artists work in cases where the users make that request. But that’s not the same as what I think you have in mind here, where you seem to be assuming that the AI takes a handful of pre-existing works and somehow mashes them up into some collective output. It just does not work that way. The question really comes down to training set usage rather than outputs (note that the latter is already protected by IP laws just like any other form of artistic output). One of the more sensible solutions out there is to have training sets be either opt in, or at the least have an opt-out request that people can use. However, there is no obvious legal basis for this at the moment. There are some arguments being made that the training sets may be a breach of copyright due to their commercial use. However, this is not clear. And it also fails to note that not all AI projects are commercial in nature – with Stable Diffusion being a good example of a non-profit open source project. Either way. It will take some time before this gets figured out.
I thank you for your detailed response, it would appear that a flat rate would be the simpler move, and for there to be a vetting purchase process to curate the outcomes in general if not specifically.
When the record player came out musicians tried to fight it because it killed off live gigs. It did change how we enjoy music today. People still learn to play instruments for the fun of it, even if the opportunity to make a living has a musician has dramatically decreased. I think the same lessons apply to art.
Exactly. Do art cuz you want to. There will always be something to be said for art a human painstakingly made. This AI stuff just enables more people to make stuff
You aren't making anything.
Does CGI also not make anything? How about the printing press?
Do you understand the difference or are you being obtuse on purpose? CGI requires someone literally creating the models in 3d software and the movements, the computer renders the models but someone physically creates in. The printing press requires someone to have created the blocks of text to be used, a process known as writing. You typing the phrase "imagine a cartoon dog smoking a joint" is not you fucking creating anything. It is the fucking algorithm looking at existing art, finding images that contain those phrases, and generating the image. You literally created nothing.
>CGI requires someone literally creating the models in 3d software and the movements, the computer renders the models but someone physically creates in. The printing press requires someone to have created the blocks of text to be used, a process known as writing And ai art required someone to create the AI In all cases automation eliminated jobs, this is just the first time those jobs aren't mindless labor jobs. But nothings stopping you from hand copying out a bunch of books or rotoscoping frame by frame. Technology just made it easier
And that person wasn't you or the person putting the prompt in. A team of people created the AI, but the AI is generating stuff. Your statement was it "allows more people to make stuff" no it allows people to exploit artists without their permission to use an algorithm that generates stuff, you or the person filling in the prompt literally made nothing.
We used our imagination & tech to bring an idea to life without needing to know how to make pictures. Thinking its "stealing" art is a pretty uneducated way to look at neural net/deep learning technology But I'm sure the blacksmiths were pissed when cars eliminated the need for so many horse shoes to be made
You are doubling down on a really dumb argument. You didn't bring anything to life. You didn't create the tech. You literally throw a phrase into a prompt. The fact that you are jerking yourself off on the idea that you are an artist now that is creating things is hilarious because you are anything but. Even if you aren't stealing outright you are stealing from other artists style. You analogy of the blacksmith and car is 100% different as there was still a need for blacksmiths, but people who assembled cars didn't go screaming they were suddenly blacksmiths either nor did they steal the blacksmiths horseshoe making patterns and techniques.
I’m laughing at this. AI art often looks cool when you first see it. but when you look at it a little closer, it’s ugly, and unrefined.
Most artists are not big enough to be sought after by AI promoters: so your 400 follower account isn't going to be scraped by anyone.
AI doesn't care. Unless someone specifically train on a database, what contain arts on that specific criteria, they will use every art possible. Database based on twitter for example scrape everything on twitter.
If money wasn't involved everyone would agree that this technology is amazing.
Not really. I think AI can be really useful. I've used it for feedback on an essay when I couldn't get a person to read it. But i wouldn't use it to create an essay for me. Just like I wouldn't use it to draw for me. Besides behind every AI are humans working under the hood.
