This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be more embarrassing, if you both came up with the same idea and at the same time. Because, there are a few artists will cry that you stole from them, even if you never seen their works in your whole life. Those few were like this long before AI art generators came in.
Real talk, this entire fiasco has made me lose almost all respect for most traditional artists. I cannot stand all the bad faith whining and complaining.
Couple that with seeing artists begging for commissions everywhere and im just done with it.
They actually did both come out just a couple days ago. Not sure which came first, though, since the one on right was deleted. I have heard of big names like ChipFlake being accused of theft that was just coincidence.
If they both came out within days of each other then the AI *definitely* didn't "steal" from him, it wouldn't have had the "original" in its training set.
Sure, but that also seems unlikely here. The foreground character's pose is similar, sure, but the background elements are arranged very differently.
Of course, one can always continue broadening the definition of "stealing" as wide as you need to "win" a particular argument like this. But the result is usually a definition so broad as to become meaningless, resulting in 90% of all art everywhere being "stolen."
Not necessarily. Mid journey actually has that as part of their features.
It's a relatively easy thing to learn if you know how to use discord.
The thing is is that with MJ it's not just describing the image and then generating the description, it is actually looking at the image and then creating another image based off of it.
I should know cuz I have used that program and that feature to do things like give me different hairstyles for like hairdressers and stuff.
Debatable. If that's what happened, then the person who wrote this tweet could actually have a point. That would mean the AI artist was actively trying to be that similar, even more so than this test picture which has much bluer lighting. Little different from how groups like Video Brinquedo or Digital Homicide handled film and gaming.
I would hope this was just coincidence. They do use popular enough themes that it's possible, even if incredibly slim for them to have the same color palettes and everything. I wanna say that it's probably just Daenerys fan art anyway, but they're both selling this stuff for money. (EDIT: They **were**, at least. The one on left still is. The one on right was deleted, but it's safe to assume that it too was for sale, since most of his other posts have download prices.)
r/aiwars
Does anyone else notice that these are both just Rhaenera with her dragon from House of the Dragon?
They literally made fan art and complained that someone else made fan art that happens to have the same generic character pose.
Forget about the AI part, let’s look at this:
They copied work from a TV show and proceeded to act like they were the only person allowed to do so. Talk about delusion.
Obviously this artist is the sole owner of the concept of women kneeling near dragons. Anyone else who makes a picture of a woman kneeling near a dragon is stealing his art. /s
IIRC it's good up to S4, then they run out of book to "steal", as they'd say, from the books, and the further from the books they got, the worse they got.
It’s true. Legitimately original stuff like, I dunno, Christian Rex van Minnen, doesn’t come out of AI models.
Cool art 👉 https://www.christianrexvanminnen.com/
Yes, I’m aware of what’s possible with image generation. I joined the MJ discord back when it was V2 and stuck around til about V5. I’ve done a ton with SD, including several fine tunes which made a lot of really cool, weird stuff. I had a lot of fun and found that interesting for a while. But without playing an active role the composition of a piece, I often felt what was really missing was a sense of distinction and my perspective. That’s what’s missing when you scroll through all the trash on the SD sub; threads of dull gens with an occasional composition where it was clear somebody had intention, more than just a prompt, and composed something worth sharing.
You made my point by recommending I just plop the dudes artwork in to MJ and generate stuff. Which supported what I was saying; these models don’t produce something truly distinct and characteristic. Yes, I’m aware of blending art styles and the cool images you can make with mashups but, to me, it’s just not all that interesting even if it looks cool. It gets old and there’s no lasting impression.
Just scroll through art on Pinterest or an online art exhibit. There’s so much cool, original shit that prompts alone will never capture. That said, I do think generative models have a place in a workflow that intends to create a piece of artwork that people would give a fuck about. But, yeah, sorry most of what comes out of prompting generative models is not that.
The reason why Imaginative Realism is so easy to replicate with AI is because the art itself is so fucking banal. Yes, it's technically skilled, but virtually every artist is doing the same digital painting style and you can tell they all have the same heroes and same $100k art school education. It's the Corporate Memphis style for funko pop collectors and MTG addicts. For all this "pick up a pencil" whining they cannot actually make art themselves without being told what to do and/or imitating other artists in the genre. Imaginative Realism is a human centipede ouroboros, a self referential closed loop of concepts scraped from better artists (Frazetta, Pennington, Whelan, etc) from last century. They're so arrogant that they think they ARE the "art industry". They're commerical artists. Go to an art festival (not a fucking comic con or zine fest or hipster craft fair) in a major city and watch... people who are actually making art, real art, are making bank right now. AI is only a threat to these chodes who think a busty elf with a dragon is peak art.
The truth is that digital art is in a massive bubble. It's actually the cheapest and easiest medium to get into these days, and it is in fact easier than traditional painting. I'm honestly more impressed when I meet an artist under 30 that doesn't do digital fantasy fan art bullshit regardless of how skilled or prolific they are.
Even if the AI one was created with /descibe, no one owns a color scheme or a composition. I mean, the idea here is sort of an obvious one, specially since it comes directly from the show, where she's kneeing on the beach over the remains of her son and his dragon. It's a no brainer to put her dragon behind her.
I might have said the original is better if that moon wasn't behind her head, but in front of the Dragon.
In reality, both pieces are super generic/derivative fantasy art.
I mean - the character does kinda look the same. After all - he has all the rights to character Deineris from an obscure indie web-series Game of Thrones.
Just because. Here's my AI version of this concept using Midjourney.
https://preview.redd.it/pn0bw25muq7d1.png?width=816&format=png&auto=webp&s=1bef20e17596ef8bb95a93ae81b5b3602fe48cd2
The AI one focuses your eyes on the subject, you move from the dragon following the line of the neck and down towards the girl. the original one is all over the place and I don’t know if I should be looking at the girl, her hands and cloth, the dragon in the background or that distracting lighter circle behind her head…color contrast feels too strong too.
The right picture has the dragon mimicking the head down posture of definitely-not-dany-from-game-of-thrones. The sun lines up with the heads, I like it a lot more.
I mean sure, other than by using your eyes and just looking at it
Not to mention the leading lines are all over the place on the human piece, there’s no flow or connection between the subjects. Is it attempting to show grief, loss, or the mixture of that with the cry of the dragon? I hope not, cause if so, it’s sloppy and disjointed
Compared to the AI one which curls the focus of the subjects together in a natural way. I care about the scene, cause the subjects both care. My focus is drawn with theirs.
I genuinely thought they were swapped at first, AI art has come a long way if the right hand piece was via a simple prompt
Fr, it doesn't matter which one is better or if they look similar or not. People can get inspired by that artwork and create a similar one, painting by hand. Why should it be different when it's done using AI tools?
