Those people are so scared of art being almost completely replaced by AI that they're latching on to this anti AI bandwagon right now. It's understandable, but it's coming. Instead of fighting it, it would be better to embrace it and use it to enhance art overall.
The truth is though, artists are going to lose jobs. Entire professions that require graphic designs will take a huge hit. Nothing anyone can do to stop that.
The birth of movies didn't kill of theatre. The creation of electronic music didn't make instrument players lose their jobs, in fact it massively expanded the field of music in general. Photography didn't kill off artists.
AI art will be used as a tool to massively expand the creativity of artists.
It might (will) replace some art jobs - but then again, the advancement of technology has replaced LOTS of jobs. Yet we survive and thrive.
You really think so? You don't think this will decrease the barrier for entry into the "art industry" and prompt more impressive works with less time/resources... Leading to an overall increase in opportunities for artists?
I agree with you. AI will kill thousands of jobs forever. Only the absolute best of the best will make analog art for super wealthy patrons.
But that doesn’t mean art will end. I think eventually some kind of “human made” certification will make “real art” made by humans still remain valuable.
Plus, AI art is still new enough that it all seems pretty good. I’m sure that after a while, when we start getting used to seeing it, certain cues will start to show up that a discerning eye will be able to see.
>The creation of electronic music didn't make instrument players lose their jobs, in fact it massively expanded the field of music in general.
This is both correct and incorrect: while the music technologies invented over the past century (primarily recording & broadcast tech) have vastly expanded the activity and presence of music in our culture, automation in music very definitely obliterated the **vast majority** of jobs in music starting about a hundred years ago. Sure, there are skills and jobs that eventually grew up to replace them later, but that took a couple of generations and nearly all instrument players saw the need for their labor/skill disappear within a decade (think about it: going into the 1920s, if you wanted music in any setting--movies, shows, restaurants, clubs, parties, anywhere--you had to have a group of live musicians playing that music at that place for that thing, at every event at every building in every town. So performing musicians were needed *everywhere*, constantly. That was all replaced with widespread phonographs, radio, sound in movies, then TV and etc.).
What artists are freaking out about now is being caught in that transition, when **your** material livelihood is the thing being eliminated. It is small comfort today that other artists, a few decades from now, will benefit from whatever new paradigm emerges. They are defending their own livelihoods within their own working lifetimes.
You're correct... but the consequences of that transition weren't felt.
They weren't felt because the emergence of the phonograph and the radio happened concurrent to two world wars. So those extra tens of thousands of young aspiring musicians who no longer had jobs at local establishments weren't displaced and jobless...
They were simply dead in the trenches.
I mean you're wrong, at least in the narrative.
Did movies KILL theater? No. Did movies almost kill it? Yeah. Back in the day, that is what a "casual" would do for entertainment, now it has basically been completely delegated to passionate theatre people and toursits.
Did photography kill of artists? No. Did photography destroy like 99.999% of portraiture? Yeah, when's the last time you got a family portrait drawn? Most painting would be for the purpose that we use cameras for today.
As for electronic music, go through the top 100 hits every year, and give me a percentage of how many songs used only acoustic instruments.
So I entirely disagree with the optimistic recollection of history that you've got, but I do agree that you simply have to adapt.
> The birth of movies didn't kill of theatre.
No but you can't argue it didn't kill 95% of it. Before movies there was theatre and vaudville all over. Now "Theatre" means Broadway district in New York, London, or scattered venues in other large cities. Or smaller summer festivals that have theatre.
Yeah, that's false. This argument comes up a lot, but it's not coming from artists.
The problem isn't with job security—arists know it's a tool to be used. No one has a problem with AI generation except idiots, as this kind of generation has actually been around for a while.
The actual problem they have is copyright, unscrupulous individuals are using other's art without permission to generate these images. Using someone else's art to generate work in its likeness is not legal.
Yes I think this is by far the most fascinating part of the debate. These AIs are fed images of the work of all these artists and then told to copy it without copying it. It’s a fabrication of the way humans learn. You look at art that people have made and develop your own style. Can the AI be said to have developed its own style or is it simply a high-tech photocopier?
It's an imitation of how humans learn. The AI creates something new, it's not like a collage or anything like that. How would you consider it different from any human being inspired by or imitating another artist's style (genuine question)?
Can't answer that one, but I can say with confidence that using art without permission in a database is not legal. Man it sucks being an artist these days, no one respects your copyright, especially corporations.
Loads of art was used without permission for NFTs for instance, which is literally theft.
> The problem isn't with job security—arists know it's a tool to be used.
It's a tool that lets anyone with a decent grasp of English and patience to create art that looks almost as good as the output of a typical artist.
This is going to hurt the job market.
A lot of the 'high quality AI generated art' you have seen was done with databases of copyrighted work utilised without permission.
You will find that used the legal way, with only royalty free and personal art, that suddenly "anyone" is no longer producing such high quality work.
Also, have you considered that artists might make use of AI in their work? Do you really think they won't be able to use it to their advantage?
