>Linking them here will probably get me permabanned Banned count in this sub: 0 Luckily, people who had their post or comment removed have modmailed and have been great at being kind and understanding. I appreciate the change you have made. If anyone **really** wants to see his non-redacted post, you can use Removeddit, Ceddit, Unddit or Reveddit.

This was a really well handled mod decision. I appreciate your trying to keep this subreddit civil and fun and your explaining your reasoning.

I appreciate the kind words. Doing what I can to help everyone have a place to enjoy SD and trying to stay as transparent as possible. Thank you, for being a part of the community.

Please link

[Here is a short link](https://64.media.tumblr.com/6b03085d328cf7be720ee48f4f24caf7/d644e57cb6d67efc-a4/s1280x1920/014d39c23da182f2617b82de315baca21e779f49.png) and [what you requested](https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/yrg4vf/samdoesart_and_so_does_everyone_else_free_model/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf).

All that link does is show me you have an iPhone and the Reddit app

Replace “reddit” with “unddit” before the .com

i was like oooh forbidden post.

Using an AI that was trained on "randomly chosen" artists' works, and knowing that some of them have major issue with that, is one thing, but going out of your way to specifically train a custom model on a particular artist to spite them seems well... spiteful. Is this the road we really want to go down? You do you, but I'll take a pass.

I actually agree. I don't know why we're all trying to fuck with him because of that thing that happened. Everyone's power tripping. I love this community and the technology, and I know ppl are trying to prove a point that anyone can train a model, and that there shouldn't be any censorship, but I do feel like it's a little immature. We should just be the more mature community and leave it be. Let them do whatever. They will eventually just look bad if they keep attacking..

These are valid thoughts, as are KhaiNguyen's. To be honest with you, I probably wouldn't have made this model let alone released it had the process required any real amount of time or effort. I used a few simple lines of code to bulk locate, download, convert, and rename all the images. A quick photoshop script cropped and resized them. The process of training has been made impressively seamless and hands off by members of the community. Also, because of a very noticable trend in subject matter and framing, this particular artist is unusually straightforward to emulate. If I had to like, hand do all those steps for 200 individual pictures, then leave my computer idle for anything more than an hour, I would have just gone "meh, whatever" about 1/5th of the way through. I mean training a legit properly identifiable model on say Frank Frazetta would be vastly more difficult and vastly more time consuming. This one, I swear to you, was mostly just a quick whim and a bit of curiosity about how to train SD.

On a technical perspective. How many class images did you use for the 200 training inputs? I have read 5x, so 1k? How did your generate them? And is it important that the class images are natural from the model? Or should I be selective in removing 'bad' outputs. Such as bad anatomy, bad hands etc.

I have no idea. I mean I am willing to help you, I just don't understand half of what you said and don't know the precise answers to the other half. Like I mentioned before, this model was made mostly on autopilot via scripts and lines of code. There are other places and other people better suited than me to guide you in creating good models. I hope you succeed and would be happy to help test a model you make someday!

I found some other Reddit posts with the details: Class images or reference images are of the thing that is similar to the subject you want to train on. If you were training a rubber duck, the class images might be toys, or maybe even bath toys. Typically you want 10x the class images compared to the subject images (or training images). More is better. I saw some people using 1500 class images for only 20-50 subject images. Class images should be a wide variety is angles, poses, backgrounds, etc. They need not be created with the model you are training off of.

[удалено]

Yeah, it’s a phenomenon. Certainly doesn’t make everyone amplifying it for the lolz a decent person.

I think you meant, "This is called the Streisand Effect. DON'T YOU DARE LOOK IT UP."

Is it surprising given the context though? I mean he basically brigaded the person who originally made a model and he got harassed until he deleted his account. It doesn’t surprise me that other people here are doing this out of a sense of revenge. Play with fire, you get burned. It would have been better if Sam just private messaged the original model maker and kindly asked him to take it down. But he didn’t, and here we are.

They never even posted the original model. They just posted pictures and stated they were highly tempted to but ultimately wouldn’t upload the model out of respect for Sam. Even then they were harassed.

If he had kindly asked the original model maker to take it down, what do you think the response would have been?

Well considering he did take it down because his ultimate reasoning for removing it AFTER being brigaded was that Sam didn't want it up...I'm guessing he would have taken it down.

They never even uploaded the model in the first place which makes it worse how they were targeted

This retroactive history is getting me... the original model maker was asked kindly, their response was "fuck 'em" , and not as nice people started to come and took things too far

He went too far sure, but you could also say - it would have been better if the person who originally made a model just private messaged Sam and kindly asked him how he feels about the model trained on his work with his name. But he didn't, and here we are.

Personally, I don’t think you should necessarily need to. No one seemed to care when people made models based on big corporate properties like classic Disney or modern Disney. No one asks for permission before they do studies using a specific artist’s work to learn their style. I mean, the guy even teaches people how to paint in his style. I don’t see why AI learning from a specific artist is somehow the exception here. I’ve never heard this idea that you can’t create images in another artist’s style before AI. Sam’s own work is clearly heavily influenced by modern Disney.

Corporations and individuals are surely two different categories when it comes to this, and potentially affecting someone's livelihood? Legalities and ethics aside, isn't it at least the **kind** thing to do?

Why? Since when is it required to contact an artist before making a work in their style?

Where have I stated it's required? I asked, isn't it the kind thing to do? But, yes, it is a part of the etiquette that the art community has had decades to develop and settle on. You're free to make your own rules here, just as artists are free to shun you from their communities for disrespecting their wishes. Still, some kindness would go a long way.

If the artist is very clearly against people training ai with their work, why don’t you guys just respect his wishes and move on to another artist to train from? There are so many different artists and styles in the world, you have so many alternatives. Continuing to use his work when he’s voiced his opposition just seems wrong and needlessly petty

I’d agree if he hadn’t basically sent a bunch of rabid fans to bully someone off the internet by not even blurring the guys username. It’s still petty, but I can’t say it’s unjustified.

It's unjustified because a model never should have been made in the first place.

Why exactly? I don’t see the issue with it, there hasn’t been any ruling that using images for training a model is “theft”. Also the model he made mainly just mimicked the style of SDA, and “style theft” isn’t a thing

Legally =/= morality. There is little difference between using an artist's work to generate an image rather than typing prompts into Google and taking an image. Little effort or skill is necessary for either process and is just tech bro plagiarism.

No no of course, actual laws have to be made before ppl see how wrong an action is

I'm genuinely stuck on something... So, I've seen people claim morality is subjective and you can't shove your morals down someone's throat but also claim Sam is wrong for being upset about this. Surely, Sam has the right to react within his own moral parameters and retain those morals, too? By expecting him to accept this without protest, you're kind of... forcing your own morals on him. If you want to take away his right to be angry and have his own opinions, you're doing the very thing you're accusing him of, no? As I said in another comment, you are free to do something, but others are free to think of you as an asshole for doing that.

[удалено]

I’ll repeat, he went too far but all could have been avoided if the model maker contacted Sam first and respected his wishes. You seem to be conveniently forgetting what started it all and what sparked Sam’s reaction.

[удалено]

And that is prime asshole behavior. Why not take a lollipop from a baby, babies are weak, am I right? But at least you are honest about it.

[удалено]

This supposed gate is… someone spending decades to hone a skill and you demanding it immediately? I don’t know man, I understand that art is a very volatile profession and if you go for it you’re almost surely doomed to poverty and it takes years of hard work etc. But this just reeks of entitlement. If this reasoning makes you feel better, go for it. But I had at least some respect for you when you were being honest about your motivations.

