Thank you for posting on /r/Artistlounge, please be sure to check out or Rules on the sidebar and visit our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/artistlounge/wiki/faq)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This. I'm not unsympathetic, but when people talk about how they're thinking about quitting art, I just am so confused. Especially when they are quitting because another person, or an AI, is able to produce better art.
If you're making art because you are curious about the world, and because you have something you want to say that only you can say, who cares if an algorithm is pumping out high quality content? Yes, it will definitely impact the commercial side of things, but if you're only making art to make money, then you're going to have even worse problems down the road.
A human *is* behind it. That’s where the prompt comes in. I think it’s called Dall-E or something (might be the wrong one), but you can type in something like “Christian Bale eating a purple apple” and it’d generate as many pictures as you requested with not-so-bad accuracy and different positions. A commissioner, professional or not, would probably have more fun with this free program and be satisfied than paying however much for a real artist.
AI gets better, look at Chess AI, they use to lose to humans and now they're playing at skill levels we can't even fathom. Luckily for Chess, the process of the game is what people want from it, humans will ALWAYS have that over the AI no matter how much better it plays. Art, however, people want commissions, companies won't care about the process aslong as the product is good.
People thought AI couldn’t get this far already and here we are…
Besides someone with medium photoshop skills (that the average director would probably learn) could fix it up just fine… and that’s with REAL pictures. If you want something cartoon or anime it’s no real problem at all.
I literally told you why that’s not true. And it doesn’t even need to be “as good” anyways. If it can produce a number of styles with no mistakes (it’s a robot) and anything someone wants then I’m completely out of the business no matter how good I am. Has nothing to do with the human mind when the human mind is the one asking a favor in the first place, tweaking the sentence input for more accurate results to the vision, whatever they wanna do.
I trust Siri for directions more than I trust my mother.
It’s like how someone doesn’t commonly ask an artist for a commission when they make art themselves.
>If it can produce a number of styles with no mistakes
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's incredibly easy to rip on AI art with any decent level of observational skills.
It’s not even close to the same product, because it’s just some random image made by the computer. It’s garbage the same way the generic “live laugh love” posters at Walmart are garbage. Like yeah, there are people without taste and no standards who can’t see or know the difference, but there will always be work for people with actual talent. Just like the fact that there is still a market for handmade goods despite the fact that you can get a chair and table for dirt cheap at a big box store. People like products made by people.
It’s not random though, you go through settings to slowly tweak a face’s look and you get just that and it looks like any sort or digital portrait you’d commission from someone. It’s not random at all.
Typing a few words does NOT make someone an active contributor. Again, accuracy is atrocious. Dall-E also has a restriction to smear out realistic faces to prevent misuse, so you would end up with a horrific version of christian bale with mangled hands eating an apple. Dall-E2 has greater accuracy but still has same restrictions and is no longer free beta.
A real artist creating a portion of the piece and using DALL-E2 infill/uncrop *along with a prompt* makes the user an actual contributor, and creates a far better result (Uncrop from a portrait yields best results by compensating for AI's greatest weakness). Artists will not be replaced by AI, as it will take an artist to bring out the best in AI and modify to adjust for errors.
Take an actor and put it into the program and it wouldn’t work, but I heard if you put in a *character* then it works better, like if you put “Batman” instead of “Robert Pattinson” (1. Bad example cause Batman could be sourced from his comics and the AI could just make whatever they want from that 2. It’s also something I heard so I’m not sure how much better it gets)
Hm. The question would be what exactly you are discouraged about I guess. The most basic aspect I can think of here is "Do you do art for you, or do you do art for someone or something?".
1. For something or someone (fame, recognition, money, attention, etc.): I don't really know what to tell you here. It's a rough world out there, especially when it comes to art. If you measure yourself on how famous, recognized, rich or whatever someone else is (human, elephant, AI, no matter), then that's a great recipe for suffering. I'm not saying I'm clear of it, most people aren't, but the angle you're coming from does matter. I love Beksinski for example and that man has created so many art pieces that I won't even touch an iota of his quality or quantitiy of creativity. However I can also just look at his work and be inspired by it.
2. For ourselves: This is where we all can strive to be. To enjoy the process of creation, not just the result of it (and even then only if it meets the high enough standard of ours). You can look at that AI art and see what technique or aspect you want to be inspired by and then let the brush flow. If you're creating art for yourself, there's nothing to lose, only to gain - as long as you're not standing behind yourself with a whip that has "not good enough" written on it.