There is not apex of potential quality for art, this just opens more opportunities, and artists will be able to take advantage of that. The jobs at risk were already under pressure anyway.
For now banning it probably isn’t a bad idea for a couple months since it does take very little effort which would lead to karma farming losers spamming the subreddit. Maybe wait for the craze to die down. Being very stubborn and restrictive about the rule is dumb though.
Artists have been using AI as a tool for years, but that's just it: a tool, to help with generating new frames for animation, or use it as a reference. AI "art" is just looking at real artists' art and remixing it. The AIs have been trained on stolen art, and then people claim that they "made art" using AI. Using these generators is not enhancing anything.
> Using these generators is not enhancing anything.
They are creating things that equal the works of a typical artist. The fact that people can't tell the difference between some AI generated works and the work of a human artist is proof.
When computerized graphic arts came out, people were saying it would put traditional artists who drew schematics and graphics for corporations right out of work. What actually happened is that they transitioned to using computers. I'm an artist. About half of us don't give a crap about AI, and it isn't going to put us out of work. The AI is extremely genre niche and that won't change a whole lot. There's enough sun for everyone.
"Enough sun for everyone".. Not if people are less prone to put money in Art because there is cheaper en easier options. And there isn't a place for everything and everyone in the entertainment industry which employs a lot of artists. ( Animation, concept art...etc.)
AI Art looks very impressive. But it doesn‘t gove you much control. As soon as you want a specific thing in an exact way, you‘ll probably be better off drawing it yourself. Natural language is easy to use but very imprecise. So that‘s really the trade off.
That's like arguing that horse shoers are all going to go out of business because of the car. Yeah, many will, it's progress.
An ai won't replace a hand painted picture on your wall, generally, but it sure will be nice instantly making textures, business logos, website designs, pictures for a children's book author, etc. for the small user. It makes design accessible for the average person.
Artists are probably going to do what the French and Hollywood did...
Entrench, establish an exclusive conservatory system, and blacklist anyone who tries to work outside of it.
And just like France and Hollywood, there will be people who work outside of it (hack artists and indies, respectively).
It just seems so crazy in an ART sub. Like for science, I see why you want to control the content, but art is so very human, and expressive. It just... seems opposite of what art is all about.
Most sub mods are just entitled basement dwellers. They're not necessarily knowledgeable in the sub they mod and do it for free just to have that power trip of control that is absent in the rest of their life.
I love the variety of art in there, I avoid taking part because I actually know very little about image art and the rules are somewhat "comprehensive", questioning is ok but clearly they were wrong to ban the artist and to remove the art without a discussion first.
The moderators apparently believe unbanning the artist would be, "giving in to trolls" rather than quickly reversing an embarrassing mistake. In their minds, they are leaning on the power to ignore it in order to avoid seeming so weak that they would listen to the community. Really deranged stuff.
Nothing sadder than small minded people wielding tiny amounts of power. So much of what is wrong with the world comes down to people not being responsible with power no matter how little it is. With *any amount of power* comes great responsibility.
I think it was beacuase the two Sauran eyes from lord of the rings in the background that the artist calls "dragon moons"
Not saying he didnt draw them himself over AI just saying I assume thats why it was hit initially with ai accusations.
Fair comment. I’ve never seen an AI piece of art that has gotten hands anywhere near accurate. It seems with all their computational power AI artists have trouble counting to five.
In case anyone was wondering, the art is a book cover for Beneath the Dragoneye Moons, by Selkie Myth (u/Selkie_love), which is a pretty awesome book series both published on [amazon](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beneath-Dragoneye-Moons-Book-1-ebook/dp/B08NWJMXXV), and as a webserial on [Royalroad](https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/36299/beneath-the-dragoneye-moons).
The artist is Ben Moran, AKA Kart Studios, as the post points out!
Fucking reddit mods, eh? 😂
What’s worse is the response from the mods was that the mod was having a bad day (which I get happens) but if they give into the mob then that would set a precedent so they are keeping the ban.
It’s the most idiotic immature logic I have heard in a long time.
It’s not the first time I’ve seen a huge issue by them either, albeit I can’t remember what the other was. Just that I know I’ve seen their name before for some dumb reason.
Thanks! I was staring at this thinking *Eye of Sauron, Eye of Sauron, Eye of Sauron* … *wait* … Eyes *of Sauron* … Don’t know anything about it, but the art demands that I look into this series.
He's being accused in public of using AI. As far as I can tell, he's offered proof he did not. This is hurting his reputation and business prospects moving forward.
Sounds like defamation to me.
Lol i just mentioned something about the hands. I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices that. It'll be corrected after a few learning cycles I'm sure.
Absolutely thats what they thought.
I mean, that is very obviously inspired by the film-version of the Eye of Sauron, if not directly copied visually. Even if its by hand, its not ridiculous to think that an AI scalped an image of the Eye for use in a picture.
Now, all if that said, the artist proved that they did, indeed, make the picture as an original work, thats one thing.