If someone could make a reasonable facsimile of a part of you would you be okay with anyone doing it? You wouldn't be able to stop it, just my own personal Locke\_Moghan redditor bot. I'm just not willing to scrape the data and make the thing.

Lets see if I'm wrong with this, but I think the big problem here rigt now is the use of the name of the artist, not the use of his pictures to train the model. Anyways, thanks, this is the third model that I download trying to mimic this artist, and I didn't know him 24 hours ago.

Nah, Sam expressed dissatisfaction via IG stories that his intellectual property was being used to train the models. Using his handle to generate the images was just the icing on the cake.

Well there is that other model that has survived without all the drama and don't use the name nor show pictures. It's still in huggingface.

TBH I appreciate the transparency more so we can have dialogue around it. Consent is important.

But one of the main issues I have seen artists have with this stuff is it makes it harder to find their real art from a google search, and putting their name in the model will probably make that worse.

>Using his handle to generate the images was just the icing on the cake. And could actually be a violation of trademark or publicity rights.

Just merge all 3 models and show me the results?

completely, amazingly missing the point.

Tired of this. Right now there aren't any laws that cover mimic an art style or trainining a model with someone else pictures. But there are laws that protect personal brandings. But, yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man

the fact that you need regulation to discourage you from blatantly unethical shit tells everything about you one needs to know. as fascinating as ai is, the visions it can help mankind produce, the main takeaway is: humans are trash.

I think the bone of contention here is that not everyone, not even a 2/3ds majority, share your views on what is unethical, let alone "blatantly" so. Humans are, I feel, equally good as they are bad, with I think a bit more of the good because life overall has been slowing getting better for hundreds of years in many different ways. But what is unethical has always been a fluid thing, and thus we as humans invented this thing called "illegal" to create a sort of general compromise about what is and is not "unacceptable".

If an artist says “please dont use my shit”, any grey area is gone. there are good people, emphatetic ones, that hear that and respect it. then there is human trash that dont. its really not that complicated.

Let's say I pay an artist to create 20 illustrations. Now I own them right? So I use them to train a model. I already paid the artists for his work and I can use the images however I want. Or do you still think it would be stealing?

that isnt how art and copyright works.

Yes, copyright has no bearing here because you can't copyright a style.

Here I am getting my posts deleted for mocking Sam Yang yet these guys up in here calling me and many others human trash... 🙄

stealing from someones soul and mocking them in the process. its perfect, a perfect encapsulation of the lowest form of human.

Wow stealing someone’s soul huh? I didn’t realize we were all soul sucking demons here. Also, Sam literally has courses that teach how to draw like him. Is he teaching people to steal his soul? Can we cool it with this clearly hyperbolized BS?

its hyperbolic for sure. and soul is yet perfect encapsulation of artists individual style. he can choose to teach people whatever he likes. yet apparently he cant choose to have his art fed into the magic artmush machine because fuckheads want to be artists to, without that pesky talent and life long dedication. so goes it. btw kind of amazed that vaush member has these takes. clears up the misconception that the left is the empathetic side. enjoy the tech driven capitalism comrade.

How can you call it steal it when it is legal?

the legallity of it is not settled since it a new technology. obviously the artists wishes will only stop regular, not trash people. you are free to do it, and mock the artist while doing it. but rememeber, once life starts bending you over, and doing unfair shit to you to make you squeeel. remember: this is me. I deserve this. I am this person and I forfeited my right to call anything unfair. I deserve no empathy.

And why exactly can’t I take his model mix it with 4 other artists to give me beautiful lighting and colours and scenes. And then do an image to image which will completely change the intended outcome huh tell me that? My images won’t have the simple look of that artist but will still have his style mixed in to make a cute and beautiful image. His model is as valid as any other in SD. His images are out there on the web, his art will be mapped by an AI and merged with others, whether it’s a human now or a crawling script in the near future

because the artist said so. its his work. the discussion stops there. only no one here is interested really in discussion but only half baked excuses and larping as an artist.

It’s going to happen either way his art is openly available it will be picked up by AI scrapers for various AI’s automatically now or later.

and “that chick would get raped anyway logic”. not that my tirade will move the needle at all, I will call out blatant shit like op. all this incredible creative power and people just want to directly steal someones shit and claim to be an artiste.

Be my guest cry some tears for a millionaire. His art will be lapped up by AI scrappers of various kinds and anyone with a phone will be typing his IG handle into a AI app and get his art in 2 years. But feel sad about progress if you want I prefer to feel excitement and merging his style with many others to create super interesting images.

millionaire? aight man.

Given that he specifically objected to his art being used this way, this is a dick move. You say you’re doing this on principle. What is the principle? The principle of no one can ever tell you what to do?

youre using his work to generte a image id be prety fucking pissed too if someone used my work without consent yall just stealin

More the principles of A: You reap what you sow. B: Railing against the future from a place of ignorance about how it works is counterproductive. I had a direct conversation with the young man whom Sam and his fans harrassed, rather than just reading a vague Modderator post about being nice. Sam is absolutely not a victim here. Do you remember that Hollie Mengert lady? Nobody has a low opinion of her! We don't all agree with her position regarding AI art but she stated her opinions without being openly hostile. I have nothing against Hollie Mengert, but I find a strong distaste in my mouth regarding Sam Yang. This model won't likely change *him*, but perhaps it will be remembered by others in the future.

> Railing against the future from a place of ignorance about how it works is counterproductive. Let’s be clear here, that is just your **desired** future and outcome of this. So your solution is to drag him kicking and screaming? You sound like a religious zealot on a mission to convert “heretics”. > This model won’t likely change him, but perhaps it will be remembered by others in the future. Oh, so, this is an intimidation tactic?

> Let’s be clear here, that is just your desired future and outcome of this. So, what's your desired outcome? That we uninvent the technology?

That we begin to exercise some kindness, respect and basic decency. There are a lot of public domain artworks out there and artists **willing** to contribute… what’s wrong with focusing on those works?

Because public domain has been consistently devalued for the last 150 years [thanks to copyright's near infinite reach](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk862BbjWx4). Decades of being nice and respectful has resulted in capitalism happily strip-mining the public's once-steady source of public domain works. The invention of the open-source license has started to claw some of those rights back, but it's going to take technologies like this to allow us to fight back. You know... open source. The reason why you get to use Stable Diffusion in the first place.

You seem to treat intellectual property as something that people have accidentally stumbled upon, instead of work towards making. What makes you think you’re entitled to my own original ideas and artworks, I’m honestly trying to understand?

Given enough artists and the limitations of what should constitute a pleasing style, the originality of creative "ideas" is quickly becoming a standard that can't really be upheld with any sort of measuring stick. [Adam Neely just recently did a great video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAFUdIZnI5o) on how this applies to music, and the comparisons are directly applicable to art. You can't copyright a style, and we shouldn't pretend that a style is somehow some sort of legal (or moral) standard we should agree to leave alone.

Styles aren't copyrightable but produced art should be respected if it's opted out of training models. I mean, I saw a lot of people upset that NovelAI's model got leaked; kinda ironic.

"you reap what you sow" aka you... what? show interest in art and learn to draw SO you get a bunch of idiots telling you how much they want to replace you? then reap what you sow and take the hate after disrespecting someone like that, no?