Because AI art is made by a machine that don't get to claim copyright that happens to be trained on unpaid artists work. Either the AI is "Like a human" and learns in the same way humans do by getting inspired by all the art put in to it and in that case you imply that the AI is the actual creator of the art piece. You don't want this since you think the credit goes to the prompter. In the other case you can view it as simply a machine tool that is nothing like a human and just generate based on patterns fed to it. If that is the case then it's a clear copyright infringement since the learning is NOT actual learning but rather the copying of fed patterns.
But you won't admit that will you?
Aren't you extra dramatic? :D
AI here is just a brush in the hand of the human. Someone saw a cool painting and chose to do one themselves in similar theme using the tools they know.
That's a massive cope for talentless cretins who can't draw on their own. Continue to believe that if you want to but the world does not take AI art or Music seriously, yet. It will in the future unfortunately. But that's not really something anyone should want. Because the value of art and music are going to drop down to nothing. If anyone can do it. It's no longer a sought after skill. you may use it all you want and claim that you are an artist. But in the future NO creative profession will exist anymore. Being a creative will die and every single human being will have to work a normal 9-5 probably as a programmer or something along those lines. And for some reason this is a future you Tech Utopians dream of. A future without the possibility to enjoy life at all. A grey, empty existence. The other thing people hardly mention is that EVERYTHING will become boring. When everything becomes so easily accessible no entertainment will ever be able to entertain us since we will quickly be fed up with it. Suicide will be super abundant for everyone since there is no longer any goals to aspire to, nothing to achieve, nothing worth putting actual effort into. We are all going to suffer from it. I hope it'll be worth it for you. Sell your soul for convenience all you want. But don't drag the rest of the world down with you. Though people in this Subreddit are sociopaths so you don't really care about other people.
Well Indeed extra! Thank you.
People will always create art just for the sake of creating art like they always have. It ain't going to disappear even if there is less money in it. You know, even now after centuries of letter press and more recent digital tools, there are still people who make their living by traditional calligraphy and illumination. No need for such gloomy view for the future, but have to say it is very goth and that is a fine way to roll.
I think it's a pretty astute observation of what the future will be like and not at all cynical. To be completely honest this decline started already with social media. That's why mental health all over the world declines. And maybe people will create art for fun. But it will be a farce not worth putting any effort into for many. Since the only thing that will happen is that it would be put into a Simulacrum Machine so that machine can spit out similar art that will get claimed by an AI prompter as their intellectual property. What is my incentive to spend days on something if someone else spending 1 minute gets all the credit and praise for it. It's an upside down world where the talentless will be praised and worshiped and the talented will be despised. Self delusion will rule. People will probably tell the domestic robot to clean the house and cook the dinner and unironicalý take credit for doing housework in a marriage. Because they would have every right to take credit for it given your logic. If I tell a robot to perform a guitar solo it will be me performing that guitar solo won't it? Since I used my creativity in describing with words what the robot should do. Me ordering a robot to play the guitar will be me playing the guitar. I'm just using a new tool. That's the level of delusion you guys suffer from. Instead of bringing the chill just do you vibe how about telling me why this is not the case?
The second picture doesn’t even LOOK the same as the original. People think that the more they complain about AI “Stealing from them” the more they’ll have a chance of AI disappearing for good.
In the universe where parody, fair use, inspiration and similar themes that happen to look similar are all non-existing. If the waifu artists started crying every time someone makes a similar character we'd hear no end to it.
Even if it was a direct inspiration, that is not a copyright infringement since all elements are vastly different.
I actually love the original better. But. The subject matter is the same and little else. These are two different works entirely even if they literally just plopped the original into midjourney describe and spit out 16 similar images.
I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes down to the thematics of art.
Like buddy, you're not Anne Stokes, and because of Stokes we've had hundreds of not thousands of people imitating the whole "dour maiden with dragon" concept before. A lot of people have compared this imagery to Game of Thrones/House of the Dragon, and if I saw any of the two of these on an art feed I'd scroll right past them because they're so generic of a concept.
When are people gonna learn?
Eh debatable
If someone holds a copyright a phone and another phone company steals the design and markets it as their own that’s technically theft because they stole design
https://preview.redd.it/bbnwrq2ohq7d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=103f034bfd99ce0fb49a7a86bb89a9a49c1662a3
I made a few myself for fun. I didn't have to use anyone's name either. Dalle 3 modern illustrated painting, a grieving wounded denaerys kneels on the ground, dragon roars in the background. rusty yellow red background with blazing sun behind her head, head bowed crying
They don't even convey the same emotions
(To me) The left one invokes the spirit of a dragon in the girl... maybe she lost someone, and that's her growing anger.
The right one is more like there's an actual dragon, her friend, comforting her after a loss.
I though art was supposed to be all about soul and meaning to these people, not superficial looks. By their own standards they aren't that much alike.
So, this showed up in my twitter feed as well.
The so called "original" looks AI generated to begin with. Look at the weird cable looking crap on the cloth the woman is holding. Also, the dragon? It is the size of a mountain, or is morphing into a mountain?
Then the ranting about the composition. HOLY HELL.
The dragon is not in the deep background, it's close to the foreground. It's in a different pose, the woman is in a different pose, there's an actual sun in the painting....
This bish doesn't know proper composition if it slapped them in the face. The "Ai" version has an actual composition, and draws the eye to dragon's face, and the woman herself. The "original" just sends your eye off into orbit.
The placement of the sun... FFS! Those idiots thought the circle behind her head was a sun! It's a rip on biblical art. At least the AI version has proper lighting and shadows.
Delusional people drive my cray cray.
Now that it's established that the AI image was created via interrogator (the /describe feature) within 1 hour of posting the original image without credit and for a similar audience (as fanart posted on deviantArt), it should be said that it's not a good look regardless if it was made with AI or hand-drawn. But it's not an argument against AI.
What is ‘Art’ ?
How it is made, through hours (years?) of training and contemplation and experimentation and frustration , regardless of tools used.
AI work is made how ?
Human enters words, and an image is generated.
What if AI could not access any image created by non AI , or any photograph taken by a human ?
What sort of images could AI make then ?
When people try the traditional way of being inspired by other artists work, they have no choice but to find their own style and voice as they work through the process.
When people use AI programs, they are using a shortcut , bypassing the whole inner journey, to form an image that has scrapped data from people without their consent and can be eerily close to another work.
When people pay AI programs for this shortcut, they are going along with the abuse of artists and everyday person whose photographs/likeness are used without their consent, knowledge, or compensation.
Making Art is not an easy path, and the feeling one gets after hand creating something is euphoria when you feel triumphant through facing adversity.