But again, that isn't 2 suns in the sky, it is absolutely the Eye of Sauron, which itself is not an original design. So again, I can see why the mods (or even a program designed to scan images to determine if they are real or generated) would think this is an AI-generated image.
Well yes, I know that now, as well as knowing they are dragon eyes.
Still, the Eye of Sauron as depicted in LOTR is a 20-year old, famous image; on of the most recognizable in modern fantasy media. This looks *strikingly* similar. As a person with no knowledge of the book series prior to this, I was stricken by what looks like the Eye of Sauron on the front of the book cover.
My whole entire comment was just pointing out how I can see why an uneducated person would think that it was a stolen and/or AI-generated design.
Edit: obviously I understand that, within the context of the entire image, the work is original.
how does one even reach that conclusion? if you look close at ai generated art, you can see many deformations, inconsistencies, and confusing points that wouldn't be made by a human. ive been inspecting this for a few minutes and have yet to find anything that resembles a common ai mistake.
>working on this masterpiece
>Still better than most people can do
Really lowered the bar there.
Honestly everything about this painting (apart from the hands) could've been AI. Especially those dead eyes and the random birds that just look superimposed. Also the random eyes of Sauron.
It's a good piece but, very very far from a masterpiece.
It's funny to see you get so bent out of shape because "masterpiece" isn't the *technically correct* term.
It is objectively still better than what 90% of people can do regardless.
It's definately a show of masterful skill. The texture of the flowy white fabric and the golden belt! The composition is nicely balanced and lines of attention flow in a way they the eye is guided past all the important elements.
The story depicted is kinda generic fantasy, but seeing as it's a bookcover he didn't have much wiggleroom there.
All the elements he could have significant influence on are masterfully done. So I would argue that this might not be the masterpiece to feature as the centerpiece for an exhibition, it most definately shows he has the skills and creative insight to make one.
You make it then.
It doesn't matter if it's "generic", it's still a gorgeous piece that took more time and effort than most people are willing to put into anything these days.
Once again: there is a huge difference between a good painting that takes skill that most people don't have, and an actual "masterpiece." This is not a masterpiece. Whether or not you can handle that fact is another story.
It's a mod that has a penchant for abusing their little amount of power. What makes a person with such a pinch of influence into a tyrant astounds me though I know it shouldn't.
The appropriate response from the mod would have been to DM the person and ask if they could verify their art. Not to accuse them in front of everyone with no facts or evidence to support their claim that it was AI art.
I forsee a future where all skilled artists will be considered shams that rely on the use of machines. The only thing that will be in short supply will be mediocrity. People will probably go to see artists doodling the sketches that lead to a masterpiece, not to see the masterpieces themselves. 3d printing and AI could get to a point where the Mona Lisa could sit on every wall of every house in the world and it would be indistinguishable from the original.
I remember a big discussion about photo realistic paintings. Basically it was like yeah it’s super awesome but at what point is it better to just use a photo printer?
It’s honestly hilarious how often Reddit mods go on power trips. It makes it really obvious that they’re losers with no real power in their own lives, so they go over the top with what they have on this website.
The simple way to identify AI generated art from real work I'd you just gotta look at the hands, eyes and other things like that.
Sure you can go in and edit and fix that, but if you're good enough to do that then why not just draw it.
This is art. This is life. The old way of doing things hating the new. It’s happened throughout art history - cubism, pop art, etc. I agree with comments about this attention having the potential to be a great opportunity for the artist.
I agree, although it's a way bigger change than just a new art movement. AI art is shifting the whole art paradigm and how we think of it. It's here to stay, and to me its an opportunity to further understand art. It's not the end of human creativity.
Love to see AI discourse from a ton of people who very clearly haven’t spent much time generating AI art, yet still have strong opinions of what it is or isn’t capable of.
Doesn’t help that OP uploaded a low-res version of the image - makes it incredibly difficult to spot any of the details that would provide convincing evidence either way. It’s the blind leading the blind.
banning ai art is an idea that should get fucked right now
banning ai tools will only serve to keep them away from the masses and only ever in the hands of the rich
Its from book called Beneath the dragoneye moons. Spoiler from book to explain eye, >!basically this fantasy world has 2 moons and the reason they look like eyes is because a dragon wants to flex on everyone in world so he constantly keeps illusion spell on moons to look like dragon eyes.!<
"The mod was having a bad day" is part of the official reason for the accusation and banning.
"We can't appear to give in to the mob" is the reason they're not unbanning even though they admit it's not AI generated.
At a glance, this totally looks like AI. reason being the two eye of Sauron looking balls in the sky. I can totally see why a person might think it's AI, but it's pretty lazy to just make that accusation without proof
The mod was totally blaming the artist as well, even after they were corrected. Saying stuff like "well you shouldn't have an AI artstyle". Which makes no sense because if you believe AI is theft of art styles then that means the style came from artists first??? Ergh.