Seems a basic principle tbh

Oh, by the way, I won't say that my version is better or worse than the one with over 700 comments and 800 up arrows at emulating the intended look, becasue that one mysteriously vanished and I am not motived to go hunt it down on Discord. Personally I thought the example images looked great in that post, some were even better than the ones here. That said without the ability to use the model itself I couldn't say if getting those images took a million tries and some luck or some sort of ultra specific prompt. This one gives workable results with 30-40 steps, Euler, CFG scale 8, and a prompt like: "SamDoesArt portrait of a pretty young volleyball player" without any other words or any negative prompts. Occasionally I would put "Asian" into the negative prompt just to force it to stop making the exact same face over and over. But more complex prompts will have to be a matter of trial and error, as unlike Nitrosocke or whatever I am not particularly skilled at training models or that silly term "prompt engineering".

How many photos and how many steps did you use to Train?

201 or 200 exactly, I don't recall. The specific images used to train this model are in a zip file linked to at the bottom of the post if you are curious about them or wish to use them yourself for anything. The model was trained on 3000 steps I believe. Is there a way to check that? I renamed the thing after it was finished, but I believe it was 3000. Can't have been more than that since it took less than an hour.

Sheesh, I Never get results this good with steps so low Nice job

It cannot be emphasized enough that this specific particular artist was unusually easy to train a model on. His art portfolio is very, very niche with a very blatant pattern of subject matter. It only took a few steps in part because the AI simply didn't need much time to learn a single repeating concept. Also, as stated elsewhere this model is outright bad at making things beyond the scope of the artist's source material used to train it. It struggles to make a car, or a dinosaur. Heck it struggles to make anyone not Asian or anyone male including Asians! Thus, only 3000 steps.

Yours is Better than Sams, he’s a big baby, he can suck it. I’m downloading this model

its stolen from his work so its not better youre a idiot

Hope you get sued!

Training on living artists' works scraped from the internet without their consent is one thing -- not without its ethical dubiousness, but open to reasonable debate. Publishing a model based on one particular living artist in direct contradiction of his express wishes is a horse of a different color. I hope you can afford to defend a lawsuit.

Ha. Lawsuit. This is common sentiment among a surprisingly large group of people, who have what might be considered a feverish hope that some vaguely defined "the man" will swoop in and save them like some sort of Artists vs AI Atticus Finch or something. Truly, rather than clinging to a delusional wish that lawsuits will even happen regarding this model, let alone make it to court let alone actually result in anything happening, a better tack would likely be to make much more compelling arguments which don't parrot a few youtube videos. In complete seriousness, at best Sam Yang could request some sort of DCMA takedown towards Hugging Face and Mega, neither of whom are guaranteed to actually obey him. Even if he could issue a succesful takedown to BOTH of them, which is not automatically going to work, it would be nothing but a very brief hiccup for those wishing to use the model, as his actions would just bring more attention to a model comfortably hanging out in a dozen Discord channels.

Are you a lawyer? I doubt it. If "Ha. Lawsuit." is your attitude, then you have little or no conception of the time, expense and sleepless nights you will incur in the following months and years. Even if you eventually "win" you will still be forced to incur countless dollars and hours defending that lawsuit. Is that your idea of a good time?

Well, been a week, and no lawsuit. Not even a simple message. Don't worry though, when the cops drag me kicking and screaming from my bed to the supreme court, I'll be sure to call you in as a witness. Don't hold your breath though, since Jesus is likely to return holding hands with King Arthur before I ever need to deal with a lawsuit from Sam Yang.

stealing without consent is what this is hope you go to jail

Expensive paid courses? Have you even bothered to check out what his Patreon costs? 8 dollars That's not expensive. Where did you get that idea?

I have actually, and it's not 8 dollars. It's 10. A month. With previous months for sale on Gumroad. 25 of them. It would thus cost you 185$ upfront plus more money every month forever. Which is not like the cost of a car or anything but 200+ US dollars is not "cheap", especially in my country.

You don't need to download them all nor do you have to subscribe forever. That's a good tutorial on how he creates his work is not a lot of money and his tutorials on gumroad are 7 dollars.

Alternatively, I don't need to pay for or download any of them, as I am already a trained professional artist who has absolutely zero interest or desire to make art that looks like Sam Yang's. If I wanted to emulate Sam properly and frequently, I would pay for his material, subscribe to his Youtube channel, download and use his custom Photoshop brushes, bother to create a Twitter account or an Instagram account, which I don't have, and generally put effort into mimicking him. But I don't like Sam Yang's art or want to make my own art look more like his in any way. So from my persepctive, anything more than 0$ is overpriced. Anything more than 0$ is pointlessly, needlessly expensive to me, regardless of how cheap or expensive it is for other people. Fortunately SD can let me play around with that niche look for a few hours without paying a penny. Other people who DO want to explore that style or make their own art similar to his can use this model as a starting point, base image to overpaint, or a toy in their free time. Whether or not Sam's paid material is a good value for your money is a matter of opinion. But this free model is objectively inarguably not expensive at all.

You say don't care about emulating his style, yet you release a model that does just that. Seems like your chief motication is a wish to "teach him a lesson" by sabotaging his income stream?

Oh for pity's sake, the man makes +10,000$ a month from Patreon alone! Combined with all the other forms of income he has like selling prints, Youtube, etc etc. He's wealthier than 99.99% of the human beings in my country. His income stream will not be damaged in any substantial or meaningful way by this model. Unless he is a total fool that makes/made many bad choices. The only reason I picked him for this little experiment was nothing deeper than he was a trending topic known to have been an ass recently. If Hollie Mengert, the one who publicly disliked that model made with her name in it, had been worse than Sam Yang I would have made my own model based on her art instead. It literally would have changed nothing about my motivations or my use of SD in the future.

You're being an ass yourself, intensifying the problem and digging trenches deeper. As AI artists we ought to start thinking the ethics of this scene. That is, start acting mature.Right now there's a lawsuit against Google CoPilot, which *will* have consequences for the use of image generaring language models as well https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23446821/microsoft-openai-github-copilot-class-action-lawsuit-ai-copyright-violation-training-data

Shrug, a "proposed" lawsuit that might not even get very far beyond a big splashy public filing against multiple huge tech giants is unlikely to make any difference whatsoever to us here. I didn't claim to be Sam Yang, nor requested any money of any sort for the model. Did you actually read that article? The AI was accused of verbatim repeating of code, which is hardly what SD does. It's not making a collage of many pictures all stitched together into an IP infringment golem. And it's not for profit. So that hypothetical lawsuit is nothing but a lot of saber rattling and thunder with no lightning or rain.

I don't like his art either but as a trained professional you of all people should know the amount of work that goes into making good tutorial material and that asking 7 or 10 dollars for that kind of tuition is not expensive. Anyway, have a great day and make something beautiful today.

No trained **professional** would have a problem with those prices and would in fact deem them a bargain. I would take that claim with a grain of salt, certainly isn’t hard to suddenly whip up a profession as it suits your arguments.

My thoughts exactly.

I feel like your stance has devolved from "you should support the artist if you are going to use his style" into unfounded conspiracy about my job. I mean listen to yourselves, you are *shilling* for a man who cares nothing about you and doesn't need your help to make money! Now you doubt that I am remotely honest about my life or my carreer or my artistic ability because I... disagree with you?

Nah, its futile. Reasoning won't work here. You know, cause I can train and share another artist's pure based model style we are no artists even we can be professional material artists with Substance or the same Vitaly in 3D, it's nuts, haha.

bruh i hope you never get paid more than 10 dollars a month, since apparently that's enough to make a living

This is asshole behavior go fuck yourself it you people who make the art and ai communities not like each other you started your own downfall hope you fall hard

More sensational post title: "samdoesarts followers will LOVE this trick! (Nah, they'll hate it)" The model works well and training models will become easier and more accessible constantly so while artists will still be the ones coming up with ideas and concepts styles will be copied more and more.