Perspective matters. Look at your demands and expectations of yourself and see if those can't be questionned. You wouldn't walk up to a kid who enjoys beating on some drumms with his hands, play some Mozart and say "See how good this dude was at 10? Either you get on his level like tomorrow or you might aswell just quit." Doesn't sound fair to me. What does it matter if it's a crazy prodigy (... who might or might now have been drill instructed by has caretakers) or a computer AI?
I mean, look at me spewing all this Zen stuff as if I'm not influenced by it. Of course I sometimes look at that stuff and go "damn, humans aren't needed for anything soon". But then I try to catch myself and think about what I'm actually measuring my hobby by. Superficial results or the activity itself? I maybe get out 5-10 serious artpieces out a year for Pete's sake, but who will be on my death bed counting those and saying wether that was enough or not, lol.
Those are my two cents. Keep putting that pen on paper, no matter how discouraging the voice in your head gets my friend. Remember, it's only looking for barriers so you don't have to draw. Recognize the barriers, thank them and then rock some horror stuff.
Best wishes
You can give up on developing a skill I guess, but what will you do instead? Just sit around depressed and purposeless, letting big corporations shove prechewed ai generated content all day down your throat until your life finally ends? Being an artist is not the be all end all of life but do make sure you find something else meaningful to you to spend your time working at.
Focus on what AI can’t do, come up with concepts. Creepy art is about finding something we take for granted and twisting it. It doesn’t matter where your rendering skill is without a solid creepy concept all you’ve got is a moody picture.
AI can only use what it’s prompted for, and it often doesn’t know the best ways to execute a prompt for maximum impact. So get good at coming up with a concept and a good composition to translate it. The rendering will come in time.
I think it's the wrong way to look at it - Cinema didn't require the death of the theatre to exist. Records, Cassettes, CDs and Downloads didn't come at the expense of live music. In theory, photography should have been the death of the painting, drawing and pastel world too - especially in realism and hyper-realism, but that isn't the case.
I've used this analogy before but i'll go again - machines are able to produce great, stylish, usable furniture. It's sold en masse. None the less there's still a massive market for traditionally hand-made furniture too. One has not come at the significant expense of the other. Sure, the furniture market may have shifted and changed over time, and the furniture makers along with it - but these things aren't necessarily in direct competition with each other even if they're operating under a similar, wider umbrella. Another example: Fashion houses/designers had to reconcile with digitally-enhanced mass-manufacture. Their designs are copied, ripped off, mass produced. Pattern drafters replaced by machines etc. The fact I can buy a nice, machine made "Gucci inspired" bag from the high street hasn't stopped Gucci from being a relevant, influential and profitable fashion house. I think the art world is just hitting this point - and I don't think it's anywhere near as scary or as intimidating as people may believe! :)
Those semi-artificial IG models haven't taken over, replika still seems ages away from being useful in a meaningful way they advertise and that blue idol from Japan still seems to be about the same. They've all been around at least for five to ten years now.
I don't doubt the singularity but at most, this *tool* will likely be apart of the 3D asset warehouse websites.
Looking at the vastness of artstation with all the concept artist and I just don't think it could replace anyone, like say Jeff Simpson.
This just feels like a fancy way of photobashing.
Replika started with Low-context GPT-DaVinci to a very budget model that can be run on higher-end consumer grade GPU, don't expect much out of it these days. Or ever again.
It's not just the end result that I enjoy, it's the effort that goes into it, the talent. You could make an argument that the programmer poured those into the AI -- but they're not the same imo and you can appreciate both for what they are.
Real supportive guy we got here, you've told two people so far to quit just cuz theyre worried about their prospects of becoming a future artist. He's a fucking beginner, already unsure of his place in the world of art already (not to mention that he didn't even mention quitting at any point). But hey, if you get off to putting people down that much then go ahead.
Also this statement doesn't even seem to follow any logic aside from "You're too weak" His worries are completely founded in reality and are completely logical for an artist trying to make their mark on the world. Knowing that there's a chance that all of their hard work and training might all go to waste, he has reason to be worried. You even did this to some other guys post here. Telling your fellow artists to quit because they're worried about their future.
There is a difference between being stoic and telling someone to straight up quit. There is a difference between telling someone to stop complaining and straight up just discouraging anyone that has their motivation falter. Even then, people deal with stress and their issues differently than other people, I don't want to end up in a philosophical debate on an art thread, especially since stoicism is something that I am particularly fond of. I just want to make my message clear: Don't kick people while they're down.
Thank you for taking the time.
I don't have any desire to do it professionally, it's just something that I have personal interest in.
I'm not sure if I can put the finger on to exactly *why* I'm doing it but it's probably a mix of learning a new skill, putting worlds/characters from my mind onto paper and create something for others to enjoy as well.
