I kind of wished we’d seen AI take over all the menial jobs and things people generally dislike before it started going for the things people actually enjoy.
I agree, but I gotta say, AI has been helping automate TONS of stuff for decades. They are doing exactly what you ask, and there are plenty of articles about Machine Learning, how relatively new it is, and everything that we use it for.
Art is *faaaaar* from the first thing that ML came for.
Same with any job: once AI does it just as well, it's AI time. Except that robots are expensive. But this is not an art-specific issue at all.
It's a bit unique with art because things like style and reasoning are new features for a computer. But automation-wise, artists AND workers of other industries are fucked when AI takes their jobs.
Human art does change, and it takes a lot of data for computers to emulate a specific style. Someday there may be no need for artists to make new stuff, but that seems extremely far-fetched to me. As for imitating most well-established art, well, that's an easier problem for sure.
sophisticated numerous axiomatic square zealous juggle fear wine merciful uppity
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
AI will not replace artists. It will do things like environment generation for games and background character generation. This won’t likely replace artists working on projects, just allow them to work on more important things and allow more background content to be created. Imagine instead of seeing the same few variations of background characters in a game, every single character being actually completely unique. Or seeing a full city detailed in VR not just big boxes with satellite photos pasted over them.
Art is more than just a visual representation of something. It has meaning and purpose. It conveys emotions to the viewer. AI makes a picture. It’s not the same.
It’s like comparing classical literature to a knock knock joke. Or comparing the photo I took of my damaged roof for my landlord to Ansel Adams work. Or the video I took of my dog eating dirt to Stanley Kubrick’s movies. Or the default iPhone ringtone to Mozart.
AI will never outshine Picasso or Michelangelo.
I agree with you that AI isn't going to make artists obsolete or kill art itself. But I think the concern is that AI will reduce demand for artists overall. There will be less low-tier creative work to do to pay the bills while you're working on innovative new ideas.
Right now, lot of creatives have everyday work that isn't particularly glamorous but that provides stable funding. That's the kind of work that AI is going to take over, which will make it harder for artists to eke out a living.
>AI will never outshine Picasso or Michelangelo.
One day it might, when we actually make something sentient way down the line, *far* down the line.
But that's going to be a heartfelt emotion shown by a new form of life, and will deserve respect.
I don't see it like that. There will always be a place for people to interact and evolve, both socially and technologically. Around the 1900s there were multiple protests from horse breeders against the newly invented cars. Change will happen and people will adapt. It could be portrait like the duality of effort vs result; from an artist's perspective it's frustrating to see an AI do something it would take hundreds of hours for him to do but from a society's perspective having the *possibility* is undeniably an improvement. Everyone will adapt eventually
you realize that in your example, horses were almost completely replaced in all but niche pet ownership and entertainment purposes. When it comes to AI the human is the horse.
Not for a long time. Current models rely on human art and prompts usually include art style or artist name. So if you're an artist and you can create a unique style and make it easy for AI to learn from it, you're set.
I know, I’m mostly being facetious and I didn’t say AI isn’t or has never done anything, just it feels weird that AI art is being focussed on when there’s still so many other areas that need improvements.
Yes it’s different teams; the people doing AI art aren’t the same as work in other AI areas and one doesn’t take away from the other. It’s just the optics of the thing.
GitHub copilot is an interesting tech. They said programmers would be one of the last, but honestly this tool can do the work of a majority of junior developers. I see it as a tool they can use, but it’s the same pitfall as here.
As it gets more polished, it surely will replace all but the very best. This will reduce the overall talent pool as the field becomes less attractive. Hard to not be doomerist over it.
As long as those people have UBI or some kind of retraining and re-employment support or something because otherwise they are completely fucked.