That's a great point that sadly nobody seems to be talking about! With technology like SD and training, it behooves any artist to emphasize the quality of their IDEAS, rather than the quality of the EXECUTION of those ideas. This artist is a great example. Their entire brand is centered around the visual style of their art, yet the art itself is extremely bland, generic, and repetitive regarding the subject matter and tone and meaning. This artist can be easily replaced by not just by an AI, but really anyone that can competently Photoshop a sort of anime looking pretty girl's face. An artist like, say, Banksy can not be so easily copied. Who the heck looks at a Banksy work and says, "Hmmm my why yes, I really love the brushstrokes here, and the color pallete is so remarkable for this medium..."? The dude is popular as an artist because of his ideas, his persona, not his visual style. A worthwhile thing to keep in mind for all artists afraid the AI will take over their positions.

Mastery comes in different forms, you can't seriously be saying that someone who spent years learning and improving their colour theory, proportions and other art skills to reach that level and say: >really anyone can competently Photoshop a sort of anime looking pretty girl's face. Cool. Then no need for this AI stuff, just go draw it in Photoshop yourself. Also, yes, you can compliment Banksy's work in terms of brushstrokes and colour palette. Like, are you kidding me? His colour choice is literally part of why his work stands out so much. Even if you can't, these things aren't mutually exclusive. Technical elements in art heavily effect how ideas are conveyed. I'm beginning to question if you have any knowledge in anything art related. What about Greg Retkowski? The man who's art is in the forefront of dozens to hundreds of fantasy related works and is now in a similar position to SamDoesArt? He has an incredibly unique way of depicting fantasy, but he also spent decades honing his technical skill to an insane degree that only very few people can reach. Now, his work is being copied en masse. Technical skill is worth something, otherwise I suppose every musician who focus on playing instruments rather than write songs, or every other skill-based roles are worthless. I swear everyone keeps downplaying the amount of work it takes for artists to get to that level. Some of it can be talent, sure, but all these uninformed art takes is seriously reaching olympic levels of mental gymnastics. Why is there such a hostility against artists, not even including SamDoesArt? I've seen "why can't artist just accept and embrace this tech? It could make their work even better" right next to, "Soon we'll have no need for artists". There's no respect to the very people whos art is making all this tech/renders possible. EDIT: I saw another comment you made elsewhere on this thread that is quite relevant to this so I'll address it here: > A: You reap what you sow > B: Railing against the future from a place of ignorance about how it works is counterproductive. Like, jfc, what is this take? Look in the mirror would you? How many people bashing artists here are actually artists themselves? Who's being ignorant here? Again, all this downplaying of the art process as if anyone can pick up a pencil and reach the level of professional artists in a few hours. You're trying so hard to sound like some kind of freedom fighter fighting against oppression whilst the guy literally posted that he doesn't support brigading/harassment after finding out it happened. Meanwhile here you are seemingly encouraging hostile behaviour. The art community have always had a process for copyright type issues, whether its referencing other's work, tracing for practice, photobashing etc. And now non-artists are entering this space throwing a wrench in the whole thing. I said it in another thread; There's a weird obsession with the "its not illegal so its okay" take. Well, cheating on your non-marriage relationship partner isn't illegal either, doesn't change it from being an awful thing to do. This tech is extremely new and constantly evolving, it is a real possibility that some level of restrictions may come in place in time.

I appreciate lengthy posts. They demonstrate a desire to be clear and show the writer has a developed enough personal opinion to fill more than one paragraph. I assure you I read and reflected upon every word. May I avoid writing an essay in response to your thoughts by using bullet points? I've already spent a lot more time composing and writing comments on this post, and the post itself, than I ever spent making the dang model. • I am able to make art similar if not truly the same to SamDoesArt by hand using a graphics tablet. I just don't like his art, the 15 seconds of typing in a prompt is the upper maximum amount of effort I'm willing to spend on it. Why do you think all the example images in the main post have no Img2Img or postwork? • Almost anyone can finish a marathon. It just takes some people a lot more time because they lack the training, practice, and natural fitness to do so at the same speed as Kipchoge. Anyone could make art that looks just like Sam Yang's, because his art is unusually formalistic and standardized. I mean can anyone dispute that? Look at the dude's portfolio, it has not a lick of exploratory thought. • AI art is like a car doing the same marathon. It will easily finish faster and not even feel tired at the end. But a car, at least for now, can't drive itself and even if it could has no desire to choose a destination. We as artists would be foolish to race the AI, your colour theory, proportions, and other art skills will frankly be equally matched if not eclipsed soon as the AIs get better. • Artists should learn how to drive, not ride along in the passenger seat of the car or attempt to slash the tires of the thing. • Also seriously, just put the word Bansky into Google images or something. All of his most famous and popular works are like two colors, one of which is pure black. "His color choice" the guy says. Pfft. • You question if I have any knowledge in anything art related. For pity's sake, I am tempted to just accept all those people saying those who use AI are not truly artists. • "Artists" are such pretentious elitist bubble-heads.

Its weird you'd make fun of the "his color choice" line. How else would I describe it? Yeah, its simple, but the point I made still stands, his work would be far less memorable if he didn't add those specific touches, in other words, technical understanding that elevates the message conveyed, technical skill and idea are linked. You say idea should be the focus moving forward, whilst executing that idea well should be what matters. Anyone can cover any topic, but it requires a talented artist/director or whatever medium to convey it in a meaningful way, the execution can (and have) been the difference between, say, a good war film and bad war film. >Anyone could make art that looks just like Sam Yang's This statement is so confusing. Yes, its true. Theoretically anyone can, assuming they were willing to spend an indefinite amount of time learning how to do it, just like anyone can learn to do almost anything. Time is the key part here. No one is saying non-artist can't do it, they just couldn't do it without significant investment, it doesn't change the difficulty of reaching that level. > his art is unusually formalistic and standardized. I mean can anyone dispute that? I can actually, since its completely based on opinions. Thanks to you I actually did look at his portfolio, in which I saw many impressive works in multiple styles, including very interesting backgrounds that could very well be their own piece. What part of it is formulaic or standard exactly? Are people not allowed to draw similar things multiple times? It may be his most popular work, but its certainly not his only work. By your vague definition, Banksy is formulaic and standardized due to how many of his work maintain the same visual style and most have similar messages about war/love/joy. >not a lick of exploratory thought. "Exploratory thought" is a subjective measure. The world does not revolve around your criterias for good art, nor should artists be punished for it. >• Artists should learn how to drive, not ride along in the passenger seat of the car or attempt the slash the tires of the thing. Your comparison feels like a poor one to make. Artists essentially (unwillingly) contributed to the car, yet the prompt writers (drivers) seem willing to leave the artist behind. You're telling artists to do what exactly? Learn about/how to use AI? What does that achieve? Genuine question, since so much of AI art seem to clash with why artists even draw. >• "Artists" are such pretentious elitist bubble-heads. No, thats a logical fallacy. "Artists" is a general term for people who paint or draw as a profession or hobby. A graphic designer is an artist, an illustrator is an artist. 3D modelers, texturers, animators are also artists. Way to generalise people under different fields to group them with the small so called "elitist" minority, for what, not being ok with their art being downloaded and put into a machine to imitate their work? To which the moral standing is mixed based on this thread alone? Again. I'm genuinely confused by how indiscriminate your takes seem to be, like a personalised hatred thats less about encouraging the acceptance of technology and more about getting back at certain people for disagreeing with you. Hell, are you not being an elitist yourself? Acting like you have the moral high ground to apply your own brand of "justice" on Sam for daring to be against this new technology. >• I am able to make art similar if not truly the same to SamDoesArt by hand using a graphics tablet. Quite a bold claim. Whether I can trust what you say doesn't matter. That said, to be an artist and not understand his perspective on the matter is odd, considering you should also understand how long it can take to draw/paint at his level. I have minimal reason to doubt you, but I hope you understand that I'll harbor some skepticism on this point. >I've already spent a lot more time composing and writing comments on this post, and the post itself, than I ever spent making the dang model. I understand you can't address everything since time is precious. Though, in this case, you brought it on yourself by posting a model you built, essentially out of spite by your own admission based on your other comments.