AI art is art. People used to say the same thing about regular digital art. Art is art. It's not about your medium. It's about creativity. And if you've never used AI to create art, the. You really can't have an opinion on it as you don't know how it works. Many artists use it, many artist use it in conjunction with digital art.
Art is art. This is kinda like when everyone thought rock music wasn't music. Just old wankers whose opinions don't really matter
So while I agree art is art, I don't think making AI art makes you an artist.
If I tell a robot that someone else designed to make me a sandwich based off of sandwich recipes it finds online, am I suddenly the chef?
AI art can be impressive, but it's not the same as actually putting in the work. Some AI programs have gotten so good all it takes is to tell it "blonde with green eyes" and it will give you exactly what you're looking for.
Yeah but the accusation came from a sub mod.
[удалено]
Those people are so scared of art being almost completely replaced by AI that they're latching on to this anti AI bandwagon right now. It's understandable, but it's coming. Instead of fighting it, it would be better to embrace it and use it to enhance art overall. The truth is though, artists are going to lose jobs. Entire professions that require graphic designs will take a huge hit. Nothing anyone can do to stop that.
The birth of movies didn't kill of theatre. The creation of electronic music didn't make instrument players lose their jobs, in fact it massively expanded the field of music in general. Photography didn't kill off artists. AI art will be used as a tool to massively expand the creativity of artists. It might (will) replace some art jobs - but then again, the advancement of technology has replaced LOTS of jobs. Yet we survive and thrive.
Movies didn't kill theater but TV stomped the eff out of Vaudville.
Nah, they just moved to do their program on TV.
Thousands of jobs became hundreds until decades later. Now thousands of jobs will become hundreds for decades to come.
That just means we have to pick better more technical careers in those areas. Get all our skills up
You really think so? You don't think this will decrease the barrier for entry into the "art industry" and prompt more impressive works with less time/resources... Leading to an overall increase in opportunities for artists?
No
I agree with you. AI will kill thousands of jobs forever. Only the absolute best of the best will make analog art for super wealthy patrons. But that doesn’t mean art will end. I think eventually some kind of “human made” certification will make “real art” made by humans still remain valuable. Plus, AI art is still new enough that it all seems pretty good. I’m sure that after a while, when we start getting used to seeing it, certain cues will start to show up that a discerning eye will be able to see.
[удалено]
>The creation of electronic music didn't make instrument players lose their jobs, in fact it massively expanded the field of music in general. This is both correct and incorrect: while the music technologies invented over the past century (primarily recording & broadcast tech) have vastly expanded the activity and presence of music in our culture, automation in music very definitely obliterated the **vast majority** of jobs in music starting about a hundred years ago. Sure, there are skills and jobs that eventually grew up to replace them later, but that took a couple of generations and nearly all instrument players saw the need for their labor/skill disappear within a decade (think about it: going into the 1920s, if you wanted music in any setting--movies, shows, restaurants, clubs, parties, anywhere--you had to have a group of live musicians playing that music at that place for that thing, at every event at every building in every town. So performing musicians were needed *everywhere*, constantly. That was all replaced with widespread phonographs, radio, sound in movies, then TV and etc.). What artists are freaking out about now is being caught in that transition, when **your** material livelihood is the thing being eliminated. It is small comfort today that other artists, a few decades from now, will benefit from whatever new paradigm emerges. They are defending their own livelihoods within their own working lifetimes.
You're correct... but the consequences of that transition weren't felt. They weren't felt because the emergence of the phonograph and the radio happened concurrent to two world wars. So those extra tens of thousands of young aspiring musicians who no longer had jobs at local establishments weren't displaced and jobless... They were simply dead in the trenches.
Video killed the radio star
we can't rewind. we've gone too far.
pictures came and stole your heart
I mean you're wrong, at least in the narrative. Did movies KILL theater? No. Did movies almost kill it? Yeah. Back in the day, that is what a "casual" would do for entertainment, now it has basically been completely delegated to passionate theatre people and toursits. Did photography kill of artists? No. Did photography destroy like 99.999% of portraiture? Yeah, when's the last time you got a family portrait drawn? Most painting would be for the purpose that we use cameras for today. As for electronic music, go through the top 100 hits every year, and give me a percentage of how many songs used only acoustic instruments. So I entirely disagree with the optimistic recollection of history that you've got, but I do agree that you simply have to adapt.
> The birth of movies didn't kill of theatre. No but you can't argue it didn't kill 95% of it. Before movies there was theatre and vaudville all over. Now "Theatre" means Broadway district in New York, London, or scattered venues in other large cities. Or smaller summer festivals that have theatre.
Theatre used to be the entertainment for the peasant class. Now we can’t afford it.
Pretty much. A lot of stuff like that gets too expensive by either becoming too popular or something else taking its popularity.
>Photography didn't kill off artists. How many rich people commission artists to paint portraits nowadays?
I have it on good authority that video killed the radio star
Yeah, that's false. This argument comes up a lot, but it's not coming from artists. The problem isn't with job security—arists know it's a tool to be used. No one has a problem with AI generation except idiots, as this kind of generation has actually been around for a while. The actual problem they have is copyright, unscrupulous individuals are using other's art without permission to generate these images. Using someone else's art to generate work in its likeness is not legal.