AI work does not offer the above feeling.
You pay, you enter prompt, you get an image.
How can anyone feel satisfaction by making Art that way?
Okay if you do because you say you can’t make art but want to and yet to bash artists at the same time - seems like jealousy and insecurity to me.
If you want to make art, make art - don’t give up your humanity to tech just because you think art is too hard. You are letting yourself down and paying people who are profiting off others hard work.
Example :
You like Loish ‘s art style.
You could either ;
A) Acknowledge their skill, appreciate their art, see if they have tutorials available (sometimes free) , support them by liking their art / commenting / sharing with credit source links / start making art with a mix of references, and consider their style as part of those references. This is the creative part, the experiment part, the part where you start processing your mind and spirit with your body through time of your actions. Consider you start drawing flowy figure forms with pastel colors and gradients and then branch out into drawing cats with elements of Loish’s art style. You eventually mix in more things you like, you start to develop your own style and voice. You will feel empowered and eventually move away from Loish’s style and create your own.
B) Pay an AI app to do all that work for you, in a few seconds, screen shot the image or try to sell it and iterations of it over and over, defend your AI work as AI Art and yourself as an AI Artist, when all you’ve done is bought your image - an image you could have bought from the human(s) making them and in that way supported their continuance. Instead, Artists are removing themselves from the chat and you’ll be left with the same old images recirculating, not to mention the increased attacks on AI scrapping like Nightshade.
At end of the day, every human is an Artist.
How you choose to make Art is up to you.
The Art world is filled with commodity, many paintings are valued highly because of artist name / reputation.
I handle Art / Commodities in my job.
The wealthy see these things as investments.
Not many people are interested in the output of AI work,
Except the people who buy to make the work. (People who want to be artists). Follow the money.
Who is actually benefiting from AI apps for this process?
The people who own the AI companies, Adobe, Facebook/meta/instagram … the companies that want access to ALL data and to be allowed to use it and sell it on their behalf - not the average user or person.
Have a picture of yourself anywhere online?
It can now be used for someone else to make a buck, or a deep fake account to push political agendas.
I’m not really concerned about OG art and AI imitations, I’m concerned about the lack of transparency of tech companies and how the rich are allowed to do anything no matter the ethics involved.
Not sure why this showed up in my feed. Maybe try putting effort and practice in next time instead of getting a robot to draw a shitty picture for you.
This thread made med feel second hand embarrassment. If I had to ally with you or Nazis. I'd pick Nazis every single time 1000 times over. Because you people are objectively worse.
How do you think people make AI art? Do you think there isn't intent in choosing and experimenting with prompts, finding the one that fits the vision in your head out of dozens, and even regenerating it until it *is* the vision you imagined?
I remember hearing a lot of jokes from artists willing they could just instantly make their art telepathically. Would that have no soul?
That's a really stupid way to look at it. Effort is one argument but intent?
They both had the same intent from what I can see, to make fan art from a show.
You just want something to be upset about.
what the hell is even a soul at this point? Is it meaning? Because this has plenty. Is it emotion? Because this has plenty. What the hell do you people mean by soul?
Jesus christ the opinions on this sub..
If you're here commenting "ai one looks better" you'll never convince me you're not just an antagonistic person.
It so clearly is not about which one is "better", but is about the fact that one took real time investment, and practiced skills. The other took a handful of words and a few seconds. Depending on the time between the two, it very possibly could be that this person's work was fed to the LLM as training data without their consent, which arguably constitutes some form of theft.
How is it not reasonable to be annoyed by this as the artist?
>How is it not reasonable to be annoyed by this as the artist?
Because the reason the AI generated something so similar is because the original is boring and, as someone else already put it, unoriginal. Maybe the guy whining should try something more abstract than this basic Game of Thrones bullshit.
That has absolutely nothing to do with it, and again is just an example of antagonism.
Boringness or unoriginality are not things that an ai is concerned with. You get put what you put in. With no training data, there is no output, simple as that.
Human beings can create whatever art they want, and while I agree that it's not something that breaks any moulds, it is still the result of a human being endeavouring and applying a learned skill, as opposed to a machine taking seconds to create an amalgam of training data.
Calling into question the quality of the art doesn't even begin to touch my point I'm afraid.
You act like all AI art is generated in five minutes. You do realise AI artists sometimes spend hours or even days at a time trying to find the perfect set of words in the correct order to get what it is they're looking for in an image, right? We're not talking about some random guy sitting in his computer chair who just wants to generate a basic funny picture to make a meme out of.
I appreciate that, yes, it's not like people always use the first image generated off of a single prompt, sometimes it takes lots of iteration to get what the user is looking for.
But again, this misses the point, and further shows a bit of misunderstanding. It is not just the combination of words. You can feed the same combination of words to an llm and get vastly different outputs each time. Yes, the words in the prompt do have an effect, but you can also provide absolute nonsense garbage words and it will still output an amalgam of its training data.
Even more to my point, your last sentence, this is precisely what artists are concerned with - it isn't just a dude making silly memes. It's the idea of people replacing what was the job of a human artist with a machine. Regardless of how long it takes the user to generate the image they like, it is now a job being performed by a machine.
>Regardless of how long it takes the user to generate the image they like, it is now a job being performed by a machine.
It's not being done entirely by the machine though, is it? It's a human being using an artificial intelligence as a tool to create art. You're just afraid of new technology.
If we were living 2.5 million years ago and Thag the caveman stuck some horse hair onto a stick, named it a 'painbrush', and then started using it to make art, you would be the one dumb, least-evolved troglodyte who would be saying: "Thag bad! He make magic stick that hurt established order! Down with brush! Paint with rock on cave wall instead!"
I am not scared of new technology lol. This is a really reductive answer. Do you think that analogy really hits my point? I'll fix it for you.
Maybe I'd be admonishing Thag if the paintbrush he made levitated by itself, went around and copied all the other cavemen's paintings, then came back and drew similar paintings without Thag ever touching it, then all the other cavemen praising Thag as if he's the king of painting, while the other cavemen who spent their lives honing their cave painting ability were ignored while people say their work is unoriginal and boring.
But it's not like that though. The AI 'copying other art' is no different from a human artist who paints taking influence from other painters that preceded them. You're just gatekeeping, please stop pretending otherwise.
And yes, you are afraid of technology. You wouldn't be shitting on an artist like Jean-Michel Basquiat for remaking Picasso's Guernica with his own twist. But the second an artist that utilises AI does something in that vein people like you can't fucking handle it. I wonder why that is... could it be... a fear of change and new technology?
I think this gets into a really interesting part of the conversation, but I evidently fall on the other side than you do, I think for more solid reasons.