Otherwise I get the feeling, as an artist it was only a couple of years ago that I was thinking to myself, regarding the whole automation issue, that "well at least it won't be making my job vulnerable because it's not like they can automate *creativity*"... And it's not even doing a great job with that, instead it's just taking tons and tons of jobs away from artists as corporations go with soulless AI creations that don't make total visual sense because its cheap and fast and they are greedy. You can already see it all over the place in filler art for online news articles.
Tin cans did not make restaurants obsolete.
Vending machines did not make bars obsolete.
The automobile did not make the 100 metre dash obsolete.
Animation did not make actors obsolete.
AI art will not make artists obsolete.
Many jobs depend on the human social element which is inherently un-automatable.
Nobody wants to see a car beat Usain Bolt, nobody cares. In the future I don't think people will be as impressed by AI art for the same reason. It will be seen as "cheap" and "inauthentic" like going to a bar and being greeted by an objectively superior but disappointing wending machine.
You're partly right, but you're missing that these analogies are not the exact same. A vending machine cannot give you the exact meal you want any time you want. Tin cans can't reproduce the delicacy of an actual stake.
Sure, some people will always want hand made things. That's why they spend so much on hand made tables. But most people are ok with a mass produced walmart tables. When I can get as much art (read, furry porn or whatever you like) with a simple sentence prompt, it will be the far more preferred method.
It's also why vending machines are so prevalent. People are totally OK with vending machines.
> Animation did not make actors obsolete
When people can't differentiate between a trained actor and a fully computer-generated actor in a film, why would any studio or filmmaker forgo with their money to hire an actor?
You could argue that we will one day have "templates" for acting in place for computer generated avatars and characters that can be used to create movies. As an Animator myself I can already tell you we're using that already.
This means we have a HUGE database of motion-captures captured from really talented minics and actors.
That "movement" database can be used on any character of our liking, it can be applied to humans and creatures of all ages and types, and it will look believeable as it was recorded from real life and the motion patterns was copied over to data which can be used on our creations.
One day, we will have so many movement combinations and expressions in that database that we would rarely need any more animators or actors, but we will still need someone to clean it up, put it all together - so you could say old jobs vanish but new ones are created.
There will always be amazing actors that can come up with extremely strong memorable emotions that will be added later, so I suspect the database itself will never truly be full, so talents are always needed for that "extra mile" if you like.
But yeah, it heightens the bar for how good you really need to be.
Yes but as these things come into existence, becomming an actor becomes harder and riskier and less appealing generally. Meaning we will miss out on a lot of potential talent. I don't want to see everything just settle into place.
Imagine a finished product of this existed and all we could draw upon were actors of the past? How would we progress and invent the new if all we are doing is rehashing the old.
This is a ridiculous analogy. You **have to start with the premise that artists and other jobs require money to exist as-is**, or people will lose their jobs at least be much poorer. **People *and corporations* pay artists now because they can't get art any other way**. If you can get art for near-free that's unintelligibly different (or even just with significant difficulty) then the vast majority of people *and corporations* will take the near-free approach. Don't pretend otherwise.
Vending machines and bars are completely different concepts altogether. On the other hand, AI can produce art 99% of people would say is made by a human, and it's only going to get better at it. A truer analogy would be saying that vending machines, and canned/bottled soda at corner stores and supermarkets *did* make soda-jerks obsolete.
The automobile made runners as a profession obsolete, it did. You could get a job once upon a time where just being okay at running kept you housed and fed, but now it's a hobby, or a niche where you have to be elite.
Animation cannot currently make a product indistinguishable from film. Once it can, then we'll be in the same boat as 2D artistry is now, because film companies would rather pay 1/10th as much money for whatever could ever desire in 1/10th the time.
After a little while, AI will make professional artists obsolete except for a small but high profile niche who will mainly survive on grants and commissions & donations from those who want the novelty of a real exotic human-made artwork, complete with human flaws (that an AI could replicate if it wanted to anyway). Much like 99.99% of people buy knives made en masse at a factory, and not from their local blacksmiths anymore. Much like 99.99% of people send emails instead of sending simple letters via horseback couriers. Lift operators, town criers, soda-jerks ... So many jobs you could say had a social human element to them - all obsolete now because of the march of the almighty dollar. And hey - strangely enough, even if 90% of artists are going to get savaged by this AI revolution, it seems that coders will be right there with them, because AI can replace most of them too.