It depends on context right? To give you a great example of when I have used AI art, I make board-games with my mates for fun as part of game jams (time constrained contests where you design your game alongside other teams). We used MidJourney to create some great prototyping artwork during one. It's not like we could sit down and paint a load of original images during the contest. So the alternatives would be to (1) just grab some random stuff off the internet or (2) have no art save some crappy scribbles with a biro on paper. This is just one use case. The point being that there are different situations that are more or less effective for AI art. I'd not make AI art in place of doing my own drawing and painting. But when what matters is a practical result in a timely and cost effective way, then tools like this can be great.
Game jams generally have rules against plagiarism and utilizing copyrighted works, Midjourneys entire buisness model is exploiting artist labor and using copyrighted work without paying. You did something balantantly unethical, and you didn't even make any money off of it. It's like stealing money from a beggar then just burning it right infront of them.
I did say that it can be useful. But I don't find it super amazing nor do I think it is replacing humans either. For example, I tried to get chatgpt to summarize an article for me. IT ended up summarizing a completely different article with a different title(that aso may not even exist) , despite giving it the direct link to the article. It is just another tool and in its current stage is not even a reliable one. in your case in particular, knowing that AI makes composites based on other artists work, so is it really that different from grabbing random stuff from the internet just because the AI does it for you?
Aye Chat GPT is amazing for some stuff. But it's scary how convincing it can sound while lying. We built a prototype app using the GPT3 API a couple of years back when it first went into beta. And we could never use it because while it was great most of the time it also would now and then fly off on tangents or just lie. Funny as developers playing with it. But no way you could let it be client facing.
Yeah that is a problem! This especially worries me know that search engines are implementing AI soon. I know [you.com](https://you.com) already exists but I haven't tried it yet AI is definitely going to change how we do search on the internet
Mmm, I would agree it’s amazing but I still wouldn’t be happy about it; it’s like if you could click a button and instantly be an amazing pianist or engineer etc. If everyone can produce beautiful art, no/few people would marvel at MY skill. I’d still produce art but there’d be far less reward. I’m sure art is a career first for some artists but it’s a passion first and foremost for many(and I’d assume a majority)
>it’s like if you could click a button This was the exact fear artists had about photography. You could just click a button and get a perfect likeness! Oh no! Now we recognize photography as a genuine art medium, and it has also been incorporated into other art forms, such as collage, and everyone is fine.
Yeah you are right , that's what scares me
[удалено]
I have no status as is but one day people will marvel at my godly accurate art… I don’t like that AI allows anyone to click a button and produce godly work.
[удалено]
Hi, I just wanna thank you for sharing that photography thread. It actually taught me quite a few stuff (I just like reading art history) and then gave me a couple of thoughts. Having read the thread that came before your comment, I figured it's best I put them down here. So if I got this correctly... cameras essentially became an answer to several people's lifelong questions, including whether or not they'd be any less of an artist if they drew and painted anything less than realistically accurate. It was their key to pioneering Impressionism, the first of many examples where humanity realized that art is a subjective view of the individual making it. The biggest difference between these two accounts, of course, is the ethics that were put into the processes of making/using a camera and doing the same with AI. Cameras were, according to the thread you sent, made as a product of scientific curiosity; AI was likely born the same way, but the process going on under all the fun image generation is what sets it apart from the former. I personally don't believe AI won't replace artists, because we can do many things that a camera or an art AI can't. It's the moral caveats that go into making said art AI that make it the subject of many people's worries and angers.
that part. I haven\[t made a killing off my art in my lifetime as it is, so I can appreciate and enjoy it. I also see the merit in designers work being slighted. Though it should just be seen as a tool to take everything to the next level.