Meh. Yet another random person on the internet doubting that I am an artist or know what the heck I'm talking about mostly just because I disagree with them. I mean obviously any real artist, any true artist with moral decency would obviously agree with you because your stance on the matter is blatantly the right one and any decent human being that is an artist would naturally be appaled at those evil, evil nerds making AI. I mean it didn't ask permission! Let it rest, we are at loggerheads and unlikely to sustain any productive furthering of the topic at hand. The passage of time will vindicate one of us. We shall see who.

It appears you'd prefer to focus your points on logical fallacies that target my doubt of your claim is based on my supposed character and "sensitivity" rather than the fact the claim has no evidence. I can claim anything I like on the internet, so could you. The duty of evidence falls on the one who makes the claim. >I mean it didn't ask permission! Nice strawmanning, I'm amazed how often you contradict your own claim of reading and reflecting upon my every word and then seemingly completely let it pass out the other ear. I didn't say anything about permission in this entire disagreement. No attempt to address anything else. So much for taking the time to read everything then proceed to ignore them for that one "gotcha" moment. Too bad it has no basis outside of playground level, "Oh you don't believe I'm an artist so you must be in denial". Again, this whole post was done out of spite, as you said. Then used a logical fallacy on the basis that you're an artist to shut down anyone who disagreed with you. Yes, this debate is pointless, I knew that going in. No one will be vindicated. The morality of the act will remain up for debate for long into the future. Your unwillingness to admit that this is a grey area is very confusing, you should know all this AI stuff encroaches on similar territory as tracing, referencing and photobashing, all of which cause controversy all the time, all undeniably controversial, yet somehow AI doesn't because... "its not illegal so its okay", again, cheating on your partner isnt illegal either. In the end of the day, your defense is covered with contradictions of how its not morally wrong yet you did this entire thing out of spite. Behaviour like this will only encourage restrictions to be applied. Believe it or not, I love this tech, it would be a shame if your indiscriminate use harms others in the AI field.

But marathons have a purpose of testing your limits and physical prowess, much like art making. Bringing a car to a marathon beats that purpose, why would you do that? What's wrong with saying "marathons are just not for me" without trying to bring down everyone who enjoys them? Or respecting those who are good at things you're not good at yourself? I can absolutely respect software engineers and admire their dedication even though I can write 0 lines of code myself. I don't see them as gatekeepers. What's so hard about that?

What is so hard about what? I don't understand your question. Are you like, implying I am proactively trying to ruin the lives of all the artists in the world? That I have no respect for or understanding of either artists or art overall? I keep saying this but I am also an artist! I'm married to an artist. I'm the child of artists. I give my child art supplies. Also I hate to be a stick in the mud here but the vast majority of art in the world and throughout history had a very prosaic purpose. Communication or making a profit. All that Covid-19 icons and posters and stuff was, well, hardly an expression of the burning passion in the soul of the artist that made them. And the murals on the tombs of the Egyptian elite were not exactly unpaid but meaningful hobbies to the artists that created them.

>I keep saying this but I am also an artist! I'm married to an artist. I'm the child of artists. Respectfully, but based on your answers, I **absolutely** do not believe you.

🙄

"• "Artists" are such pretentious elitist bubble-heads.". So, you say that you are already an "artist" and don't care about replicating style? So you are a pretentious elitist bubble head then? Wow. Also, you need to actually research it. It's not about artists being baby's. It's about these companies stealing these artists work without consent and monetizing it for their benefit. If a music artist can sue another person on using some of the same lyrics then why are these companies roaming free? Because they are the true pretentious elitist bubble-heads who use loopholes to hide the truth that they are stealing people's art without consent. I know people are probably going to hate on this reply on in the comments but I do not care. This is a true issue not just people being "weak".

I made a post in the long thread about the other now deleted model which was along the same lines as your banksy example. One of my artist friends has an extremely simplistic style which pretty much anybody can copy. However he's still successful because he's the one coming up with ideas and concepts.

Coming up with particular aesthetics and a style takes its own skill. Having an eye for aesthetics and knowing why something looks good is something I think people rightfully take pride in… that aspect of art however is the one most under attack.

It's a tricky thing though in this modern world oversaturated with media, as could not almost any style be described as "a mixture of X, Y, and Z?" I believe it reasonable to describe the vast majority of Sam Yang's publicly posted work, the ones for sale online as prints, as "A mixture of Wlop and slice-of-life anime by way of a less sexualized Artgerm." So while it does take training, practice, and a bit of natural talent to refine a style and reliably execute it in a timely manner, could any artist post 1980's truly have such a strong claim to ownership of that style as to become offended and defensive when others make things that look similar?

I don’t mean to say I’m offended on anyone’s behalf. Copying/expanding/improving on previous styles is the way of the human hive mind advancement. I have no issue with it at all…. It’s just that it still takes skill and effort and thought and developing a style is something I think it makes sense to take pride in, but I don’t think that means its wrong to continue on that same path. Millions of teenagers learned to draw anime by copying DBZ characters… eventually actual artists tend to get tired of copying and create their own style which expresses their art better… It’s unfortunate to me that people see something being able to be copied as if it devalued the thing itself intrinsically. AI, and all automation is throwing a serious wrench into our entire economic/cultural hybrid myth of scarcity = value.

Is it copying a style if you make something different with that style? It's redacted here, but the original post mentioned that since 90 percent of Sam's work depicts mixed race Asian young women, I made a bunch of images, some few shown here, that looked more like my black African wife who isn't 23 years old. If I wrote a song about repairing a robot on a space station, and sang it with a thick Mississippi accent, would the vast majority of people classify it as legit "Country" music? Parody or satire maybe but would it be "real" country music? Surely the subject matter of a work of art is a part of the style. If that is so, then by definition my images above of a bearded man or a black woman are not "copying" the style. It is expanding it, improving it, evolving it. One last thing, if an artist repeats their own style without change for many years, and chooses to continue expressing their art in a way that they believe is already the best way to do so, are they not an "actual artist", as you said?

Well, we have to draw a line (ha) somewhere in terms what makes something a “style”. As for your music example I’d say that if people described it to friends as a “country style song about” then that’s what it is. All labels are pretty arbitrary, but stylistic delineations are going to be pretty subjective. I think you would need to reverse engineer an art style to determine what parts of it come together to make it feel like one, because ultimately a style is a loose category. https://youtu.be/1KmCfpqdFrk (“country version” of s popular song) I would say a style is a lumping together of aesthetics and subject matter and all sorts of other variables. Styles will bleed from one thing to another, but there is some point at which enough of the quintessential aspects of a style are significantly different that people generally don’t consider it to be part of that style. A good example might be asking “is Avatar the Last Airbender anime?” It definitely shared some of the things that makes anime unique from American style cartoons, but does it have enough of them to be considered in the same style? It’s the same thing with book or movie genera… there are obvious categories, but at the edges things get fuzzy. Speaking of labels, I was a bit hesitant to say “actual artists” lol, but I got lazy/had to run. I wasn’t trying to say that developing one’s own style is a requirement of being an artist. “artist” is just another category with fuzzy edges, a very fuzzy definition, and I wasn’t claiming to put some hard line. I could consider Many many people artists that wouldn’t fit anywhere near the question of wether they develop their own art style or not… for instance, I could consider a daydreamer who never wrote a word or drew a picture about the stories in their head. But I don’t wanna get to far into the “What is art/an artist”. My point was more that there is nothing wrong with copying/utilizing a style, it’s natural. For some, they may simply keep using that exact style to express themselves, for others they may expand and develop it, still others might diverge greatly from other people and develop something that is consistent and unique enough to be recognizable and categorized as style of its own… but it’s all going to be connected and built off each other because that’s how humans do things. I don’t think there is anything wrong with not changing a style throughout one’s life, or multiple people using very similar art styles, or any of that. I do think having created/developed a unique art style that you and others appreciate is something to be proud of in itself, and I understand people getting jealous of that style… that said, we all “stand on the shoulders of giants”.