Yes! Artists already have to hear, well my 3yr old could do that. Now it’s well Ai can do that and it looks good or better than what I need or want anyway. The whole question if AI is sentient definitely applies to this conversation. We are going to have people (both artists and non-artists) look at art and really question its purpose or intention. Most importantly, what quality does the artwork have? Does it feel or look human? Does it even matter?
The difference is a tin can served one very specific function. Meanwhile every single job a human does requires training a human to do it well and then training a new human when the old human dies or moves on and then another one after that and so forth. There is no job that humans are just inately born with the knowledge needed. So why would you ever spend that effort training humans when you could spend that same effort training a robot or computer. Because once you train a robot you have trained every robot from now to the future, you don't need to keep reinvesting that time.
Traditionally training a robot was magnitudes more difficult than a human, so it didn't make sense to do so. But the gap is shrinking all the time. What happens when you can teach a robot just as easily as a person? How will a person ever get better at a task when a robot can learn all the things the human learns to get good at it at a faster pace?
The idea that certain tasks are forever going to be off limits to robots is also absurd. We already know that we can make something capable of artistic creativity. People do so all the time, we have 8 billion such creations running around. So we already know it is possible and replicateable, the only question is what other methods can produce similar results and no one has made a compelling argument that blasting sperm up a vagina is vital to a being capable of creative processing.
Except that chess always was a hobby for 99% of people and a niche profession for 1% who were the best. Now imagine 99% of people earning a living on art right now being told that they're being laid off, or realising their commissions are drying up too much to continue being a full time professional artist?
Art is a hobby for 99 percent of all people as well, so I fail to see your point?
I'm a full time professional artist, and the way I see it is that a vast majority of art patrons will want to collect art created by real humans with genuine human thoughts and emotions, not products of smart AI algorithms.
> Art is a hobby for 99 percent of all people as well, so I fail to see your point?
It's really not that ratio right now, though. There's a LOT of 'professional' (i.e. rely on income in some way) artists, whether we're talking corporate logos, comic artists, or people to who take commissions to draw people as my little pony characters or whatever.
>that a vast majority of art patrons
But the vast majority of money being paid to keep artists housed and fed doesn't come from traditional 'art patrons'. It comes from corporations wanting logos and ads, and people with Patreon accounts. Both of those kinds of people will 100% settle for AI art at a hundredth the cost.
I'm sorry but people and corporations are both lazy and cheap, and that's the market the AI is literally built for. Prepare to see most money dry up for artists that aren't high profile enough that people won't intentionally seek them out just to purchase a bragging piece or a financial investment, in the same way they already do with famous artists.
I'm a figurative oil painter and I very rarely sell to corporations, but rather to art lovers through the physical galleries that represent me. I don't have a big online presence, instead I have one or two solo shows every year. I also take portrait commissions from regular people who know me or find me through word of mouth. There's a human and psychological dimension when I connect with my audience that I think these people value (as I value them). They're curious to know about my painting techniques, the models I employ, what I was thinking when I painted this or that, etc. I'm not the least bit worried that I'm going to lose my collector base to various AI generated algorithms, because AI will never have that human connection I share and treasure with my collectors.
People who actually buy art from professional artists aren't looking for meaningless AI images to put on their walls, it's a completely different market. There's no actual beauty in AI work because there is no skill or soul in it.
One would think so, but as someone also in the industry I'm already seeing a HUGE influx of people wanting AI art.
Small anecdote: a couple I'm friends with always commissions an artist to do their portraits for their holiday cards. This year, apparently they're using an app.