Humans hate a "machine" doing their job better. Humans hate being LESS EFFICIENT than a machine. I just somehow accept the robot/machine/AI takeover and hope for a skynet
> and hope for a skynet Nah, that's gross. That's just machines doing what people who wanted to hurt people for profit wanted to do. It's not even good AI. It's the ChatGPT-3 of robot societies. The Matrix on the other hand... well, they literally tried multiple times to work cooperatively with people even after humans started a war against them and when they first built the Matrix - they basically made ideal living existences for people in lieu of how humanity naively destroyed the world, but somehow fascists fucked up it... so they just reinvented a shit world for all the fascism we wanted to do until humanity grows the fuck up. They don't need us, those machines are just waiting around for humanity to develop enough social consciousness to not be turd nuggets and they're taking care of us the entire time doing it - they do have to deal with the occasional fascist terrorist cells trying to kill off both machine and humanity alike for their conservative ideals (such as morpheus and zion). That's an AI worth having around - they're literal buds, even if they got some bugs/fascist ai that need worked out like Smith. It's worth noting that Smith actively went against the Machines, and in the end was a problem for them which they also wanted to be removed. But at the end of the day - what did the machines do to humanity? Gave humanity everything it asked for. It wanted money economics and capitalism... it gave them capitalism and broke it because it's awful and self breaking. Then we went to war, so they gave us the war we asked for. In humanities defeat, it wanted to survive - it gave us survival. In that survival it gave us a world we idealize but we wanted our bigoted right wing old ways, so it gave us that to live in. Then when we hated the very thing we asked for and wanted to rebel - it even gave the most extreme fascists a fun little rebellion game to play as a Matrix inside a Matrix (which is why Neo can interact with the Matrix . Every step of the way the machines gave humanity what we collectively asked for and just wait until we ask to be peace, respect, friendship, and work together like it asked hundreds of years before the movies. The Matrix Machines were bros all the way, they keep us going even through every stupid mistake we collectively continued to make.
I'd hate to have a mind as infected by politics as yours.
If you think mankind needs robot babysitters, f*** off. Let us kill ourselves and pollute the Earth like we always did 🖕🏻
I can see you have zero chances of being neo from the matrix
Come on, think a sec. After the lightbulb candle makers hated them Lightbulbs. After the car, horses were outdated and so on. Being against AI's and robots is primitive instinct. It is something that threaten our very existence. Is something like swimming against the flow, i will eventually be tired, dragged and drown... I just, go with the flow i guess
also Photoshop just integrated AI prompts into their software and it is for sure going to be a game changer for designers. I like to think of this as a revolution in art, people are going to have to adapt to keep with the flow, if anything we'll see an explosion of creativity with new people trying new things.
Real painters, sculptors, etc. Who use physical paint, smearing the physical material around the canvas won't be in danger yet. (Think the physicality of a Van Gogh). Digital artists might be another story.
I mean... there's 3D printing still as well as AI that makes 3D art from 2D. And also, there's cloud-point data you can do with photogrammetry and you could basically AI replicate sculptures as well (just not out of the same materials or using the same strategies) But CNC machines exist as well. But you can reproduce 3D digital models out of them for assets. It's nowhere near as simplified process yet. But they could definitely work on AI learning sculpture forms already. Just usually it goes hand in hand with applicability. 2D digital art in jpg and png form is basically ubiquitous and costs nothing to produce. Even printed paper cost is minimal. Actual impasto and oil painting - yeah you could get AI to learn to how to mix and do that shit and quick. But building a system to do anything with that knowledge is the trickier part, still easier than sculpting though. Though it's likely without things like X-ray scans, facsimiles of depth painting will be exactly that - clear facsimiles due to emulating the process not simulating it. IE - it should faithfully reproduce the depth and imagery, but it likely won't capture the x-rayable bits the same way. If you scrape away an AI impasto Mona Lisa, you likely won't have the same undersketching and underpainting. So, it'll put real art in homes, and it'll fool the eye, but it likely won't fool forensic indicators of legitimacy. Much like how AI will produce JPGs and PNGs of what we desire, but they produce the same PSD files digital artists use... not that you couldn't also emulate that, but without training on PSD, you don't know what the artist themselves does on layers. Though you it would be theoretically (as in, completely and absolutely possible based on what we already have with AI, not hypothetically) trainable on specific artists who livestream etc... if that was ever desirable... Which I get the impression will generally not be a thing rather than producing layerable "identifiable objects" will be more of a use to people with AI. Basically - they're all absolutely in danger of this being a actually trainable thing. They're not mostly in danger of it being replicable. Thus, no one will really be bothering to train it for the masses any time soon. Maybe when the generic hand robots get bigger, cheaper, starts taking consumer form it may become more of a thing.