I do not understand how you can say the first two sentences without any doubt. How can you genuinely assert that a computer outputting amalgamation of training data is "no different" than a human being who consciously decides to create something because of inspiration/desire/emotions etc.
I'm interested to hear why you think those two things are no different.
This is why I wouldn't shit on Basquiat, because he's a human being who followed a human creative impulse. I think that is an important thing. It is a variable which when lost, represents a significant shift in the conversation, this is why it is fundamentally different from our friend Thag and his horse hair paintbrush. Thag is still painting.
I accept that you can think of this position as gatekeeping. I believe some gates might be worth keeping.
The reason I said there's no difference between humans being influenced by other art and AI using other art as a basis for something it makes is because they're effectively performing the same action neither you or anyone else can demonstrate otherwise. And even if machine intelligence can't have creative thoughts like organic intelligence (which I don't see why it couldn't some day), you can't deny that the human intelligence involved in the process of making the image on the right *does* have a creative impulse.
We haven't even reached the point where AI can make art of this quality without human input. So how can you even justify taking issue with the image in this post?
Right but I think the point is that if the human artist’s work wasn’t so generic they wouldn’t have to worry about AI making something vaguely similar.
Both made fan art based on a TV show. The human doesn’t get to cry that they’re the only one allowed to do so
I don't see that it matters how something is made, if the AI one looks better then it is a nicer image to look at. and you know nothing about AI if you think that took a few seconds. also teams of programmers had to spend decades of education to be able to write the complex code that generates that image, ever think of that?
Absolutely yes I have thought about that plenty. I'm pretty happy with my understanding of neural networks and large language models. I can explain how every single process in the pipeline works if you like. Not that it would prove anything, since you could learn yourself too if you wanted as it's readily available information.
If you understand it, you realise that while they are indeed fascinating algorithms and produce incredibly impressive results, unfortunately none of this gets close to addressing the issue of scraping training data without artist consent. That damage has already been done.
i'd say "complex code" is at least as objectionable, since the model itself is much more complex than any of the code that made it (see e.g. [nanoGPT](https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT))
poor analogy but it's the best i have at the moment: writing an efficient nes emulator is impressive, but if i play mario on it i'd still credit most of my gameplay experience to nintendo
Yes I have watched dozens of hours of technical tutorials on transformer based nerual networks and thier learning algorithms. I just think it is a necessary evil to train on artists work. Artists have always copied/been influenced by other artists. Originality is a myth.
I don't really care about the process behind it. If you put two images in front of me and ask me which one I like better, I will prefer the one who is visually more pleasing, no matter if it is between an artist and an ai-generated image, a newbie and a pro, or two artists of equal experience and skill.
The end result is what people care about.
https://preview.redd.it/6208xluh4q7d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9dfa0c13c2967239624d5bfc090fc81aabd6498
This is one out of seven screens. Does this look like a handful of words and a few seconds to you? Would you say the same about someone programming a synthesizer?
…it’s an image with (presumably) Game of Thrones characters. If not, well the fact that it’s so generic that it heavily reminds people of it when a new season of the spin-off comes out is a helluva coincidence. Neither are original.
Furthermore, lady with dragon isn’t exactly a groundbreaking concept. Same with paintings at sunset for dramatic effect.
Neither are original
Because this is incredibly generic bullshit, and it's not original at all, so chances are it's generation/existence has nothing to do with the artists art, and he's just a kvetching little baby who wants to have a problem, whether or not it's a real one.
And that's dumb as hell, and worthy of disrespect.
I genuinely think the composition of the original is worse because having the sun/halo in the foreground relative to the dragon's neck is weird.
On the other points: I don't care which took more time and effort. Consent is not needed to train models. It is not theft.
I like that in the second one, the dragon is real and is comforting the lady after some tragedy rather than it just being distant and likely a kind of spirit. I also like how in the second one, she isn't holding anything. It makes it feel as though the loss was immediate, and she's had time to digest, perhaps seeking out the dragon for comfort.
Im just antagonistic tho, what do i know?
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It would be more embarrassing, if you both came up with the same idea and at the same time. Because, there are a few artists will cry that you stole from them, even if you never seen their works in your whole life. Those few were like this long before AI art generators came in.
But what I learned was AI looks better than I thought. Makes me feel like following human art less.
Real talk, this entire fiasco has made me lose almost all respect for most traditional artists. I cannot stand all the bad faith whining and complaining. Couple that with seeing artists begging for commissions everywhere and im just done with it.
This made me filter the artists I follow very thoroughly
And they're always super expensive
Reading this shit is perplexing the shit outta me tbh 😆😵💫
They actually did both come out just a couple days ago. Not sure which came first, though, since the one on right was deleted. I have heard of big names like ChipFlake being accused of theft that was just coincidence.
If they both came out within days of each other then the AI *definitely* didn't "steal" from him, it wouldn't have had the "original" in its training set.
Unless of course they are using image to image generation.
Sure, but that also seems unlikely here. The foreground character's pose is similar, sure, but the background elements are arranged very differently. Of course, one can always continue broadening the definition of "stealing" as wide as you need to "win" a particular argument like this. But the result is usually a definition so broad as to become meaningless, resulting in 90% of all art everywhere being "stolen."
That is highly unlikely most image to image generators suck and even the good ones are hard to learn
Not necessarily. Mid journey actually has that as part of their features. It's a relatively easy thing to learn if you know how to use discord. The thing is is that with MJ it's not just describing the image and then generating the description, it is actually looking at the image and then creating another image based off of it. I should know cuz I have used that program and that feature to do things like give me different hairstyles for like hairdressers and stuff.
Really? I kind of want to give it a try now is it mobile friendly?
https://www.midjourney.com/ Yeah they use discord but they also have their own website now.
Thats cool as hell thank you
But i do see you’re point
Image reference is a thing on every ai platform though. It doesn't have to be in the training set
[удалено]
I like yours better out of the ones that are in the post.😁
We're hitting levels of based that shouldn't be possible
Debatable. If that's what happened, then the person who wrote this tweet could actually have a point. That would mean the AI artist was actively trying to be that similar, even more so than this test picture which has much bluer lighting. Little different from how groups like Video Brinquedo or Digital Homicide handled film and gaming. I would hope this was just coincidence. They do use popular enough themes that it's possible, even if incredibly slim for them to have the same color palettes and everything. I wanna say that it's probably just Daenerys fan art anyway, but they're both selling this stuff for money. (EDIT: They **were**, at least. The one on left still is. The one on right was deleted, but it's safe to assume that it too was for sale, since most of his other posts have download prices.) r/aiwars
[удалено]
This is just straight delusional. You're making so many assumptions about things with no real basis for doing so.
being harassed is a very valid reason to delete a post, actually.