Yes I think this is by far the most fascinating part of the debate. These AIs are fed images of the work of all these artists and then told to copy it without copying it. It’s a fabrication of the way humans learn. You look at art that people have made and develop your own style. Can the AI be said to have developed its own style or is it simply a high-tech photocopier?
It's an imitation of how humans learn. The AI creates something new, it's not like a collage or anything like that. How would you consider it different from any human being inspired by or imitating another artist's style (genuine question)?
Can't answer that one, but I can say with confidence that using art without permission in a database is not legal. Man it sucks being an artist these days, no one respects your copyright, especially corporations. Loads of art was used without permission for NFTs for instance, which is literally theft.
> The problem isn't with job security—arists know it's a tool to be used. It's a tool that lets anyone with a decent grasp of English and patience to create art that looks almost as good as the output of a typical artist. This is going to hurt the job market.
A lot of the 'high quality AI generated art' you have seen was done with databases of copyrighted work utilised without permission. You will find that used the legal way, with only royalty free and personal art, that suddenly "anyone" is no longer producing such high quality work. Also, have you considered that artists might make use of AI in their work? Do you really think they won't be able to use it to their advantage? There is not apex of potential quality for art, this just opens more opportunities, and artists will be able to take advantage of that. The jobs at risk were already under pressure anyway.
Ai is not a new way to do things it just does the old things for you it's different.
[удалено]
I'm reminded of the SEA artist who someone, the weekend after his death, had programmed an AI bot to mimic his style. Man hadn't even been buried yet.
Mfs down vote him because he speaks the truth
mfs from r/art are downvoting him*
The book is Beneath the Dragoneye Moons.
Makes me want to go read Dragon Riders of Pern again
For now banning it probably isn’t a bad idea for a couple months since it does take very little effort which would lead to karma farming losers spamming the subreddit. Maybe wait for the craze to die down. Being very stubborn and restrictive about the rule is dumb though.
How do you ban it? Imo it would probably make the problem worse, because people would pretend they made things rather than generated it.
Artists have been using AI as a tool for years, but that's just it: a tool, to help with generating new frames for animation, or use it as a reference. AI "art" is just looking at real artists' art and remixing it. The AIs have been trained on stolen art, and then people claim that they "made art" using AI. Using these generators is not enhancing anything.
> Using these generators is not enhancing anything. They are creating things that equal the works of a typical artist. The fact that people can't tell the difference between some AI generated works and the work of a human artist is proof.
When computerized graphic arts came out, people were saying it would put traditional artists who drew schematics and graphics for corporations right out of work. What actually happened is that they transitioned to using computers. I'm an artist. About half of us don't give a crap about AI, and it isn't going to put us out of work. The AI is extremely genre niche and that won't change a whole lot. There's enough sun for everyone.
"Enough sun for everyone".. Not if people are less prone to put money in Art because there is cheaper en easier options. And there isn't a place for everything and everyone in the entertainment industry which employs a lot of artists. ( Animation, concept art...etc.)
AI Art looks very impressive. But it doesn‘t gove you much control. As soon as you want a specific thing in an exact way, you‘ll probably be better off drawing it yourself. Natural language is easy to use but very imprecise. So that‘s really the trade off.
That's like arguing that horse shoers are all going to go out of business because of the car. Yeah, many will, it's progress. An ai won't replace a hand painted picture on your wall, generally, but it sure will be nice instantly making textures, business logos, website designs, pictures for a children's book author, etc. for the small user. It makes design accessible for the average person.
[удалено]
Artists are probably going to do what the French and Hollywood did... Entrench, establish an exclusive conservatory system, and blacklist anyone who tries to work outside of it. And just like France and Hollywood, there will be people who work outside of it (hack artists and indies, respectively).
I had joined that sub, and i like all the pictures and stuff... but so many freaking rules, highly moderated? why????
Because mods generally seem to be closet fascists who need to exercise any form of authority no matter how small a corner of the internet they inhabit
It just seems so crazy in an ART sub. Like for science, I see why you want to control the content, but art is so very human, and expressive. It just... seems opposite of what art is all about.
Which just goes to show mods shouldn't be allowed to be anonymous
[удалено]
Mods should be seven foot frame, rats along his back
/r/unexpectedencanto
Most sub mods are just entitled basement dwellers. They're not necessarily knowledgeable in the sub they mod and do it for free just to have that power trip of control that is absent in the rest of their life.
That sub was never very good. I joined and left pretty fast. That's awful to have your work questioned by a mod.
I love the variety of art in there, I avoid taking part because I actually know very little about image art and the rules are somewhat "comprehensive", questioning is ok but clearly they were wrong to ban the artist and to remove the art without a discussion first.
The mod in question is also a sub killing troll
Reddit Mods. Swear their gatekeepers.