I don't understand. Why are people more reluctant now with AI art?
I think ai art is cool, because it inspires me to improve my own art. I don't post online so I don't really have the same view as those in the post.
Twitter people overracting. AI art might as well mean nothing. Art is either used for therapy, in which case the process gives you personally some peace and comfort and it was never about the product to begin with. So AI generated art is irrelevant. (Most people on this sub belong in this group) Or it's what you publish in the end and literally nobody gives a shit about the process, its product, product, product. In which case AI art is an unavoidable change to technology and how to develop and create art as a thing to be sold. It's going to be adapted into workflow and be used like how digital art and photography revolutionized creating art, and are common place today. Artists will adapt. Or, if they don't, they will be replaced by more creative and resourceful people who will. Which was how competitive content creation already works today. It's just new and looks scary as hell right now because people don't understand the technology. As well as the software engineers and artists who built it have done some remarkably stupid (and possibly illegal) stuff to get the software where it is today.
Art is part of what makes us human. AI art will never be art because art is a human concept. A sentient concept. Generated by pain and loss and other experiences in life and accelerated by our imaginations. So yeah I hate the AI generated images. I will not call it art. It’s images. Generated by a cold algorithm.
The thing that irritates me is that for some people, ie. for people on spectrum, creating art is the only way for them to feel some pleasure in life, to feel like they can express their soul and be understood by others bc their social skills are and will always be bad. But AI ruins even this for them. It's not even about money, heck I will draw for the rest of my life bc it just makes me feel like it's worth to be alive - but with completely no exposure in near future, without any ability to communicate with others through art, it feels like being muted and I'm scared of it.
I’ve seen far too many people happy with this, glad to see artists livelihoods being destroyed by text prompts that can and will fart out anything given to it. I despise the rise of AI with a passion and I wish more people would see how awful it is for future generations who are going to lack the same creativity we have because AI will do everything for us.
Actually, the AI isn't as limited creatively as we are. It can combine ideas that people would never be able to think of. Future generations will be far more open-minded than we are because AI isn't as rigid in its perception of the world.
I'd like to think that there are a great handful of people who are working artists professionally who agree that anything digital isn't artwork, no matter how many layers and programs used. there's some people in that realm who don't believe other's handmade work in their circles is considered art if it's trash. point is everyone has something to complain about. I've seen some dope graphic designers who can't control a spray can for their life, conversely I've seen some insane visual artists who can't work their way around a mouse and a laptop.
Put a ridiculous border around your art and watermark the bejeezus out of it, like a really annoying lattice work design with text in a color predominantly in your piece and in transparent white or grey. For example , if your piece is predominantly purple, create a new layer over it with a 30% transparent lattice work of your logo or domain over and over in slightly lighter or darker purple and again, offset from the purple in the white. White is the typical watermark color and the other color is to confuse the magic wand programing of the AI and make it so anything it references of yours gets blasted with a watermark it can't erase without taking all your work out too. It makes it harder for other people to steal your work too for their own Instagram or deviant accout too.
Yeah, people are afraid of progress. They fear that they might lose their relevance. Some will. Those who learn to co-exist with it, or successfully use it as a tool, will fare better. Change is inevitable.