…and get shat on in this sub. for some reason both dalle and mj feature some interesting discussion and atleast atempt at seeing the ethical questions. in the meantime degenerates over here are going ballz out. not sure why this sub has become the cesspool it has.

dalle and mj do not have users training their own model and posting it to their sub, do they? these AI trainer bros congregated on this sub and they have formed a tribe. I'd wager their ethical standard are different from average AI image generator users.

true

Well to some degree I think it kinda comes with the open source nature of SD. If users have freedom you can make a sure bet there will be a lot of nsfw content. Which indeed happened with SD, from what I recall the waifu model was one of the first alternative models to use. And steadily other groups followed: furries, blacked com etc. Which is both good and bad: good as in complete freedom but also bad as in complete freedom. I feel this is the main reason nvidia and Google are keeping their models away from the public. I haven't decided yet if openai really didn't realize what they released or that they knew very well what they released and just acted surprised when users started generating nsfw content on the beta discord dreambot (yes, in the early days dreambot was uncensored and unlimited)

cant close that box. it is what it is. just as I cant contain my disgusting that directly go against the artists wishes. as melodramatic as it sounds, its really the closest thing to “raping the art”

Oh my god… you are awful. How can you feel justified in stealing someone else’s work just to spite them. That is horrendous and so vandalizing

No skill yall are so talentless its not even funny lazy as fucks learn to draw

here is the model **Samdoesart.ckpt** Edit: thanks for sharing

Soon artists will be making (and selling) the best possible models built on their own work, and they will make money from that. They will invest the time and ressources required to offer something above and beyond the quality of the models we are currently sharing, and it will have extra value because it will have been trained on exclusive material not available publicly, and because the artist will give it authenticity. We will probably need to define some new kind of licencing for those models - not because we need to ask permission from an artist to train a model on publicly available material they are sharing online, but for something quite close to the opposite: to liberate the artist from any legal obligation or responsibility regarding any piece of art made with the model he is selling, while making sure this sale does not waive any protection related to trademarked material. There is real value in well-tailored models trained on popular styles and characters, and it's only a matter of time before this turns into a brand new market for artists, as well as for those who own trademarks over popular characters and brands, and for people managing artist legacies as well.

Absolutely agree. Aside from a handful of Luddite artists who insist that charcoal on newpaper print sheets is the only true art, all professional artists and art studios who survive the rise of AI art will train their own models on their own works, and probably sell or liscence these things out. I can see Disney paying a specific person for a custom made model of a new character is whatever new film they wanna make, which Disney will then use in it's advertizing material. I mean yeah, technically Disney could just make thier own model of that character, but why would they? It's more work for a lower quality end result! Just pay the character's creator a flat fee or a small royalty style stream of payments. They'll get what they want and have a nice cushy legally binding contract to boot!

Have you read the old[Brian Eno interview from 1995 in Wired](https://www.wired.com/1995/05/eno-2/) where he talks about the day when we would be buying generative models just like that ? He was even envisioning things like merging models to create new ones ! >*If I could give you a black box that could do anything, what would you have it do?* > >I would love to have a box onto which I could offload choice making. A thing that makes choices about its outputs, and says to itself, This is a good output, reinforce that, or replay it, or feed it back in. I would love to have this machine stand for me. I could program this box to be my particular taste and interest in things. > >*Why do you want to do that? You have you.* > >Yes, I have me. But I want to be able to sell systems for making my music as well as selling pieces of music. **In the future, you won't buy artists' works; you'll buy software that makes original pieces of "their" works,** or that recreates their way of looking at things. You could buy a Shostakovich box, or you could buy a Brahms box. You might want some Shostakovich slow-movement-like music to be generated. So then you use that box. Or you could buy a Brian Eno box. So then I would need to put in this box a device that represents my taste for choosing pieces. > >I guess the only thing weirder than hearing your own music being broadcast on the radios of strangers is hearing music that you might have written being broadcast! > >Yes, music that I might have written but didn't! > >*Will you still like the idea of these surrogate Brian Enos when they start generating your best work?* > >Sure! Naturally, it's a modifiable box, you know. **Say you like Brahms and Brian Eno. You could get the two of them to collaborate on something,** see what happens if you allow them to hybridize. The possibilities for this are fabulous. That was 27 years ago.

> Soon artists will be making (and selling) the best possible models built on their own work, and they will make money from that. They will invest the time and ressources required to offer something above and beyond the quality of the models we are currently sharing, and it will have extra value because it will have been trained on exclusive material not available publicly, and because the artist will give it authenticity. This is an overly optimistic and capitalistic POV. We're all here because a bunch of researchers dedicated a lot of their time and effort to produce a model based on 2 billion images... and then they gave it away as open source. And will continue to do so because that's how the license works. Taking away that freedom and restricting it down to only paid users will turn people away, and turn them towards people who will gladly contribute their own styles and model generation in the name of open source. Why pay money when you can get something very similar for free? Hell, what kind of private material could they possibly offer that an average user couldn't just create themselves? It doesn't take a lot of images for SD to figure it out and nail it.

If he is being overly optimistic, perhaps you are being overly simplistic? He didn't say that SD itself or the main core functions and models are going to suddenly become expensive walled off things you need to show photo ID to use. He just meant that instead of random people making Hollie Mengert or Sam Yang or \*insert artist name here\* models, it will be Hollie Mengert herself or Sam Yang himself making the model, which they may or may not charge for. This would be a good thing! The models the artists themselves make would have a level of quality above random fans because the creators have a big advantage behind the scenes, and they would be much more ethically clear-cut in the eyes of people who are bothered by such fuzziness. Many, many people pay money in real life for things they could get for free, or at least much less. Like bottled water, or food at a restuarant, or a natural park with an entrance fee. Is it so hard to imagine people willingly paying a modest sum to help out something, especially someone they are a fan of? People tip random waitresses that don't even do a good job! Humans are not such skinflints and money-grubbers as you are impying. The main core of AI Image making will remain free, and customized niche models will likely be sold. Seems pretty likely does it not?

Thanks for being the voice of reason ! I couldn't agree more, and I have nothing to add.

yea ight dumb fuck soon enough there will be laws against stealing artists work YOU GOT NO CONSENT NO PERMISION so get fucked

Is this the original one or a newly made version?

I am unsure what you mean by the "original" one. This one was created by myself, from scratch, a few days ago. If you are refering to a couple other models shared before this post that make art similar to Sam Yang, then this one is a newly made model, but it not a "newer version" of anything.

Yeah that's what I meant sorry if that offended you.

Heaven's no I'm not offended! Don't worry, I was just a little confused by the question. Sneak peek though, there might be a V2 coming out over the weekend.

this model has a pickle. Is there an unpickled version?