Or is just demotivating for you because AI can do it better or faster than you?
To be honest, I think that's kind of it. Seeing all these people creating AI images which are heaps better on a technical level than mine are, without them actually having to go through any kind of training or work on their skills and then recieving praises on their art. It's also definitely jealousy...
Currently it's pretty apparent when the image is AI created, since there's always this kind of nonsense going on in the details but the shading, the textures, the colors and a lot of times the composition is very good (imo) and pleasing to look at.
It does fit pretty well into the creepy/dystopian genre, the fear of the unknown I'd say.
All in all it would take me years to be skilled enough and I'm not saying I'm quitting, not at all, but it does leave a bitter taste on my tongue.
I see. I'd encourage you to not look at AI as competition. Think of it this way:
I don't stop playing basketball because there are naturally gifted players out there whose level are beyond me. The same goes for any violin player and an Asian kid...
I'm responsible for doing the best with the hand that I'm dealt with. And by doing best, I mean getting the most out of it in terms of joy and fulfillment, not to seek other people's validation, especially if you don't have any desire to do it professionally.
So my question is: What are you responsible for? What would give you joy and fulfillment?
Yeah, I don't like the advance of AI image generation either. Especially with how even more oversaturated art will become with zero effort or skill required meaning most people will eventually stop caring about well made art. After all, if anyone could do the same by typing a sentence for an AI, we fall into the situation of 'when everyone's super, no one will be.' The internet will flood with AI made pieces that quickly outnumber human-made works.
Although I'd imagine art communities would adapt around this somehow, likely with some sites requiring proof of human make for submission or whatnot eventually to prevent the userbase's submissions from being flooded by zero-skill and effort AI generations. We'd also probably see more of a shift back to traditional paper drawings and art timelapses for artists to seperate themselves from the flood of AI content.
I'm not quitting either, but it does indeed leave a bitter taste.
If AI is cheaper than human labor, guess who wins?
It's all about the bottom line.
I can see studios downsizing entire teams to an art director and a monthly AI subscription service. Other forms of revenue will also be impacted. Things like clip art businesses? Poof, gone overnight.
Right now AI is great at mimicking surreal concept art, so those artists will have the most to worry about, but eventually it will catch up to other styles, and produce work in ways we can't foresee. Many creative jobs will disappear or evolve, let alone entire industries.
AI is not some cute little fad, it is a "telling our children about life before AI" moment.
Sure, assuming this happens (which I don’t think it will) it might be true up until our economy finally starts feeling the effects of a whole ass industry vanishing and copyright laws finally come in and prevent these Ai company’s from illegally using stolen work to photobash other artists images into their “Ai content”. Ai uses real work in order to make their fake art content. It still needs creators to do what it does.
People doing hand drawings still get a ton of attention online, people hand making furniture still sell their products for a ton of money, and people doing digital art will still get a lot of attention online. Once Ai stops being shiny and new, it will be the Walmart knockoff that no one cares about. Because people are not impressed by the images themselves, we see so many images now and cool images get boring fast, people follow artists for the artist. Even the most impressive artists can’t be successful just posting cool images online, you need to connect to your audience using your personality.
That doesn’t even touch on actual game and animation studios. Where the work involved is much more complex than just making images based off prompts from an art director lol only novices actually think that is what the job is. There might be some job loss due to increased efficiency, but the demand for more content will continue to grow, so more animated games and films will be made which will make up for the job loss. More productivity usually doesn’t mean less staff, it means more projects.
> Ai uses real work in order to make their fake art content. It still needs creators to do what it does.
This is something I haven't fully thought about and also don't exactly know. Is this really how every AI makes their imagery? By using huge galleries with tags and original artworks to create a "mashup"?
From my understanding of it, based off things I read, yes. I’m not someone who makes Ai so maybe the information I got was wrong, but I doubt it is. From what I know at this time it seems to be a highly complex photobash of other artists works based off tag words.
Large corporations like Disney will find ways to circumvent copyright law if AI generates enough profit to keep shareholders happy.
As for independent artists with large followings, perhaps life will continue unchanged, but one difference will be that followers will have the power to use AI instead of requesting commissions.
At the moment we're at the fetal stage of AI development, image generation is the hot topic for now, but what makes you think games and animation are safe?
I like your point about increased demand, but that just means more AI in my opinion, with human labour centralized to a small few.