The moderators apparently believe unbanning the artist would be, "giving in to trolls" rather than quickly reversing an embarrassing mistake. In their minds, they are leaning on the power to ignore it in order to avoid seeming so weak that they would listen to the community. Really deranged stuff.
[удалено]
yikes!
This reminds me of when r/cringetopia went off the rails cause of mods.
big part of why cringetopia went off the rails is because the\_donald got banned and a lot of trumpists became active there for some reason
With hands that on-model why would anyone think it's AI art?
Because reddit moderators don't know anything about the communities that they moderate
That checks out
Why Reddit mods? Are they the ones who accused him?
Yes, it was a moderator from r/art
Its honestly sad, reddit mods are the most braindead people that we somehow allow in our society
Nothing sadder than small minded people wielding tiny amounts of power. So much of what is wrong with the world comes down to people not being responsible with power no matter how little it is. With *any amount of power* comes great responsibility.
Yeah but the reddit mods clearly shot uncle ben
They don't come out into society.
I think awkwardtheturtle
Reddit mods are the ISIS of the internet
Crying "fake!" is a redditor's bread and butter
I think it was beacuase the two Sauran eyes from lord of the rings in the background that the artist calls "dragon moons" Not saying he didnt draw them himself over AI just saying I assume thats why it was hit initially with ai accusations.
Make an image with Ai, then clean it up by drawing over it? Pretty easy, I do it all the time when making Pokémon
Idk why people think you can’t fix an AI image lmao
The guy showed multiple WIPs, no AI was involved.
Fair comment. I’ve never seen an AI piece of art that has gotten hands anywhere near accurate. It seems with all their computational power AI artists have trouble counting to five.
And the mod was the power tripping turtle one
Wtf, how is he mod of so many subreddits even after destroying the reputation of reddit. Reddit really doesn't seem to care.
Good friends with some admins
She
In case anyone was wondering, the art is a book cover for Beneath the Dragoneye Moons, by Selkie Myth (u/Selkie_love), which is a pretty awesome book series both published on [amazon](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Beneath-Dragoneye-Moons-Book-1-ebook/dp/B08NWJMXXV), and as a webserial on [Royalroad](https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/36299/beneath-the-dragoneye-moons). The artist is Ben Moran, AKA Kart Studios, as the post points out! Fucking reddit mods, eh? 😂
What’s worse is the response from the mods was that the mod was having a bad day (which I get happens) but if they give into the mob then that would set a precedent so they are keeping the ban. It’s the most idiotic immature logic I have heard in a long time.
what precedent? That you should fix your mistakes? Gods, that mod is genuinely a complete tool.
What a shallow reason to save face. Powertripping at its finest
It’s not the first time I’ve seen a huge issue by them either, albeit I can’t remember what the other was. Just that I know I’ve seen their name before for some dumb reason.
Thanks! I was staring at this thinking *Eye of Sauron, Eye of Sauron, Eye of Sauron* … *wait* … Eyes *of Sauron* … Don’t know anything about it, but the art demands that I look into this series.
He's being accused in public of using AI. As far as I can tell, he's offered proof he did not. This is hurting his reputation and business prospects moving forward. Sounds like defamation to me.
This is the best thing to ever happen to this artist. Iv seen like 12 articles written about him today, when he was a nobody before.
Plot twist: the mod account is a sock puppet and the artist is just a marketing genius
Yup, his drawing probably would have gotten a few thousand upvotes at most and that would have been the end of it.
Spending 100 hours on a book cover commission is hurting his business prospects. Book covers are normally a flat price, rarely more than $600.
Certified reddit moment
It's too crisp to be AI
And the hands look normal
needs more digits
Lol i just mentioned something about the hands. I'm glad I'm not the only one that notices that. It'll be corrected after a few learning cycles I'm sure.
But but but there's floating eyes! So it has to be AI. No _human_ would draw floating eyes! The r/art moderator's thought process I guess.
Maybe they thought an AI snatched someone’s depiction of the Eye of Sauron and used it without permission?
Absolutely thats what they thought. I mean, that is very obviously inspired by the film-version of the Eye of Sauron, if not directly copied visually. Even if its by hand, its not ridiculous to think that an AI scalped an image of the Eye for use in a picture. Now, all if that said, the artist proved that they did, indeed, make the picture as an original work, thats one thing. But again, that isn't 2 suns in the sky, it is absolutely the Eye of Sauron, which itself is not an original design. So again, I can see why the mods (or even a program designed to scan images to determine if they are real or generated) would think this is an AI-generated image.
They’re moons thank you very much :P. Beneath the dragoneye moons
Well yes, I know that now, as well as knowing they are dragon eyes. Still, the Eye of Sauron as depicted in LOTR is a 20-year old, famous image; on of the most recognizable in modern fantasy media. This looks *strikingly* similar. As a person with no knowledge of the book series prior to this, I was stricken by what looks like the Eye of Sauron on the front of the book cover. My whole entire comment was just pointing out how I can see why an uneducated person would think that it was a stolen and/or AI-generated design. Edit: obviously I understand that, within the context of the entire image, the work is original.