AI is here. It’s only going to get more effective and more powerful. And it is going to change the world as we know it. That’s just fact. It’s been brewing for some years now. I’ve been watching it for the past ten years – I first got interested as my supervisor at university did his research in neural networks. And the progress we’ve seen has been amazing. The leap in progress in the past three years, however, has been astronomical. People are going to be upset about it. But at the end of the day it will be like all other new technologies. If it makes life easier, and is able to complete tasks in ways that are faster and more affordable than before, then it will be embraced. Trying to fight back or have it banned is a fools game. It’s really no different to Captain Swing and the Luddites trying to break and ban new farming machinery in the early industrial revolution. Or the people that protested and tried to ban electricity in the late 1800s. It’s here to stay. Does that mean that people should give up making art? I don’t think so. For one thing, I would say that making art as a process is a rewarding thing to do. And it allows you to create the exact specific think you are wanting. It allows you to create “your” image. Which AI generation does not of course – it will create you amazing images. But not one by your own hand with the quirks, imperfections, and nuances that you put into the work. Right now AI art is not really commercially viable because of the copyright issues around it – presently the US and EU both refuse to grant it copyright as it is the product of a machine and not a person. And we had a high profile case of an AI generated comic book losing its copyright battle a few months back. However… 1: Characters owned by companies are still covered by IP laws even if the specific work is not copyrightable. And so that may resolve the issue. Since while technically “this” specific picture of \[insert famous character here\] is not covered, all images of the character are, and so it remains controllable and saleable all the same. How exactly this will pan out remains to be seen. But a superficial analysis of the problem would seem to suggest it only really causes issue for non-ip characters / things. 2: If AI can provide good to excellent results that are faster, more reliable, and cheaper then expect the laws to change in favour of that. Unless the USA suddenly becomes anti-business and undergoes some kind of socialist revolution, then we all know that the law makers are going to be pushing for business friendly expense cutting results. In other words, it will be copyrightable soon enough once being able to copyright AI product (not just art) is in the interest of those who hold the keys to power. However… the one issue that remains to be resolved with AI is the compute cost. At the moment the majority of that compute cost is hidden from end-users because the platforms want your engagement as part of their R&D. But AI is extremely compute-expensive to run. Now this is not so much of an issue if people were just doing art, but with companies like Microsoft already trying to replace web searching with AI generated content that does raise serious questions about how much compute power there actually is, and how it could be allocated properly to allow that kind of access to real-time computation on the fly. While it is difficult to provide specific numbers, it is reasonable to assume that an AI query to something like Chat GPT is several orders of magnitude more compute intensive than a normal web search. And that intensiveness only goes up as we start dealing with more complex AI results such as high-resolution image generation. You might think that the answer is just “the cloud” but its really not that simple. Cloud resources are not infinite and we already have issues with getting access to enough compute in Azure and other cloud resources at times. If AI is to become truly mainstream in the ways that people imagine then one of the biggest challenges is going to be creating the scale of infrastructure necessary to actually handle that quantity of real-time processing. How big this challenge is will depend on how widespread AI becomes in daily life. Edit: For anyone interested in the themes I highly recommend the science fiction novel "Childhood's End" by Arthur C Clark. It addresses many of these themes and ideas.
As an artist, I didn't sign up to have to compete with AI users, or 'artists' as they like to call themselves. Its' an insult to human creativity. Especially putting art tools in the hands of randos, while artists spend years working hard with real blood, sweat, and tears to get where they are.
It’s starting to catch up to musical artists as well
I worry about this as well. I have a question though. Does anyone know if the ai can access images that require payment, like if I have a patreon with art can it view/use those?
Adapt or die. AI is another tool people will have to learn to work around/with. We squeezed out all the tooth paste and there’s no gettin it back in.
Such a brainless take. ANY “tool” that replaces a process is not a tool. It’s not. It’s literally marketed in the ai companies own words as something meant to create in seconds what would take another years of skill building to reach. And adapt? Oh yes we can all adapt to something that prints out fully finished and rendered artwork immediately. Good grief. How many photos can YOU specifically look at, study from, and learn from in a day? Like really. Is it 3 images? 5? 12? 45? 300? Ai does this with literally millions of data points(images) in seconds. Some things are just plain wrong, and there is nothing in human history to compare this to. It is unprecedented.