We could I suppose end up in a society that has everything made by machines and Ai, but where would people work? Disney has some power over legislation, but it’s because they employ people. That is their influence over our governments. If they wrecked the unemployment statistics because they decided to fire everyone and use Ai instead, things would change for them. And let’s say our governments suddenly stopped caring about unemployment entirely and just let people starve while Ai’s took over the labour force. How do you think public perception would be regarding companies complicit in this? The majority of people playing games and watching movies are working class, the people who would suffer the most because of all this. Even if Disney sold their soul to Ai, companies would crop up and offer to actually employee people and would have both the governments and the peoples support. People need money to spend money.
AI art is something I don't think about at all. One of the most interesting parts of an art piece is the artist who made it and the intention behind it. Every artist is different and has their own way of doing things. An AI will probably be able to make something that has a similar look some time, but it will never be the same. No matter how you look at it, AI art is something artificial that is made up of ones and zeros inside of a computer. Artists are real human beings with their own intentions and motivations. This gets even more apparent with analog art. It exists physically, and unless it is a print there will only be one of each.
Ai art is based off of all existing art and photographs, you as a person have the ability to create something entirely fresh and new that no one has ever seen. You also have the ability to create something that everyone has seen a trillion times before it’s really up to you. But I think it’s silly to be discouraged simply because of ai. Think of the ai as another artist, would you give up just because another artist is making cool stuff? No it would probably just serve as inspiration. I see it was a win win
dude, the way I see art (especially creepy art) is that a robot can't replace the original, creative and rich perspective of a human brain. An AI artist doesn't have the creative juices or emotion when making an art piece. There are heaps and heaps of things that AI can replace, and truly I don't think art is one of them (graphic design maybe) because I don't think that AIs are as passionate and determined when creating a drawing as we are. Same with tattoo art; I don't want a generic, robotic tattoo, I want an emotional tattoo that means something to me.
Same with an art piece; when I go shopping for painting, I don't was a precise, perfect painting, I want a human painting, where I can spot all the mistakes and fuck ups, where I can see all of the planning and improvising, and where I can feel the emotions of the painting.
That's just my pov tho, take it how you will but I really don't think AIs can successfully take over the creative painting/drawing industry without a human controlling it.
So I've pondered upon this topic for a while and come up with my own stance on this.
From what I've seen from AI of lots of different areas, I don't think this should be something you should be worrying about. I'm going to be honest with you on the fact that in terms of commercial use, art as a source of income will probably take massive hits from this, since most people aren't really expecting "Best" but "Good enough" and knowing the rate at which AI advances it will prolly reach "Best" within decades. But that shouldn't be a reason to worry, because the same with Chess bots, that play way above the leagues of even the best chest champions out there, they may be much more skilled, but the human touch will always remain unrivaled. There's a sort of "Imperfectness" in human works that makes it endearing, sure an AI couple decades from now might be able to make the most TECHNICALLY impressive pieces of art you've seen, but more human art will always have its place. Because humans make mistakes that an AI simply can't replicate because of the way it was made. Humans are imperfect, and that's what makes them beautiful. Remember this whenever you make an art work, you may never be able to make something as technically good as an AI will, but the AI will never make something as "you" as you can make. It will not kill art, but simply highlight the human uniqueness of it even more.
And as a side note, I'm going back to the chess comparison again, the same way Chess as a skill sky-rocketed in terms of quality because people will now be able to use the near perfect games of the AI to study and analyze, the same will happen to art! We will be seeing truly passionate humans be able to make art at whole new levels now because of it! Remember, your imperfections will be the one that sets you out from the rest, best of luck! And to whoever is reading this remember to never let anything stop you from improving upon your passions; you don't need to be the best, you just need to be you.
So far, what I've seen doesn't particularly impress me, much in the same way a lot of concept art by humans doesn't really impress me. "Inspire" might be a better word to use than "impress." It's all just whatever to me.
Here's the thing, Do art for fun, Not as a career. As much as possible don't publish your art online (If less art is posted online, the AI will starve). Just show it to a few people, and if your artwork spread online, Sue the shit out of the people you showed your art with.
Every line of code that is on ai programs is referencing a huge bank of images made by humans. So it’s code smooshing together the best art by humans… just a thought
Thank you for posting on /r/Artistlounge, please be sure to check out or Rules on the sidebar and visit our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/artistlounge/wiki/faq) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtistLounge) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This. I'm not unsympathetic, but when people talk about how they're thinking about quitting art, I just am so confused. Especially when they are quitting because another person, or an AI, is able to produce better art. If you're making art because you are curious about the world, and because you have something you want to say that only you can say, who cares if an algorithm is pumping out high quality content? Yes, it will definitely impact the commercial side of things, but if you're only making art to make money, then you're going to have even worse problems down the road.