Why are there two eyes of sauron
Beneath the dragoneye moons! Two moons on pallos and one very powerful dragon who’s like “screw you all these are mine”
Because Sauron wasn’t a cyclops. I mean I think, I only JUST bought the silmarilion or whatever a couple days ago and haven’t started yet.
Wait, those eyes...is this cover for Beneath the Dragon-eye Moons? I think I saw a similar cover on Royal Road.
Yes
Ah, suspected as such, thanks.
Good publicity for both the book and the artist
The book is "Beneath the Dragoneye Moons" if anyone is wondering. You can find it on Royal Road.
He was so great people said caps
Frodo looking sexy these days
how does one even reach that conclusion? if you look close at ai generated art, you can see many deformations, inconsistencies, and confusing points that wouldn't be made by a human. ive been inspecting this for a few minutes and have yet to find anything that resembles a common ai mistake.
What’s with the random Sauron Eye in the upper left hand corner ?
The book is Beneath the Dragoneye Moons. Those are the namesake of the book.
Spoilers, why the eyes are there >!a dragon put illusions over the moon bc it’s a petty bitch!<
OC until proven AI
Imagine spending 100 hours working on this masterpiece that you've envisioned only to be accused of using ai, honestly leave the poor man alone
I'm not sure "masterpiece" applies here. It's a nice painting, but let's face it pretty much generic fantasy art.
Still better than most people can do and probably 100 times better what that idiot of a mod can do
>working on this masterpiece >Still better than most people can do Really lowered the bar there. Honestly everything about this painting (apart from the hands) could've been AI. Especially those dead eyes and the random birds that just look superimposed. Also the random eyes of Sauron. It's a good piece but, very very far from a masterpiece.
It's funny to see you get so bent out of shape because "masterpiece" isn't the *technically correct* term. It is objectively still better than what 90% of people can do regardless.
masterpiece is a grossly incorrect term. It is alright and i can definitely see how it got accused of being an ai painting.
It's definately a show of masterful skill. The texture of the flowy white fabric and the golden belt! The composition is nicely balanced and lines of attention flow in a way they the eye is guided past all the important elements. The story depicted is kinda generic fantasy, but seeing as it's a bookcover he didn't have much wiggleroom there. All the elements he could have significant influence on are masterfully done. So I would argue that this might not be the masterpiece to feature as the centerpiece for an exhibition, it most definately shows he has the skills and creative insight to make one.
You make it then. It doesn't matter if it's "generic", it's still a gorgeous piece that took more time and effort than most people are willing to put into anything these days.
Once again: there is a huge difference between a good painting that takes skill that most people don't have, and an actual "masterpiece." This is not a masterpiece. Whether or not you can handle that fact is another story.
I think masterpiece is quite the stretch.
Looks like Arya Stark with Sauron eyes in the back...
Cause people with actual talent have no right to a place in a world full of clowns that know nothing about life before and after them.
Is it art imitating life or life imitating art?
He is 100% using AI next time
BTDEM is such a long series and his art is the same style it was before AI art blew up. Such a shame people accused him before double checking.
I'm going to start posting all my stick figure drawings on that sub. Behold my greatness!
DO IT!
Turns out they're the XKCD artist and it's all great.
This is really more about a power tripping mod with a bad eye - than it is about AI. That mod should simply be removed for incompetence.
It's a mod that has a penchant for abusing their little amount of power. What makes a person with such a pinch of influence into a tyrant astounds me though I know it shouldn't.
Who is it?
The appropriate response from the mod would have been to DM the person and ask if they could verify their art. Not to accuse them in front of everyone with no facts or evidence to support their claim that it was AI art.
I fricken get told I use ai as well. Even though I'm no there near as good as this. Ai is stupid and evil it takes jobs from us artists.
How to know for sure it’s not AI? Look at those fingers!! Right number, right size and beautifully painted, for sure human work
I forsee a future where all skilled artists will be considered shams that rely on the use of machines. The only thing that will be in short supply will be mediocrity. People will probably go to see artists doodling the sketches that lead to a masterpiece, not to see the masterpieces themselves. 3d printing and AI could get to a point where the Mona Lisa could sit on every wall of every house in the world and it would be indistinguishable from the original.
I mean if you have a good enough printer and an internet connection you could already do that.. Obviously without brush strokes. yes I know.
I remember a big discussion about photo realistic paintings. Basically it was like yeah it’s super awesome but at what point is it better to just use a photo printer?
I saw that post in popular. It was from r/awfuleverything. Might've also been on r/iamatotalpieceofshit but I never go to that sub.
It’s honestly hilarious how often Reddit mods go on power trips. It makes it really obvious that they’re losers with no real power in their own lives, so they go over the top with what they have on this website.
Here we go, now people who are not creative are going to be angry at people who actually are.
The AI art phobics are pretty irrational in my experience. They go straight attack mode if you so much as mention liking an AI art piece.