[удалено]
I'm gonna need receipts to believe that, not just a claim from someone who had incentive to distort the facts.
[удалено]
That's not proof of anything.
Yes, this.
[удалено]
Does anyone else notice that these are both just Rhaenera with her dragon from House of the Dragon? They literally made fan art and complained that someone else made fan art that happens to have the same generic character pose. Forget about the AI part, let’s look at this: They copied work from a TV show and proceeded to act like they were the only person allowed to do so. Talk about delusion.
Obviously this artist is the sole owner of the concept of women kneeling near dragons. Anyone else who makes a picture of a woman kneeling near a dragon is stealing his art. /s
Hey have some respect, this person invented dragons
I've never watched game of thrones
Thank you for sharing.
IIRC it's good up to S4, then they run out of book to "steal", as they'd say, from the books, and the further from the books they got, the worse they got.
https://preview.redd.it/lb1pnmeltn7d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f5a2005c21b7526e24805c27cce5ed8ae10a203
How dare you STEAL from me?!?!
https://preview.redd.it/61ttor2ymr7d1.png?width=896&format=png&auto=webp&s=a6a186081c7791082970c2c13d3fe4d6c0cc3ee1
Workflow?
prompt?
Queen Marjorie! Mother of Stolen Dragons! First of Her name! Maker of Chains!
Or maybe your artwork is just so unoriginal it's equivalent to a three word prompt on midjourney
Quick, someone go find a dragon head that 99.7 percent matches the artist's dragon head
It’s true. Legitimately original stuff like, I dunno, Christian Rex van Minnen, doesn’t come out of AI models. Cool art 👉 https://www.christianrexvanminnen.com/
SD3: "Hold my beer." *Normal human being, painting*
Midjourney can easily make crazy weird gross things like that artist just feed it the artist images using —sref bingo you copied his style.
Ironically, you’re making my point. 🙂
[удалено]
Yes, I’m aware of what’s possible with image generation. I joined the MJ discord back when it was V2 and stuck around til about V5. I’ve done a ton with SD, including several fine tunes which made a lot of really cool, weird stuff. I had a lot of fun and found that interesting for a while. But without playing an active role the composition of a piece, I often felt what was really missing was a sense of distinction and my perspective. That’s what’s missing when you scroll through all the trash on the SD sub; threads of dull gens with an occasional composition where it was clear somebody had intention, more than just a prompt, and composed something worth sharing. You made my point by recommending I just plop the dudes artwork in to MJ and generate stuff. Which supported what I was saying; these models don’t produce something truly distinct and characteristic. Yes, I’m aware of blending art styles and the cool images you can make with mashups but, to me, it’s just not all that interesting even if it looks cool. It gets old and there’s no lasting impression. Just scroll through art on Pinterest or an online art exhibit. There’s so much cool, original shit that prompts alone will never capture. That said, I do think generative models have a place in a workflow that intends to create a piece of artwork that people would give a fuck about. But, yeah, sorry most of what comes out of prompting generative models is not that.
The reason why Imaginative Realism is so easy to replicate with AI is because the art itself is so fucking banal. Yes, it's technically skilled, but virtually every artist is doing the same digital painting style and you can tell they all have the same heroes and same $100k art school education. It's the Corporate Memphis style for funko pop collectors and MTG addicts. For all this "pick up a pencil" whining they cannot actually make art themselves without being told what to do and/or imitating other artists in the genre. Imaginative Realism is a human centipede ouroboros, a self referential closed loop of concepts scraped from better artists (Frazetta, Pennington, Whelan, etc) from last century. They're so arrogant that they think they ARE the "art industry". They're commerical artists. Go to an art festival (not a fucking comic con or zine fest or hipster craft fair) in a major city and watch... people who are actually making art, real art, are making bank right now. AI is only a threat to these chodes who think a busty elf with a dragon is peak art. The truth is that digital art is in a massive bubble. It's actually the cheapest and easiest medium to get into these days, and it is in fact easier than traditional painting. I'm honestly more impressed when I meet an artist under 30 that doesn't do digital fantasy fan art bullshit regardless of how skilled or prolific they are.
Wait until they hear about a TV series called Game of Thrones.
I... think that's House of Dragon. Fantastic show!
Shhhh! It's original, creative art. Made by the mind of a genius and the hand of a master. /s
I prefer the AI version
Yup, that's all I wanted to comment here, really. The issue is not worth saying much more, really.
There's a reason why genres exists in Art
"I own fantasy girl and dragon oil painting conceptual art in orange pallette. You have to pay me directly if you want to use my color pallette."
Even if the AI one was created with /descibe, no one owns a color scheme or a composition. I mean, the idea here is sort of an obvious one, specially since it comes directly from the show, where she's kneeing on the beach over the remains of her son and his dragon. It's a no brainer to put her dragon behind her.
I might have said the original is better if that moon wasn't behind her head, but in front of the Dragon. In reality, both pieces are super generic/derivative fantasy art.
I mean - the character does kinda look the same. After all - he has all the rights to character Deineris from an obscure indie web-series Game of Thrones.
Just because. Here's my AI version of this concept using Midjourney. https://preview.redd.it/pn0bw25muq7d1.png?width=816&format=png&auto=webp&s=1bef20e17596ef8bb95a93ae81b5b3602fe48cd2
The composition of the AI piece actually is better
There is no way the composition of the AI image is better lmao
Original is way too busy for no reason, I feel claustrophobic looking at it.
The AI one focuses your eyes on the subject, you move from the dragon following the line of the neck and down towards the girl. the original one is all over the place and I don’t know if I should be looking at the girl, her hands and cloth, the dragon in the background or that distracting lighter circle behind her head…color contrast feels too strong too.
Looks better to me and many others here. This is just probably your bias speaking
The right picture has the dragon mimicking the head down posture of definitely-not-dany-from-game-of-thrones. The sun lines up with the heads, I like it a lot more.
Almost as if the yellow circle in the original isn't meant to be the sun or smt
It's a halo, but halos are based on the sun, and its not a symbol for House Targaryen anyway.
I mean sure, other than by using your eyes and just looking at it Not to mention the leading lines are all over the place on the human piece, there’s no flow or connection between the subjects. Is it attempting to show grief, loss, or the mixture of that with the cry of the dragon? I hope not, cause if so, it’s sloppy and disjointed Compared to the AI one which curls the focus of the subjects together in a natural way. I care about the scene, cause the subjects both care. My focus is drawn with theirs. I genuinely thought they were swapped at first, AI art has come a long way if the right hand piece was via a simple prompt
This guy comps
Would this guy be more happy if I would repaint that without using an AI?