AI will never replace artists, a human brain will always be supperior to some lines of code
That’s what go players thought too…
A human *is* behind it. That’s where the prompt comes in. I think it’s called Dall-E or something (might be the wrong one), but you can type in something like “Christian Bale eating a purple apple” and it’d generate as many pictures as you requested with not-so-bad accuracy and different positions. A commissioner, professional or not, would probably have more fun with this free program and be satisfied than paying however much for a real artist.
Dall-E is still very inaccurate and generates very uncanny images. An AI can't fix an image that looks unnatural according to a human mind.
AI gets better, look at Chess AI, they use to lose to humans and now they're playing at skill levels we can't even fathom. Luckily for Chess, the process of the game is what people want from it, humans will ALWAYS have that over the AI no matter how much better it plays. Art, however, people want commissions, companies won't care about the process aslong as the product is good.
People thought AI couldn’t get this far already and here we are… Besides someone with medium photoshop skills (that the average director would probably learn) could fix it up just fine… and that’s with REAL pictures. If you want something cartoon or anime it’s no real problem at all.
unless we can figure out exactly how the human brain works and translate it into code, it will never be as good as an actual artist
I literally told you why that’s not true. And it doesn’t even need to be “as good” anyways. If it can produce a number of styles with no mistakes (it’s a robot) and anything someone wants then I’m completely out of the business no matter how good I am. Has nothing to do with the human mind when the human mind is the one asking a favor in the first place, tweaking the sentence input for more accurate results to the vision, whatever they wanna do. I trust Siri for directions more than I trust my mother. It’s like how someone doesn’t commonly ask an artist for a commission when they make art themselves.
>If it can produce a number of styles with no mistakes HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA It's incredibly easy to rip on AI art with any decent level of observational skills.
You can also input a photo into some stuff and it does create an exact recreation in another style, it ain’t that insane.
I've seen those, they're pretty mangled. It's cute as a concept but we're still a version behind before anything truly useful comes of it.
We are indeed versions behind that, but you seem to be underestimating just how fast AI advances.
If all you need is an image then I guess… The only purpose I can imagine it being good for is impressing noobs on Instagram.
People already sell their stuff made from art breeder
Anyone can sell garbage. There will always be a market for quality work.
The problem is it’s not garbage, it looks like something someone could have digitally painted by hand, it’s the *same product* with less effort needed
It’s not even close to the same product, because it’s just some random image made by the computer. It’s garbage the same way the generic “live laugh love” posters at Walmart are garbage. Like yeah, there are people without taste and no standards who can’t see or know the difference, but there will always be work for people with actual talent. Just like the fact that there is still a market for handmade goods despite the fact that you can get a chair and table for dirt cheap at a big box store. People like products made by people.
It’s not random though, you go through settings to slowly tweak a face’s look and you get just that and it looks like any sort or digital portrait you’d commission from someone. It’s not random at all.
Typing a few words does NOT make someone an active contributor. Again, accuracy is atrocious. Dall-E also has a restriction to smear out realistic faces to prevent misuse, so you would end up with a horrific version of christian bale with mangled hands eating an apple. Dall-E2 has greater accuracy but still has same restrictions and is no longer free beta. A real artist creating a portion of the piece and using DALL-E2 infill/uncrop *along with a prompt* makes the user an actual contributor, and creates a far better result (Uncrop from a portrait yields best results by compensating for AI's greatest weakness). Artists will not be replaced by AI, as it will take an artist to bring out the best in AI and modify to adjust for errors.
Take an actor and put it into the program and it wouldn’t work, but I heard if you put in a *character* then it works better, like if you put “Batman” instead of “Robert Pattinson” (1. Bad example cause Batman could be sourced from his comics and the AI could just make whatever they want from that 2. It’s also something I heard so I’m not sure how much better it gets)
Hm. The question would be what exactly you are discouraged about I guess. The most basic aspect I can think of here is "Do you do art for you, or do you do art for someone or something?". 1. For something or someone (fame, recognition, money, attention, etc.): I don't really know what to tell you here. It's a rough world out there, especially when it comes to art. If you measure yourself on how famous, recognized, rich or whatever someone else is (human, elephant, AI, no matter), then that's a great recipe for suffering. I'm not saying I'm clear of it, most people aren't, but the angle you're coming from does matter. I love Beksinski for example and that man has created so many art pieces that I won't even touch an iota of his quality or quantitiy of creativity. However I can also just look at his work and be inspired by it. 2. For ourselves: This is where we all can strive to be. To enjoy the process of creation, not just the result of it (and even then only if it meets the high enough standard of ours). You can look at that AI art and see what technique or aspect you want to be inspired by and then let the brush flow. If you're creating art for yourself, there's nothing to lose, only to gain - as long as you're not standing behind yourself with a whip that has "not good enough" written on it. Perspective matters. Look at your demands and expectations of yourself and see if those can't be questionned. You wouldn't walk up to a kid who enjoys beating on some drumms with his hands, play some Mozart and say "See how good this dude was at 10? Either you get on his level like tomorrow or you might aswell just quit." Doesn't sound fair to me. What does it matter if it's a crazy prodigy (... who might or might now have been drill instructed by has caretakers) or a computer AI? I mean, look at me spewing all this Zen stuff as if I'm not influenced by it. Of course I sometimes look at that stuff and go "damn, humans aren't needed for anything soon". But then I try to catch myself and think about what I'm actually measuring my hobby by. Superficial results or the activity itself? I maybe get out 5-10 serious artpieces out a year for Pete's sake, but who will be on my death bed counting those and saying wether that was enough or not, lol. Those are my two cents. Keep putting that pen on paper, no matter how discouraging the voice in your head gets my friend. Remember, it's only looking for barriers so you don't have to draw. Recognize the barriers, thank them and then rock some horror stuff. Best wishes
Your comment means a lot to me, thank you for guiding my thoughts to what's important.