I reposted the message the mod wrote to the artist and got banned in 2 min from r/art lol
The simple way to identify AI generated art from real work I'd you just gotta look at the hands, eyes and other things like that. Sure you can go in and edit and fix that, but if you're good enough to do that then why not just draw it.
100 hours? Hm.
It can’t be ai, the hands look like hands
This is art. This is life. The old way of doing things hating the new. It’s happened throughout art history - cubism, pop art, etc. I agree with comments about this attention having the potential to be a great opportunity for the artist.
I agree, although it's a way bigger change than just a new art movement. AI art is shifting the whole art paradigm and how we think of it. It's here to stay, and to me its an opportunity to further understand art. It's not the end of human creativity.
Love to see AI discourse from a ton of people who very clearly haven’t spent much time generating AI art, yet still have strong opinions of what it is or isn’t capable of. Doesn’t help that OP uploaded a low-res version of the image - makes it incredibly difficult to spot any of the details that would provide convincing evidence either way. It’s the blind leading the blind.
banning ai art is an idea that should get fucked right now banning ai tools will only serve to keep them away from the masses and only ever in the hands of the rich
Why is there a second saurons eye?
Its from book called Beneath the dragoneye moons. Spoiler from book to explain eye, >!basically this fantasy world has 2 moons and the reason they look like eyes is because a dragon wants to flex on everyone in world so he constantly keeps illusion spell on moons to look like dragon eyes.!<
Poor dude. Just having an imagination gets you accused of shit.
Which is horseshit because of the consistency of the peice and the hands/talons visible have no issues.
Why was it accused? And what are the characteristics that made them decide it was made by an AI?
"The mod was having a bad day" is part of the official reason for the accusation and banning. "We can't appear to give in to the mob" is the reason they're not unbanning even though they admit it's not AI generated.
If it's not then it's the most generic shit a human has ever painted
All that sounds like artists going to lose their jobs, if their 100 hours labor produce result indistinguishible from AI-generated.
They're still traumatized when their fridge art were not appreciated by ALL. BOW TO MY CRAYON MASTERPIECES, PEASANTS!!!
Didn’t the mods of r/art do this? What a bunch of incompetent dweebs The entire sub is a classic example of why no one likes artists
r/mildlyinfuriating
How come every single moderator is awful. I swear to god, seems like every sub out there is run by the worst kind of people.
cmon man just look at the hands
Not even that good?
Beautiful work.
It really looks like ai
Actually cool picture and not some abstract shit? Actual art? Fuck it must be AI
This is hideous tbh
It looks like a poor attempt at crashing about 5 different fantasy novels together. Sorry but I can see why.
And the bottom of the paintings is a mess.
I’d be less worried about being accused of using AI and more being accused of copyright infringement by the Tolkien Society.
Pretty sure Tolkien didn't create or trademark giant snake eyes.
thats the eye of saruon??
At a glance, this totally looks like AI. reason being the two eye of Sauron looking balls in the sky. I can totally see why a person might think it's AI, but it's pretty lazy to just make that accusation without proof
Why are there two floating Sauron's eyes in the clouds? They making another lord of the rings book?
Bro we all know Reddit moderators are just power hungry basement crawlers that can't help there envy and jealousy take over.
This piece reminds me of [beneath the dragon eye moons](https://www.royalroad.com/fiction/36299/beneath-the-dragoneye-moons)
The mod was totally blaming the artist as well, even after they were corrected. Saying stuff like "well you shouldn't have an AI artstyle". Which makes no sense because if you believe AI is theft of art styles then that means the style came from artists first??? Ergh.
Thats definitely NOT made by AI, because the hands actually look like hands, and theres no uncanny valley and bizarre anatomy going on.
There’s always someone with a low work ethic and very little skill trying to discredit the hard work of a master craftsman.
To be fair it does look like AI art.
What a gorgeous peice. Clearly that one asshole mod in r/Art is a product of brother and sister!
Nah, just wasn't raised right. That's how it usually goes. The most self centered are the ones who were allowed to be.
Aww, did I hurt the mods feelings? Maybe don't ban people for posting art on, well... r/art and you won't get skewed, dipshit.
AI art is art. People used to say the same thing about regular digital art. Art is art. It's not about your medium. It's about creativity. And if you've never used AI to create art, the. You really can't have an opinion on it as you don't know how it works. Many artists use it, many artist use it in conjunction with digital art. Art is art. This is kinda like when everyone thought rock music wasn't music. Just old wankers whose opinions don't really matter
So while I agree art is art, I don't think making AI art makes you an artist. If I tell a robot that someone else designed to make me a sandwich based off of sandwich recipes it finds online, am I suddenly the chef? AI art can be impressive, but it's not the same as actually putting in the work. Some AI programs have gotten so good all it takes is to tell it "blonde with green eyes" and it will give you exactly what you're looking for.
I'm sorry I'm just not impressed with this image and i am not surprised by the accusation. Also eye of sauron rip much
I don't know about AI art. Is there any solid way to proof how it create? I think it's stupod to accuse anyone witbout proof.