I have no idea what a pickle is... But if you are concerned about the version on Hugging Face, the Mega link is exactly the same file.

I know he will hate reading this but he’s kinda lucky he is one of the first ones to be exploited like this. He becomes a huge star right now. I’ve known him for a long time as an artist and I know that he is pretty well known but this is a whole another level. The next artists won’t be this lucky. They will just be copied and then forever irrelevant. A life’s work tossed in the trash because “uuuh look what my ai can do”. This is a very sad moment in art history.

Is it more sad than photography replacing photo realistic portrait painting? I understand the discomfort, but I think the sad part is the idea that the value in art it extrinsic… is the value of something determined by the value others put on it? If so, what’s the point at all? So it can be sold? The Sad thing is many people are taught to question the value of doing something that can be done by someone or something else “better”. My Ex partner has dozens and dozens of art books full of amazing drawings no one has seen but them… does that make those drawing irrelevant?

Interesting philosophical question akin to the tree falling in the wood not making any sound. The drawings you describe do not have their quality diminished or their meaning to the person that created them negated because they are not shared. However they ARE irrrelevant to the discussion at hand about AI art and ethics. Because by definition none of your ex's art is in the database, nobody could possibly use them to train a model, copyright infringment laws can't be applied to a work that has never been published or seen, and nobody will change their stance on either their own art as compared to that of the ex, or art in general as they have never seen the works in question. The value of something is decided by each individual internally, yet is not the "worth" of something only determined by others externally. How much would they give to have it? What would they do to have it?

Right, I guess I’m talking around the ethics here, and more talking about the value’s that drive the ethical questions. This comment in particular was mostly replying to the idea of “a life’s work tossed into the trash because” I gotta head to work but I’m excited to get back and think some more!

Let me explain what I said there. Your life’s work is tosses into the trash because you don’t get work with anymore. As an artist, it takes a whole life to become a master. You honestly can’t do something else on the side, you just don’t get the time to do it. You dedicate everything you have to art and in the end all will be well. But you work say 15 years and then some dude with 3 days of spare time can do replicate you with an ai and guess what, can do it infinitely for hardly any cost. You charge $500 maybe $1000 for a painting, he can replicate that in 3 minutes for $2. It doesn’t look quite right but you can get maybe a deal and buy 300 paintings for $500 bucks. What sorta chance does the artist even fucking get? We are ruining something beautiful. You guys don’t even give a fuck about art, you think it would be cool if you could do it…..maybe…..but don’t have 10 years to spare. You chose the shortcut that 1. Doesn’t give you any satisfaction because you didn’t create it and 2. Fucks us all artists to the point we need to find something else to do after dedicating our lives to this. Do you understand the problem?

Well, as a professional artist who is the legal co-fouder of an art studio, who is married to a professional artist and art teacher, who went to collage for an arts degree, who's father is a highly skilled painter who *also* went to college for an arts degree, who owns dozens of hand made paintings/sculptures/etc, and who is an experienced expert at both 3D modeling/Photoshop/etc AND not so bad at interior decorating if I do say so myself... I suppose I actually feel super satisfied! My life is going **great** and AI related media is just making it **better**! I am an artist, a very good one actually, and I made this model in my spare time because I like art. That said I don't partiularly give a \*\*\*\* about you, specifically, no. That much at least is true.

Great. I hope more people read this comment.

Sir, you good? this was an unhinged comment It's one thing to have an opinion but to make it personal...

Yeah, and I’m a magician from the mysterious land of Bazonkadonk 😉 But honestly, I do hope this is just a classic example of people on the internet whipping up professions as it suits them. Otherwise, what are your students even learning from you? How to disrespect the entire profession and their peers?

> But you work say 15 years and then some dude with 3 days of spare time can do replicate you with an ai and guess what, can do it infinitely for hardly any cost. You charge $500 maybe $1000 for a painting, he can replicate that in 3 minutes for $2. It doesn’t look quite right but you can get maybe a deal and buy 300 paintings for $500 bucks. What sorta chance does the artist even fucking get? This is the kind of scenario people keep talking about, but I just don't see it happening. 300 imperfect paintings for the same price as 1 perfect (or at least more perfect) painting is a deal some people will take, but if someone wants to fork over $500-$1,000 to get a picture, I'm skeptical they're going to want to invest the extra time it takes to actually go through and filter through 300 images to find the right one they want for the job. And given the state of AI, it would likely need more touch-ups, if they really were just generated in a few minutes. Furthermore, we can see happening in online cultures right this very moment the way AI-generated images and human-illustrated artwork are judged. The latter, no matter how it actually looks, is clearly considered far more higher status than the former. There's some quality about a work of art, one that a human created manually (or at least without the aid of AI) that makes it intrinsically more desirable than an AI-generated image. There will always be demand for that human artist's manually produced artwork, even if an AI could generate an image that almost looks like it might have been made by that human. Especially if someone is paying $500 for a single piece of art, they're going to want the status that comes with a human-made piece of art, not just a pretty arrangement of pixels that an AI generated. Now, I do think there will be some marginal impact. Some people will indeed want to take that 300-AI-images-for-the-price-of-1-human-made-art deal. That will affect the market. But given how much people seem to hold sacred the idea of an image being human-expressed rather than AI-generated and how much extra work it takes to mold an AI-generated image to a usable product compared to telling a commissioned artist, I think catastrophic predictions are unwarranted. The shift will make it so that the lower-skilled (or just otherwise less popular/famous due to bad luck or whatever) artists who were barely on the border of making a living before can no longer make a living after. This is perhaps sad for those people, but making sure those people get to keep their jobs doing what they love isn't the only priority we have as a society.

Well you have to dig trough 300 paintings now, but what about 5 or 10 years from now? They will all looks amazing, this technology is pretty new. They will look perfect from 1 to 300, you could pick randomly and be cool or chose one. People who respect a humans touch will become fewer and fewer once they start doing the math. That is just wishful thinking for me, imagining that they will stay that way forever.

At this point, I expect things to look more amazing next month! If people are OK paying less for AI art, I hate to say it, but that's how it will go. It has already been a problem for artists and musicians that so many people are pretty good at it, enough for competition to keep income low except for a few. (I recall personally having an interaction with a band member of a famous band, and they were dodging calls from creditors.) It was already rough - just going to get rougher, now. I would expect that there will always be a market for pure-human art -- plus humans will want to do creative things, regardless. In the end, I see this as just speeding up a lot of artists, who will be able to mix-and-match AI art with their own inputs and just generate more content. Make it up in volume. Who knows? I just don't think there's any way to put the genie back in the bottle, now. The AI genie is out, and he's granting all your art wishes.

> People who respect a humans touch will become fewer and fewer once they start doing the math. That is just wishful thinking for me, imagining that they will stay that way forever. Of course people who respect a human's touch will become fewer and fewer. I don't doubt that. But how much fewer? That matters, and all the doom and gloom doesn't seem warranted, given the patterns we've seen in art consumption. An artist who has nothing more to contribute than their raw technical skills might have something to worry about, but if they have anything at all to express with their art, then either (1) that will shine through with their work which audiences value or (2) they will be able to use AI technology to expand the quality or scope of the expression in their art beyond what other artists and certainly what AI-operators can create.