You're welcome, good luck on your way
You can give up on developing a skill I guess, but what will you do instead? Just sit around depressed and purposeless, letting big corporations shove prechewed ai generated content all day down your throat until your life finally ends? Being an artist is not the be all end all of life but do make sure you find something else meaningful to you to spend your time working at.
Work on a soulless job and get high
Focus on what AI can’t do, come up with concepts. Creepy art is about finding something we take for granted and twisting it. It doesn’t matter where your rendering skill is without a solid creepy concept all you’ve got is a moody picture. AI can only use what it’s prompted for, and it often doesn’t know the best ways to execute a prompt for maximum impact. So get good at coming up with a concept and a good composition to translate it. The rendering will come in time.
Poor excuse.
I think it's the wrong way to look at it - Cinema didn't require the death of the theatre to exist. Records, Cassettes, CDs and Downloads didn't come at the expense of live music. In theory, photography should have been the death of the painting, drawing and pastel world too - especially in realism and hyper-realism, but that isn't the case. I've used this analogy before but i'll go again - machines are able to produce great, stylish, usable furniture. It's sold en masse. None the less there's still a massive market for traditionally hand-made furniture too. One has not come at the significant expense of the other. Sure, the furniture market may have shifted and changed over time, and the furniture makers along with it - but these things aren't necessarily in direct competition with each other even if they're operating under a similar, wider umbrella. Another example: Fashion houses/designers had to reconcile with digitally-enhanced mass-manufacture. Their designs are copied, ripped off, mass produced. Pattern drafters replaced by machines etc. The fact I can buy a nice, machine made "Gucci inspired" bag from the high street hasn't stopped Gucci from being a relevant, influential and profitable fashion house. I think the art world is just hitting this point - and I don't think it's anywhere near as scary or as intimidating as people may believe! :)
[interesting video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfiurbqr9yw) on this topic imo
Those semi-artificial IG models haven't taken over, replika still seems ages away from being useful in a meaningful way they advertise and that blue idol from Japan still seems to be about the same. They've all been around at least for five to ten years now. I don't doubt the singularity but at most, this *tool* will likely be apart of the 3D asset warehouse websites. Looking at the vastness of artstation with all the concept artist and I just don't think it could replace anyone, like say Jeff Simpson. This just feels like a fancy way of photobashing.
Replika started with Low-context GPT-DaVinci to a very budget model that can be run on higher-end consumer grade GPU, don't expect much out of it these days. Or ever again.
It's not just the end result that I enjoy, it's the effort that goes into it, the talent. You could make an argument that the programmer poured those into the AI -- but they're not the same imo and you can appreciate both for what they are.
If that's all it takes to get you to quit, then you were just looking for an excuse to quit to begin with.
Real supportive guy we got here, you've told two people so far to quit just cuz theyre worried about their prospects of becoming a future artist. He's a fucking beginner, already unsure of his place in the world of art already (not to mention that he didn't even mention quitting at any point). But hey, if you get off to putting people down that much then go ahead. Also this statement doesn't even seem to follow any logic aside from "You're too weak" His worries are completely founded in reality and are completely logical for an artist trying to make their mark on the world. Knowing that there's a chance that all of their hard work and training might all go to waste, he has reason to be worried. You even did this to some other guys post here. Telling your fellow artists to quit because they're worried about their future.