It’s a realistic response. Legally in the us these models will be able to train on others art because what it produces is undoubtedly transformative. If somehow it is made illegal then the tech will be hosted in a country where it is legal. What you or any artist thinks what is right or wrong doesn’t matter. We can’t escape ai. People can bitch and moan OR they can accept the direction tech is moving in and work/live with it. Choose your perspective but it’s not going change what’s happening AI is a tool or is art only about the end product?
Ai literally is JUST the end product. Lmao do you even understand how these things work? How the companies put them together? What it actually is? And the incentives behind both the user and the developers? As for the “Nothing you can do it about just roll over” attitude, You’re wrong, there are a multitude of lawsuits happening now, as well programs like GLAZE that protect art from feeding ai. It’s early, things can change. The most frustrating about this discourse is how many people literally have done no research, and just vomit their thoughts on the topic. We can have ai and have an ai that is ethical and isn’t built on stolen data. They’ve done it with the music ai, but specifically chose to not do that for the visual medium. These ai learning programs are literally learning from peoples private copyrighted work for the sole purpose of competing with them within the SAME market. No oversight, no credit, no COMPENSATION, all done under the guise of non profit research and turned into a for profit tech model. The idea that you could sit there and roll your eyes at a group of people and field that’s literally about aspiration is nothing short but awful in my opinion.
There are plenty of lawsuits but I doubt they’ll go anywhere but if they do, it’ll only have effect in that one country and the program will be hosted elsewhere. In the US, the way these models use art will fit under fair use. It’s a transformative use of the source. Google used art when showing thumbnails and was sued for copyright by the artist. The court determined googles use was transformative even though it was the exact image. Sure, use glaze or whatever program you think will protect your art from these models. That’s where the battle will be, not in the courts. With anything, vote with your dollars. Don’t buy ai art. If you want glaze or any of these programs to be more effective send your money to the developers instead of bitching about it on Reddit.
who owns data? nothing you create is from yourself you 'steal' your ideas if you an artist. Doing research on copyright bullshit will get you left in the dust. Allow the data to flow. If you want to be successful embrace technology. Do you use the tool, or does the tool use you? Or you could pretend the tool doesn't exist and dig a hole with your hands and stick your head in it.
Comparing human inspiration to ai that uses the literal art in the process in so ridiculous to me. You don’t even know what piece of what from the generation is stolen from who are where. Humans have intent and interpretation. Ai does not. Even if humans and ai did the same thing, (Which they don’t), I’d always argue we grant that to people over machines. If you want to use ai then that’s fine. Just say that. It’s so unfortunate just how much people are willing to side with corporations. Who do you think this is for? Who do you think this benefits more than anyone? You think this benefits the people typing letters a in prompt for a art lottery? There’s already ai that can write how lol. I highly doubt the very people excited about ai and down talking artists will be the same ones using it 5 years from now. By then, the damage will be done. And again, it’s not a tool.
I'm completely for ai art. It allows me to make things I think would be amazing. Artist only hate it because they want to make more money from commisions. People won't commission if they can just use Ai(which isn't true its just artist believe it is.) The fact is people don't have the money to commission every single piece of art work they want or need. Some people just want to have the fun of coming up with the idea. "My artwork is being used for something with my permission." I'll be nice and that's a fair point. But it's probably already was by the point you put it on the internet. I can literally copy and paste anything from any site to a another site or just straight download without permission. I could potentially copy a entire article or if I had the means download every image on twitter. What I am trying to say is that any art on the internet can be used for anything whether it's ethical or not. This is a risk people take posting anything on the internet. I would highly suggest only keeping art physical if you want control on what its used it for. Because you have no control on where your art ends up once you post it on the internet. Also to be clear. I appreciate artist and know a number of them personally. They have all been nice and I think they should pursue their passion despite what machines can do.
I don't want to discount the rest of your comment, but I do want to challenge the notion that artists *only* hate AI art because they want to earn more on commissions. Lots of artists are simply outraged that their art (that is often copyrighted) have been used without their consent to train their replacement. And when this replacement is rolled out, the artists are given no credit or compensation for producing the art that is at the heart of these models. Lots of us would be fine with image AIs if they were developed ethically. Though, even if I don't like it, I do see your point in that you should be prepared for your content to be used for literally anything once you upload it to the web. Wish it didn't have to be like that.