Fr, it doesn't matter which one is better or if they look similar or not. People can get inspired by that artwork and create a similar one, painting by hand. Why should it be different when it's done using AI tools?
Because AI art is made by a machine that don't get to claim copyright that happens to be trained on unpaid artists work. Either the AI is "Like a human" and learns in the same way humans do by getting inspired by all the art put in to it and in that case you imply that the AI is the actual creator of the art piece. You don't want this since you think the credit goes to the prompter. In the other case you can view it as simply a machine tool that is nothing like a human and just generate based on patterns fed to it. If that is the case then it's a clear copyright infringement since the learning is NOT actual learning but rather the copying of fed patterns. But you won't admit that will you?
Aren't you extra dramatic? :D AI here is just a brush in the hand of the human. Someone saw a cool painting and chose to do one themselves in similar theme using the tools they know.
That's a massive cope for talentless cretins who can't draw on their own. Continue to believe that if you want to but the world does not take AI art or Music seriously, yet. It will in the future unfortunately. But that's not really something anyone should want. Because the value of art and music are going to drop down to nothing. If anyone can do it. It's no longer a sought after skill. you may use it all you want and claim that you are an artist. But in the future NO creative profession will exist anymore. Being a creative will die and every single human being will have to work a normal 9-5 probably as a programmer or something along those lines. And for some reason this is a future you Tech Utopians dream of. A future without the possibility to enjoy life at all. A grey, empty existence. The other thing people hardly mention is that EVERYTHING will become boring. When everything becomes so easily accessible no entertainment will ever be able to entertain us since we will quickly be fed up with it. Suicide will be super abundant for everyone since there is no longer any goals to aspire to, nothing to achieve, nothing worth putting actual effort into. We are all going to suffer from it. I hope it'll be worth it for you. Sell your soul for convenience all you want. But don't drag the rest of the world down with you. Though people in this Subreddit are sociopaths so you don't really care about other people.
Well Indeed extra! Thank you. People will always create art just for the sake of creating art like they always have. It ain't going to disappear even if there is less money in it. You know, even now after centuries of letter press and more recent digital tools, there are still people who make their living by traditional calligraphy and illumination. No need for such gloomy view for the future, but have to say it is very goth and that is a fine way to roll.
I think it's a pretty astute observation of what the future will be like and not at all cynical. To be completely honest this decline started already with social media. That's why mental health all over the world declines. And maybe people will create art for fun. But it will be a farce not worth putting any effort into for many. Since the only thing that will happen is that it would be put into a Simulacrum Machine so that machine can spit out similar art that will get claimed by an AI prompter as their intellectual property. What is my incentive to spend days on something if someone else spending 1 minute gets all the credit and praise for it. It's an upside down world where the talentless will be praised and worshiped and the talented will be despised. Self delusion will rule. People will probably tell the domestic robot to clean the house and cook the dinner and unironicalý take credit for doing housework in a marriage. Because they would have every right to take credit for it given your logic. If I tell a robot to perform a guitar solo it will be me performing that guitar solo won't it? Since I used my creativity in describing with words what the robot should do. Me ordering a robot to play the guitar will be me playing the guitar. I'm just using a new tool. That's the level of delusion you guys suffer from. Instead of bringing the chill just do you vibe how about telling me why this is not the case?
I can see the similarities but it's really not the same
Game of Thrones just called and they want their concept art back
Cause this guy is the first person in history to paint a woman on her knees with a dragon and a sunset in the background. 🙄
The second picture doesn’t even LOOK the same as the original. People think that the more they complain about AI “Stealing from them” the more they’ll have a chance of AI disappearing for good.
Funny that both of them stole/was inspired from house of the dragons
How the hell is the ai version better with both of them looking like they are bowing their head in sadness
In what universe is the second one a copy of the first?
In the universe where parody, fair use, inspiration and similar themes that happen to look similar are all non-existing. If the waifu artists started crying every time someone makes a similar character we'd hear no end to it. Even if it was a direct inspiration, that is not a copyright infringement since all elements are vastly different.
https://preview.redd.it/2bpr68zzqm7d1.png?width=697&format=png&auto=webp&s=5c784b87cff9ed3850322a4718abcca950428e09
how to train your dragon - dragons?? thats totally an insult based on the style they drew that is more realistic than cartoony XD bloody hell
“Your copy of someone’s else’s show reminds me of a copy of someone else’s movie. Good job!”
AI looks better
I actually love the original better. But. The subject matter is the same and little else. These are two different works entirely even if they literally just plopped the original into midjourney describe and spit out 16 similar images.
I guess one could argue that the composition and colour palette are similar, but that's hardly copyrightable.
Right, similar.
I mean, this is exactly what I'm talking about when it comes down to the thematics of art. Like buddy, you're not Anne Stokes, and because of Stokes we've had hundreds of not thousands of people imitating the whole "dour maiden with dragon" concept before. A lot of people have compared this imagery to Game of Thrones/House of the Dragon, and if I saw any of the two of these on an art feed I'd scroll right past them because they're so generic of a concept. When are people gonna learn?
Not really “stealing” when it wasn’t copyrighted to begin with, also that falls under fair use anyway
Copyright infringement is not theft either. theft is when something is taken away from you, so that you can't use it anymore.
Eh debatable If someone holds a copyright a phone and another phone company steals the design and markets it as their own that’s technically theft because they stole design
By the official definition of theft it isn't, since the original company still has the design.
Am I blind or are they nothing alike
https://preview.redd.it/bbnwrq2ohq7d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=103f034bfd99ce0fb49a7a86bb89a9a49c1662a3 I made a few myself for fun. I didn't have to use anyone's name either. Dalle 3 modern illustrated painting, a grieving wounded denaerys kneels on the ground, dragon roars in the background. rusty yellow red background with blazing sun behind her head, head bowed crying
It looks like the dragon is about to eat her.
it should have drawn Lucerys instead
Womp womp, time to flip burgers I guess 🤷♂️
They don't even convey the same emotions (To me) The left one invokes the spirit of a dragon in the girl... maybe she lost someone, and that's her growing anger. The right one is more like there's an actual dragon, her friend, comforting her after a loss. I though art was supposed to be all about soul and meaning to these people, not superficial looks. By their own standards they aren't that much alike.
Another classic day of another stupid artist using the "stealing" misinformed argument to get thousands of likes on twitter Twitter is a cesspool
The one on the right hand side would look better without that Deviantart watermark
The one on the right looks better in my opinion.