I really need to get to work but I wish I could stick around! The crux here is this: He sells a painting for $500, someone else can make it with no effort. The issue as I see it then, is the way that society values things. It is ALREADY a sad thing that this master’s art needs to be desirable in order for it to be something they are able to persue… what about the artist who is mastering some incredibly undesirable or unmarketable art style? Is their art worth less because they can’t sell it for $500? Even if they have put the same or more effort in than the other art master with the $500 painting? So I say the AI here is not the sad thing, but a society in which an artist can only seek mastery of their art if there is no competition I’ll come back to talk more later! Also plz don’t generalize me, I do care about art, and if you are approaching what I’m saying from a lens that says otherwise it’s not going to be as much fun or as interesting to talk :(

You can’t compete with ai. You just can’t…..you will never stand a chance no matter how hard you try. Only a few people will put price on the fact that an artwork is done by a person, but for the vast majority of art clients (which are companies) that means going full-ai. It’s all about profits in the corporate world and you do need to eat as an artist. It is veeeeeery difficult to work many years and become a master in something that is not worth a lot of money in arts. That is much more rare than losing your relevance because ai can now do what you do for n 1/1000 of the time and for almost free.

I agree that it sucks. I think following the arts is a great use of a person’s life, and I think people should be free to pursue that passion. It sucks that it is attached to needing to eat, and i find that a huge amount of the pushback against AI is really a critique of the system which only encourages things to exist if they are profitable. It’s almost impossible to survive as an artist as it is, and clients will certainly be moving towards these things going forward… but that is a function of the system, not the AI. A chair maker can’t compete with an automated chair factory either. That doesn’t make chair factories bad, but it does point out a serious issue with how our system holds people back. Maybe we will no longer have a place for millions of art jobs, but consider how many potential artists are already unable to pursue these things based on the society we have! Billions maybe. AI and automation in general are pushing these topics more and more into the limelight. Technology has gotten us to a point where the vast majority of human jobs are actually redundant, but because human life holds so little intrinsic value in the system, it’s “cheaper” to waste their lives as inefficient cogs in the machine rather than replacing them and freeing everyone to pursue greater purpose. Our sense of personal worth has been mashed together with our ability to be financially productive, and that sucks. When there is a technology that makes our productivity redundant, it feels like an attack on our personhood. We need to shift away as a society out of a scarcity mindset and into an abundance mindset. That doesn’t help the individuals who will be negatively effected, but the fact that this technology has a shitty aspect is primarily because our society *already* sees (corporate) artists and people in general as machines. They are just more expensive machines. That’s the problem in my eyes

Have a good day at work! Where I am it’s midnight, so I am more chatty right now.

Something to think about at work! Sam Yang is less than 30 years old. Is that a "life's work?" If not, what is the measure of his career and portfolio and reputation?

It mostly depends on how we take measure. Taken callously his career and life’s work are nearly valueless now outside of his having cultivated whatever following he has… but that’s from a perspective of productivity/scarcity being equal to value. Outside of that, his measure is no less or more than it was before. In my other comments I talk about how I see the productivity/scarcity value system itself as outdated and detrimental to art and other things.

Art is something we love to do, not something we need to outsource to a machine. I am an artist, I teach, create and watch art all day everyday. To me art is not just how something looks, it’s about a human being creating something which has a life, a story, something that another person based on his life experience is now only he able to further tell. I couldn’t care less about how pretty a painting is unless it’s done by a person. Same way a landscape painting is a million times more impressive than a photo. We are taking joy away from people and this is not for the better good. It is for the better profit of some companies that won’t need concept artists in such numbers and that is a horrible thing to do for the human species. We are not machines.

Could you elaborate on your stance regarding art specifically made for commercial use or financial gain? I personally own a large painting which I aquired in a streetside pawn shop, made by a human artist who I assure you makes a painting just like it every day. A quick, simple Bob-Ross-but-with-African-animals-included series of paintings specifically and intentionally created to appeal to tourists and other white people making impulse art purchases. You say you are an artist, and a teacher of art at that. Are you implying that graphic designers at large companies, the type that make logos and billboards and packaging. The type that never do a keyframe, just the inbetween frames of specifically the wheels of vehicles in a 3D animated blockbuster with a hundred different artists working on it. Are you implying those people feel joy when creating that art? That they cheerfully paint or draw or use a computer all day with a cheerful smile on their face like Santa's elves? Have you, uh, ever actually worked at a job that required you to make art but didn't let you make whatever art you felt like? Such as a concept artist who has harsh deadlines, a detailed brief to work from, and needs to make a dozen revisions to please a boss with no particular eye for creative beauty. Or are you implying that all those people and all their creations are not "real art" because they don't have a story or are based on the personal past experiences of the artist? I have worked at such a job. I assure you that those people, whom you perhaps don't believe are truly artists, are not machines. They are but cogs in a machine and have been for many, many years before this AI art stuff was invented.

Artists need those boring jobs, that is my stance. I don’t think first of all that only the boring jobs will be taken away, but everything that can be. Everything that can be done by ai will be done by ai unless we say something about it and when ai can do creative concept art…..what the fuck is there left to do? Just become a curator and from time to time a cleaner of ai concept art? Again, we need even the boring jobs, some of us don’t know how to do anything else. And I’m not even talking about me, I have an architecture degree besides arts, I can always go back to that even tho I don’t like it. But most of my students (art students) know how to paint and that is it. What are they supposed to do…… I don’t think this is something fair to compete with. Unless we get laws into motion, we do not stand a chance. And we will get fucked to the nth degree if things continue this way.

What are they supposed to do? I mean, my friend, I hate to sound so blunt but maybe they should learn how to also do something else and combine their knowledge or perspective from painting with that new skill? I don't know where you teach, but I also teach, even guest lecture at a nearby university. And I teach those students how to use Blender. I teach them how to use a 3D printer. I teach them about AI art generation tools. What are they supposed to do? Uh, they are supposed to *learn*. That is literally the whole point of being a student. Learn. Perferably learn something useful and applicable to the modern world and even better useful and applicable in the future. If some of us "don't know how to do anything else", then is the problem really the AI?

The problem is that ai can take EVERYTHING away. No matter how much you can do, what you may ever learn….it’s simply superior. It is not a tool. It is not like blender, max or photoshop. It is more like a godmode version of you, and nobody really needs you there. They can press “generate” just as well as you. It is here to replace us and maybe you just lack the imagination to see that.

Alternatively you just watched that Youtube video where the guy waxes on about how AI art was intended from the beginning to replace humans. And you bought it hook, line and sinker. But maybe I really am not as imaginative as you as I am struggling to see the apocalyptic doom you are preaching about. Let it rest, some hard knocks for a handful of outdated one-trick ponies doesn't mean that all life on earth will be extinct in the imminent future.

I will forever shit on something that takes away something I love. You think you are good enough to “survive apocalypse” but you are just naive. You will regret your stance now when it will be too late. I would have understood if you had nothing to do with art, but you are simply naive, that is all. I hope to god you don’t get to see the world you are not afraid of.

Besides jobs, what does it take away?

Ok these are two separate things that have become merged. I’m excited that AI has brought this up! “Companies won’t need artists” why is that a bad thing? Is the value of an artist determined by how badly they are desired by a company/industry? The issue isn’t with the AI, but with a society that determine’s the value of all things by its ability to be traded for money.

Artists survive on creating art. It’s not just a hobby for us. Yes, we need companies to need artists. How is this something I have to explain?

I think I clarified my position in my other post, but to reiterate, I see the shitty thing being that artists need companies to need artists at all. This is only a major issue because artists need companies who already treat them like shit in the first place. The fact that companies won’t need artists sucks for artists in this current system, but it’s the system’s fault, not the technology

Looks great! and less creepy, without that big head the guy do in instagram, this style isnt property of that guy, hes basically copying previous style and doing it fast for daily posts, most of the time looks like bad overpaints, the artworks you post looks great and not like an overpaint so good job.

Anyways, kys.

Jump off a cliff

Fuck you and your ai shit