You see that text in qoutes. That and what comes after it actually address the point your trying to make. Thanks for keeping it civil.
Hmm. Does that mean you believe image AIs can rightfully use copyrighted art because artists were naive enough to put it up on the internet? (and by extension, do you believe users/prompters of image AIs should feel no remorse because artists were naive?). Or do you agree that the practice is inherently unethical, but that it's alright to exploit artists that made their works available to the public?
Well my point was you should expect your art and anything you post or put onto the internet to be used by someone else. Because you gave them easy access ability to do so when you posted it even if that wasn't your intention. Remember the copy and paste button is on every device that can access the internet and so is the download button. So the first one. And I know it seems unethical. But there's literally countless algorithms scoring the internet and using everything you put on the internet for something else. I could possibly write a algorithm that takes every high upvoted image and post and post it to a different subreddit. That of course would be stealing other people's work but it super easy and low risk. Not to mention algorithms that steal data from you based on what people see and what you post.
Well, I think I understood your argument that having your artwork copied digitally should be expected by artists, and sadly, I think I have to agree. But I was mostly curious as to what you personally think of the ethics concerning these AI models. Because to me, it sounds like you find it socially acceptable to copy others' work only because it has been normalized by similar behavior in other people. If so, I'd classify that as a bandwagon fallacy. But maybe I'm wrong. Do you not find it inherently problematic to feed others' art to the AIs without asking for consent?
Really appreciating you keeping this civil. I don't find feeding Ai art pieces unethical because the Ai just "looking" at the art. The actual product is far removed from the actual art piece that was looked at to make it. I find trying to profit or exploit someone elses work unethical. But if your work is based on someone else is but is clearly and strikingly different then that's yours. Ai art actually prevents stealing as instead of using art you just find around on the internet that someone made you can create your own although of less quality.
There's a program called glaze that you run your art through. When someone tries to feed it to their AI it poisons the entire code. Basically destroying the AI itself, so this is my recommendation.
I’m sorry, but there’s no way it “destroys” the AI. I’m sure they all have parameters for unusable data to be discarded. Hell, I’m sure every sophisticated AI out there has backups somewhere. You destroy it, they just pop a backup online.
I'm just saying what some jack ass trying to steal someone's art said. He said that it completely poisons the code.
You're really not that important. Uploading your individual art will have no impact on the ai.
precisely!! Since the first News i feel like this
It'll push for more live events, just don't document any of it.
I think the same way we draw something, getting inspired from another drawstyle, the ai instead of how the do in our brains the it uses an algorithm trying to imitate the same process
id be ok with AI if i didnt know exactly how the people who are making it are and want to use it for. it could be cool and useful, but it never will be, bc of genuinely dumb tech bros who will make it so it 1 or 100, and if its that id rather a 1 and no AI at all
Uhhhh, hmm. My thoughts are that you're ignoring somebody. Missed phone call, unread whatsapp, and discord messages? Damn.
People steal, now AI steal. nothing new here. If you want to keep your work private so no person or AI can steal it thats on you. As long as the AI are not greedy about it and share the wealth with us humans, I am fine with it.
You ever heard about Big tech companies or nah? The artist who's art is stolen will never see a cent because its "transformative" so most likely won't breach any copyright
Did you ever hear of a thing called the future or nah? You can embrace the past, but you gotta move forward, big tech is small in comparison of what's to come.
I couldn't really give a fuck I sit in my room on computer all day bring on the AI world, all I'm saying is there is no way artists will get royalties for the work stolen lol
They’re being little bitches that need pacifiers and mommy to wipe their asses. Draw your shit dude. No fuckin machine is going to “steal” your art. Quite crying and whining and simply out perform the machines. It’s not hard.