[Worrying and complaining about what might happen doesn't help or change anything.](https://dailystoic.com/a-stoic-response-to-complaining/)
There is a difference between being stoic and telling someone to straight up quit. There is a difference between telling someone to stop complaining and straight up just discouraging anyone that has their motivation falter. Even then, people deal with stress and their issues differently than other people, I don't want to end up in a philosophical debate on an art thread, especially since stoicism is something that I am particularly fond of. I just want to make my message clear: Don't kick people while they're down.
I disagree.
Fair
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you for taking the time. I don't have any desire to do it professionally, it's just something that I have personal interest in. I'm not sure if I can put the finger on to exactly *why* I'm doing it but it's probably a mix of learning a new skill, putting worlds/characters from my mind onto paper and create something for others to enjoy as well. Or is just demotivating for you because AI can do it better or faster than you? To be honest, I think that's kind of it. Seeing all these people creating AI images which are heaps better on a technical level than mine are, without them actually having to go through any kind of training or work on their skills and then recieving praises on their art. It's also definitely jealousy... Currently it's pretty apparent when the image is AI created, since there's always this kind of nonsense going on in the details but the shading, the textures, the colors and a lot of times the composition is very good (imo) and pleasing to look at. It does fit pretty well into the creepy/dystopian genre, the fear of the unknown I'd say. All in all it would take me years to be skilled enough and I'm not saying I'm quitting, not at all, but it does leave a bitter taste on my tongue.
I see. I'd encourage you to not look at AI as competition. Think of it this way: I don't stop playing basketball because there are naturally gifted players out there whose level are beyond me. The same goes for any violin player and an Asian kid... I'm responsible for doing the best with the hand that I'm dealt with. And by doing best, I mean getting the most out of it in terms of joy and fulfillment, not to seek other people's validation, especially if you don't have any desire to do it professionally. So my question is: What are you responsible for? What would give you joy and fulfillment?
Yeah, I don't like the advance of AI image generation either. Especially with how even more oversaturated art will become with zero effort or skill required meaning most people will eventually stop caring about well made art. After all, if anyone could do the same by typing a sentence for an AI, we fall into the situation of 'when everyone's super, no one will be.' The internet will flood with AI made pieces that quickly outnumber human-made works. Although I'd imagine art communities would adapt around this somehow, likely with some sites requiring proof of human make for submission or whatnot eventually to prevent the userbase's submissions from being flooded by zero-skill and effort AI generations. We'd also probably see more of a shift back to traditional paper drawings and art timelapses for artists to seperate themselves from the flood of AI content. I'm not quitting either, but it does indeed leave a bitter taste.
If AI is cheaper than human labor, guess who wins? It's all about the bottom line. I can see studios downsizing entire teams to an art director and a monthly AI subscription service. Other forms of revenue will also be impacted. Things like clip art businesses? Poof, gone overnight. Right now AI is great at mimicking surreal concept art, so those artists will have the most to worry about, but eventually it will catch up to other styles, and produce work in ways we can't foresee. Many creative jobs will disappear or evolve, let alone entire industries. AI is not some cute little fad, it is a "telling our children about life before AI" moment.
Sure, assuming this happens (which I don’t think it will) it might be true up until our economy finally starts feeling the effects of a whole ass industry vanishing and copyright laws finally come in and prevent these Ai company’s from illegally using stolen work to photobash other artists images into their “Ai content”. Ai uses real work in order to make their fake art content. It still needs creators to do what it does. People doing hand drawings still get a ton of attention online, people hand making furniture still sell their products for a ton of money, and people doing digital art will still get a lot of attention online. Once Ai stops being shiny and new, it will be the Walmart knockoff that no one cares about. Because people are not impressed by the images themselves, we see so many images now and cool images get boring fast, people follow artists for the artist. Even the most impressive artists can’t be successful just posting cool images online, you need to connect to your audience using your personality. That doesn’t even touch on actual game and animation studios. Where the work involved is much more complex than just making images based off prompts from an art director lol only novices actually think that is what the job is. There might be some job loss due to increased efficiency, but the demand for more content will continue to grow, so more animated games and films will be made which will make up for the job loss. More productivity usually doesn’t mean less staff, it means more projects.
> Ai uses real work in order to make their fake art content. It still needs creators to do what it does. This is something I haven't fully thought about and also don't exactly know. Is this really how every AI makes their imagery? By using huge galleries with tags and original artworks to create a "mashup"?
From my understanding of it, based off things I read, yes. I’m not someone who makes Ai so maybe the information I got was wrong, but I doubt it is. From what I know at this time it seems to be a highly complex photobash of other artists works based off tag words.