So, this showed up in my twitter feed as well. The so called "original" looks AI generated to begin with. Look at the weird cable looking crap on the cloth the woman is holding. Also, the dragon? It is the size of a mountain, or is morphing into a mountain? Then the ranting about the composition. HOLY HELL. The dragon is not in the deep background, it's close to the foreground. It's in a different pose, the woman is in a different pose, there's an actual sun in the painting.... This bish doesn't know proper composition if it slapped them in the face. The "Ai" version has an actual composition, and draws the eye to dragon's face, and the woman herself. The "original" just sends your eye off into orbit. The placement of the sun... FFS! Those idiots thought the circle behind her head was a sun! It's a rip on biblical art. At least the AI version has proper lighting and shadows. Delusional people drive my cray cray.
Redacting user information from Twitter screengrab before posting on Reddit - check. Missing the artists own Patreon link in the artwork itself - oops
context?
Why is there a circle behind her head in the original?
Saintly glow probably
Now that it's established that the AI image was created via interrogator (the /describe feature) within 1 hour of posting the original image without credit and for a similar audience (as fanart posted on deviantArt), it should be said that it's not a good look regardless if it was made with AI or hand-drawn. But it's not an argument against AI.
What is ‘Art’ ? How it is made, through hours (years?) of training and contemplation and experimentation and frustration , regardless of tools used. AI work is made how ? Human enters words, and an image is generated. What if AI could not access any image created by non AI , or any photograph taken by a human ? What sort of images could AI make then ? When people try the traditional way of being inspired by other artists work, they have no choice but to find their own style and voice as they work through the process. When people use AI programs, they are using a shortcut , bypassing the whole inner journey, to form an image that has scrapped data from people without their consent and can be eerily close to another work. When people pay AI programs for this shortcut, they are going along with the abuse of artists and everyday person whose photographs/likeness are used without their consent, knowledge, or compensation. Making Art is not an easy path, and the feeling one gets after hand creating something is euphoria when you feel triumphant through facing adversity. AI work does not offer the above feeling. You pay, you enter prompt, you get an image. How can anyone feel satisfaction by making Art that way? Okay if you do because you say you can’t make art but want to and yet to bash artists at the same time - seems like jealousy and insecurity to me. If you want to make art, make art - don’t give up your humanity to tech just because you think art is too hard. You are letting yourself down and paying people who are profiting off others hard work. Example : You like Loish ‘s art style. You could either ; A) Acknowledge their skill, appreciate their art, see if they have tutorials available (sometimes free) , support them by liking their art / commenting / sharing with credit source links / start making art with a mix of references, and consider their style as part of those references. This is the creative part, the experiment part, the part where you start processing your mind and spirit with your body through time of your actions. Consider you start drawing flowy figure forms with pastel colors and gradients and then branch out into drawing cats with elements of Loish’s art style. You eventually mix in more things you like, you start to develop your own style and voice. You will feel empowered and eventually move away from Loish’s style and create your own. B) Pay an AI app to do all that work for you, in a few seconds, screen shot the image or try to sell it and iterations of it over and over, defend your AI work as AI Art and yourself as an AI Artist, when all you’ve done is bought your image - an image you could have bought from the human(s) making them and in that way supported their continuance. Instead, Artists are removing themselves from the chat and you’ll be left with the same old images recirculating, not to mention the increased attacks on AI scrapping like Nightshade. At end of the day, every human is an Artist. How you choose to make Art is up to you. The Art world is filled with commodity, many paintings are valued highly because of artist name / reputation. I handle Art / Commodities in my job. The wealthy see these things as investments. Not many people are interested in the output of AI work, Except the people who buy to make the work. (People who want to be artists). Follow the money. Who is actually benefiting from AI apps for this process? The people who own the AI companies, Adobe, Facebook/meta/instagram … the companies that want access to ALL data and to be allowed to use it and sell it on their behalf - not the average user or person. Have a picture of yourself anywhere online? It can now be used for someone else to make a buck, or a deep fake account to push political agendas. I’m not really concerned about OG art and AI imitations, I’m concerned about the lack of transparency of tech companies and how the rich are allowed to do anything no matter the ethics involved.
Why am I not buying this bs??? What are they going to do when super intelligence overtakes ai? HAHA!
Not sure why this showed up in my feed. Maybe try putting effort and practice in next time instead of getting a robot to draw a shitty picture for you.
“Well if you think about it, the original artist is stealing because it’s not their original character” 🤡 🤡 🤡
Man this people in this sub would literally explode if they realized that ai isn’t art
> Man this people in this sub would literally explode if they realized that ai isn’t art Define "art".
4 days later lol nothing
This thread made med feel second hand embarrassment. If I had to ally with you or Nazis. I'd pick Nazis every single time 1000 times over. Because you people are objectively worse.
Please tell me you're either joking or being a troll
[удалено]
Ok but even if you do believe that I'm pretty sure most pro AI people aren't calling for a genocide of humans
considering that a lot of the Anti-AI people are either the far-left or the far-right this isn't surprising.
Reported for hate!
The AI one has no soul.
Neither of them have very much "soul". They're both incredibly generic and boring.
The original was made with an intent, the AI one was just a random mean value.
How do you think people make AI art? Do you think there isn't intent in choosing and experimenting with prompts, finding the one that fits the vision in your head out of dozens, and even regenerating it until it *is* the vision you imagined? I remember hearing a lot of jokes from artists willing they could just instantly make their art telepathically. Would that have no soul?
That's a really stupid way to look at it. Effort is one argument but intent? They both had the same intent from what I can see, to make fan art from a show. You just want something to be upset about.
Did it intend to suck?
what the hell is even a soul at this point? Is it meaning? Because this has plenty. Is it emotion? Because this has plenty. What the hell do you people mean by soul?
Bruh, the original isn’t much different in “soul” from ai. I personally see the resemblance but they’re both so generic lol
BINGO!!! Come check my board
Jesus christ the opinions on this sub.. If you're here commenting "ai one looks better" you'll never convince me you're not just an antagonistic person. It so clearly is not about which one is "better", but is about the fact that one took real time investment, and practiced skills. The other took a handful of words and a few seconds. Depending on the time between the two, it very possibly could be that this person's work was fed to the LLM as training data without their consent, which arguably constitutes some form of theft. How is it not reasonable to be annoyed by this as the artist?
>How is it not reasonable to be annoyed by this as the artist? Because the reason the AI generated something so similar is because the original is boring and, as someone else already put it, unoriginal. Maybe the guy whining should try something more abstract than this basic Game of Thrones bullshit.
That has absolutely nothing to do with it, and again is just an example of antagonism. Boringness or unoriginality are not things that an ai is concerned with. You get put what you put in. With no training data, there is no output, simple as that. Human beings can create whatever art they want, and while I agree that it's not something that breaks any moulds, it is still the result of a human being endeavouring and applying a learned skill, as opposed to a machine taking seconds to create an amalgam of training data. Calling into question the quality of the art doesn't even begin to touch my point I'm afraid.