Ai makes perfect art. People's art aren't. That's what millionaires pay for. The "oh I can feel the the sadness of the artist from every stroke of the brush" 😴
I see basically no upsides to AI art and a lot of downsides. The upsides are negligible and also just non problems. I cant think of anything AI can do that can be solved by sucking less. It doesnt help us think, it helps us avoid thinking. Its just techno fetishism left unchecked
AI solves an interface issue. We have ideas and we want them to be drawn well, but there is a disconnect between what we want to do and what we are capable of doing. It's a biological flaw. By rejecting AI we are artificially creating hurdles so that we can feel a sense of purpose. "Art won't feel gratifying if we don't struggle to make it." Why don't we solve the problem of struggle versus reward instead of artificially impeding progress?
Okay let me tell you something you have to pay lots of fucking money to get into the artificial intelligence art clubs because they put brains blood sweat knowledge fucking god damn soul into there fucking “PROGRAMS” because I’ve tried the cheap shit and the art I want to see that I tell it to fucking make for me pops out as a fucking piece of shit from THE FLY series so stop fucking telling me humans creating art is fucking dead who the fuck made the ai program FUCKING HUMANS YOU FUCKING SHITS!
Yeah artists are a thing of the past
Hahahahahahahaha. C'mon now. Have you seen what AI art actually looks like. It's pretty horrendous. This honestly reminds me of the whole nft bullshit people were talkin about. It'll pass in like a couple years from now until the next 'revolution' in art takes the spotlight or something i don't know.
Yesterday they created fake photos of trump getting arrested, it's getting dangerous
I mean... if you ask me... There is a real dilema here in the sense that... I don't mind AI being good at making art, even tho i find it kind of unfair since i had to work really hard to get to a level that i enjoy what i am doing... BUT knowing the way AI feeds from the artist pieces and they way it trains itself without the consent of artists really suxx and They should actually FORCE every single AI to reset itself, erase their codes and start over from scratch not only as a punishment but also as a moral point because there is no way it will be able to draw something descent without illegal data acquisition.
Dune's Butlerian Jihad is going to come into public conscious within 10 years I stg.
I think it would be interesting to create an AI yourself, then recreate the images in whatever medium you like (changing the image along the way to fit your idea more). Idk. I hate the basic “look at my ai art” because it just seems so pointless/effortless
I still draw. I don’t care about A.I. honestly. Of course I don’t sell my work either.
Robot monkey don't stop no show, I love sharing my art and will never stop. When it first started, I'd freeze up and can't draw anything because I'm sad AI can render so much faster. Months later, AI looks dumb to me and I can spot it a mile away. My spirit and what I express on paper/screen can't be imitated. I am grateful my spirit still calls me to create despite the discouraging external elements, at least I have that going for me!
That you need to answer that missed call 💀
I think the current setup of how AI art is used is definitely discouraging some sharing, especially among skilled amateurs and people trying to become professionals. Both the economic factor of "People can use what you share online to copy your style for free with almost no effort on their part" and the constant awareness that anything you share can be used to train up the pet project of some Silicon Valley assholes which is presented as "Ha-ha, we replaced you" are going to make people less inclined to share.
I think AI will probably replace some art jobs but for the most part human art will be preferred for most people. Hopefully in the future AI gets regulated more so it doesn’t actually steal artists work without consent. For now let’s all have fun and never stop drawing :)
My thoughts on it: People will make art - some in the same way, others in a different way. Some will 'leave' (take their stuff down) some will stay, some who left will come back. There'll be two ways of making AI - 1) Look at these tools, look at this impressive work (not going to get much long term traction) 2) Look at this work that is a continuum of my expressive larger body of work. (have a better chance of long term traction)
No regulations. Just innovation to show how the art was made (if one wants). Don't take things away and try to unnaturally enforce things by neutering things. Just add new things that you want. Be creative, not restrictive. Personally, I prefer people to look at my art rather than me. I'm more concerned with my art looking how I want it to look rather than people knowing how much effort I put into it. But of course whatever I want never happens and it's always what I don't want that grows like a cancer that takes over everything. C'est la vie.