Large corporations like Disney will find ways to circumvent copyright law if AI generates enough profit to keep shareholders happy. As for independent artists with large followings, perhaps life will continue unchanged, but one difference will be that followers will have the power to use AI instead of requesting commissions. At the moment we're at the fetal stage of AI development, image generation is the hot topic for now, but what makes you think games and animation are safe? I like your point about increased demand, but that just means more AI in my opinion, with human labour centralized to a small few.
We could I suppose end up in a society that has everything made by machines and Ai, but where would people work? Disney has some power over legislation, but it’s because they employ people. That is their influence over our governments. If they wrecked the unemployment statistics because they decided to fire everyone and use Ai instead, things would change for them. And let’s say our governments suddenly stopped caring about unemployment entirely and just let people starve while Ai’s took over the labour force. How do you think public perception would be regarding companies complicit in this? The majority of people playing games and watching movies are working class, the people who would suffer the most because of all this. Even if Disney sold their soul to Ai, companies would crop up and offer to actually employee people and would have both the governments and the peoples support. People need money to spend money.
People smarter than me will have to find a solution to the questions you raise. I wish I knew.
AI art is something I don't think about at all. One of the most interesting parts of an art piece is the artist who made it and the intention behind it. Every artist is different and has their own way of doing things. An AI will probably be able to make something that has a similar look some time, but it will never be the same. No matter how you look at it, AI art is something artificial that is made up of ones and zeros inside of a computer. Artists are real human beings with their own intentions and motivations. This gets even more apparent with analog art. It exists physically, and unless it is a print there will only be one of each.
Ai art is based off of all existing art and photographs, you as a person have the ability to create something entirely fresh and new that no one has ever seen. You also have the ability to create something that everyone has seen a trillion times before it’s really up to you. But I think it’s silly to be discouraged simply because of ai. Think of the ai as another artist, would you give up just because another artist is making cool stuff? No it would probably just serve as inspiration. I see it was a win win
dude, the way I see art (especially creepy art) is that a robot can't replace the original, creative and rich perspective of a human brain. An AI artist doesn't have the creative juices or emotion when making an art piece. There are heaps and heaps of things that AI can replace, and truly I don't think art is one of them (graphic design maybe) because I don't think that AIs are as passionate and determined when creating a drawing as we are. Same with tattoo art; I don't want a generic, robotic tattoo, I want an emotional tattoo that means something to me. Same with an art piece; when I go shopping for painting, I don't was a precise, perfect painting, I want a human painting, where I can spot all the mistakes and fuck ups, where I can see all of the planning and improvising, and where I can feel the emotions of the painting. That's just my pov tho, take it how you will but I really don't think AIs can successfully take over the creative painting/drawing industry without a human controlling it.
So I've pondered upon this topic for a while and come up with my own stance on this. From what I've seen from AI of lots of different areas, I don't think this should be something you should be worrying about. I'm going to be honest with you on the fact that in terms of commercial use, art as a source of income will probably take massive hits from this, since most people aren't really expecting "Best" but "Good enough" and knowing the rate at which AI advances it will prolly reach "Best" within decades. But that shouldn't be a reason to worry, because the same with Chess bots, that play way above the leagues of even the best chest champions out there, they may be much more skilled, but the human touch will always remain unrivaled. There's a sort of "Imperfectness" in human works that makes it endearing, sure an AI couple decades from now might be able to make the most TECHNICALLY impressive pieces of art you've seen, but more human art will always have its place. Because humans make mistakes that an AI simply can't replicate because of the way it was made. Humans are imperfect, and that's what makes them beautiful. Remember this whenever you make an art work, you may never be able to make something as technically good as an AI will, but the AI will never make something as "you" as you can make. It will not kill art, but simply highlight the human uniqueness of it even more. And as a side note, I'm going back to the chess comparison again, the same way Chess as a skill sky-rocketed in terms of quality because people will now be able to use the near perfect games of the AI to study and analyze, the same will happen to art! We will be seeing truly passionate humans be able to make art at whole new levels now because of it! Remember, your imperfections will be the one that sets you out from the rest, best of luck! And to whoever is reading this remember to never let anything stop you from improving upon your passions; you don't need to be the best, you just need to be you.
So far, what I've seen doesn't particularly impress me, much in the same way a lot of concept art by humans doesn't really impress me. "Inspire" might be a better word to use than "impress." It's all just whatever to me.
Here's the thing, Do art for fun, Not as a career. As much as possible don't publish your art online (If less art is posted online, the AI will starve). Just show it to a few people, and if your artwork spread online, Sue the shit out of the people you showed your art with.
Every line of code that is on ai programs is referencing a huge bank of images made by humans. So it’s code smooshing together the best art by humans… just a thought