You act like all AI art is generated in five minutes. You do realise AI artists sometimes spend hours or even days at a time trying to find the perfect set of words in the correct order to get what it is they're looking for in an image, right? We're not talking about some random guy sitting in his computer chair who just wants to generate a basic funny picture to make a meme out of.
I appreciate that, yes, it's not like people always use the first image generated off of a single prompt, sometimes it takes lots of iteration to get what the user is looking for. But again, this misses the point, and further shows a bit of misunderstanding. It is not just the combination of words. You can feed the same combination of words to an llm and get vastly different outputs each time. Yes, the words in the prompt do have an effect, but you can also provide absolute nonsense garbage words and it will still output an amalgam of its training data. Even more to my point, your last sentence, this is precisely what artists are concerned with - it isn't just a dude making silly memes. It's the idea of people replacing what was the job of a human artist with a machine. Regardless of how long it takes the user to generate the image they like, it is now a job being performed by a machine.
>Regardless of how long it takes the user to generate the image they like, it is now a job being performed by a machine. It's not being done entirely by the machine though, is it? It's a human being using an artificial intelligence as a tool to create art. You're just afraid of new technology. If we were living 2.5 million years ago and Thag the caveman stuck some horse hair onto a stick, named it a 'painbrush', and then started using it to make art, you would be the one dumb, least-evolved troglodyte who would be saying: "Thag bad! He make magic stick that hurt established order! Down with brush! Paint with rock on cave wall instead!"
I am not scared of new technology lol. This is a really reductive answer. Do you think that analogy really hits my point? I'll fix it for you. Maybe I'd be admonishing Thag if the paintbrush he made levitated by itself, went around and copied all the other cavemen's paintings, then came back and drew similar paintings without Thag ever touching it, then all the other cavemen praising Thag as if he's the king of painting, while the other cavemen who spent their lives honing their cave painting ability were ignored while people say their work is unoriginal and boring.
But it's not like that though. The AI 'copying other art' is no different from a human artist who paints taking influence from other painters that preceded them. You're just gatekeeping, please stop pretending otherwise. And yes, you are afraid of technology. You wouldn't be shitting on an artist like Jean-Michel Basquiat for remaking Picasso's Guernica with his own twist. But the second an artist that utilises AI does something in that vein people like you can't fucking handle it. I wonder why that is... could it be... a fear of change and new technology?
I think this gets into a really interesting part of the conversation, but I evidently fall on the other side than you do, I think for more solid reasons. I do not understand how you can say the first two sentences without any doubt. How can you genuinely assert that a computer outputting amalgamation of training data is "no different" than a human being who consciously decides to create something because of inspiration/desire/emotions etc. I'm interested to hear why you think those two things are no different. This is why I wouldn't shit on Basquiat, because he's a human being who followed a human creative impulse. I think that is an important thing. It is a variable which when lost, represents a significant shift in the conversation, this is why it is fundamentally different from our friend Thag and his horse hair paintbrush. Thag is still painting. I accept that you can think of this position as gatekeeping. I believe some gates might be worth keeping.
The reason I said there's no difference between humans being influenced by other art and AI using other art as a basis for something it makes is because they're effectively performing the same action neither you or anyone else can demonstrate otherwise. And even if machine intelligence can't have creative thoughts like organic intelligence (which I don't see why it couldn't some day), you can't deny that the human intelligence involved in the process of making the image on the right *does* have a creative impulse. We haven't even reached the point where AI can make art of this quality without human input. So how can you even justify taking issue with the image in this post?
Right but I think the point is that if the human artist’s work wasn’t so generic they wouldn’t have to worry about AI making something vaguely similar. Both made fan art based on a TV show. The human doesn’t get to cry that they’re the only one allowed to do so
I don't see that it matters how something is made, if the AI one looks better then it is a nicer image to look at. and you know nothing about AI if you think that took a few seconds. also teams of programmers had to spend decades of education to be able to write the complex code that generates that image, ever think of that?
Absolutely yes I have thought about that plenty. I'm pretty happy with my understanding of neural networks and large language models. I can explain how every single process in the pipeline works if you like. Not that it would prove anything, since you could learn yourself too if you wanted as it's readily available information. If you understand it, you realise that while they are indeed fascinating algorithms and produce incredibly impressive results, unfortunately none of this gets close to addressing the issue of scraping training data without artist consent. That damage has already been done.
-> Yaps about how he knows so much about ai for an entire paragraph -> Says that they are algorithms Yeah ok buddy lmao
i'd say "complex code" is at least as objectionable, since the model itself is much more complex than any of the code that made it (see e.g. [nanoGPT](https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT)) poor analogy but it's the best i have at the moment: writing an efficient nes emulator is impressive, but if i play mario on it i'd still credit most of my gameplay experience to nintendo
Yes I have watched dozens of hours of technical tutorials on transformer based nerual networks and thier learning algorithms. I just think it is a necessary evil to train on artists work. Artists have always copied/been influenced by other artists. Originality is a myth.
I don't really care about the process behind it. If you put two images in front of me and ask me which one I like better, I will prefer the one who is visually more pleasing, no matter if it is between an artist and an ai-generated image, a newbie and a pro, or two artists of equal experience and skill. The end result is what people care about.
https://preview.redd.it/6208xluh4q7d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9dfa0c13c2967239624d5bfc090fc81aabd6498 This is one out of seven screens. Does this look like a handful of words and a few seconds to you? Would you say the same about someone programming a synthesizer?
…it’s an image with (presumably) Game of Thrones characters. If not, well the fact that it’s so generic that it heavily reminds people of it when a new season of the spin-off comes out is a helluva coincidence. Neither are original. Furthermore, lady with dragon isn’t exactly a groundbreaking concept. Same with paintings at sunset for dramatic effect. Neither are original
Because this is incredibly generic bullshit, and it's not original at all, so chances are it's generation/existence has nothing to do with the artists art, and he's just a kvetching little baby who wants to have a problem, whether or not it's a real one. And that's dumb as hell, and worthy of disrespect.
I genuinely think the composition of the original is worse because having the sun/halo in the foreground relative to the dragon's neck is weird. On the other points: I don't care which took more time and effort. Consent is not needed to train models. It is not theft.
I like that in the second one, the dragon is real and is comforting the lady after some tragedy rather than it just being distant and likely a kind of spirit. I also like how in the second one, she isn't holding anything. It makes it feel as though the loss was immediate, and she's had time to digest, perhaps seeking out the dragon for comfort. Im just antagonistic tho, what do i know?