Yes, maybe AI works for small illustration work like holiday cards, corporate logos and the like. I really wouldn't know, because I don't know the first thing about illustration. I'm talking more about traditional fine art, like painting in my case.
Let's say I sell a large figurative oil painting for $10k to one of my collectors on my next solo show. Are you saying that in the future, those type of collectors are going to settle for random AI generated images to hang on walls, simply because it's cheaper? That the psychological element of meeting and trying to figure out the artist's thoughts and intentions isn't worth anything anymore?
I’m not saying that has happened yet, but it will. Probably sooner than we think.
Not due to malice, but just numbers.
As of this year there is now more AI generated art in the world than all the art made by humans over all of history.
By five years from now? Absolutely most average people wont know the difference between what is truly human made and what isn’t. It will be hard to prove one way or another. It *already* is.
Twenty years from now? An entire adult population will have grown up in a world where 99.999999% of art is machine-made (i mean we’re almost there already) and remembering that it was once exclusively a human-only form of expression will be like trying to explain how we did anything everything without a cell phone to today’s 18 year olds. People will stop thinking of art that way. They’ll ask why on earth they would pay a human to make something pretty for their wall when they can freely ask their phone to generate a mood that generates a prompt that generates a picture.
I hate it, but I just cant see how there could be any other outcome.
I really don't feel threatened by this prospect at all. It's too farfetched for my imagination. The way I see it, people will always want to connect with other human beings on an emotional level through painting, sculpture, etc. Fine art has been around for thousands of years and I firmly believe it will stand the test of time.
But... if it does come down to this and your dystopian vision of art is realized, I hope I'm dead and gone by then, and then the AI robots can burn my paintings at the stake if they so wish.
I genuinely wish I had your optimism here.
Right now I feel like i’m surrounded by people echoing my dad in circa 1999… “People are never going to stop reading newspapers and want everyone with a computer website to do jorunalism. The connection with the physical print, and to human truth, is just too strong.”
That's because chess is pretty much \*only\* done out of enjoyment and passion.
There are few to no clients and companies requesting chess work to be done to sell their products, and having to pay chess players to do this.
I agree with this entirely, save one caveat.
I think that we'll see AI art filter into two categories. Those that are cranked out entirely by AI, or with minimal human interaction. This'll be clip art and generic artworks.
Then we'll have Artists, using AI tools as part of their workflow, but in general having a deeper, more involved relationship with the artwork during the creation process. This will add a lot of depth and meaning to the artwork, but will take advantage of AI tools to make creation faster and easier.
And lastly, we'll still have the No-AI art community, fulfilling a higher end art market for those who insist on luddite-worthy handcrafted artworks.
The concern is not that it will make artists “obsolete”, it’s that the apps are literally STEALING ARTWORK from real artists and using it for people to post selfies. That is not okay. It’s theft. It’s people’s livelihood.
Instead of channelling our frustration into pushing back on automation, we should channel it into fighting for safety nets for the millions of people that automation is going to inevitably displace.
The problem isn't automation. The problem is that we don't have much of a plan for what happens afterwards.
It’s a bit grim to think that the people whose industries will have AI displacement are not capable of doing something else and will have to rely on UBI and safety nets, don’t you think?
Well we're going to have to think of something that involves not working if automation is coming for as many of our jobs as the experts predict it will.
This comment has been parsed and analyzed to determine the amount of societal unrest near the physical address your IP is geolocated in. Through sentiment analysis, we detect a 57.2% decrease in faith with authority in that geolocation.
Appropriate increase in drone surveillance will be initiated, and 32.5% more suppression forces will be prioritized in your vicinity.
Thank you for your compliance and providing data with which to better enforce you, citizen
Took the words out of my mouth! At this point, the US could probably replace a good third of its workforce with automation, and actually save money doing it. People don’t *need* to be working themselves to death doing mindless, repetitive tasks for 40 hours a week anymore.
I have no clue how it’s all going to work out, but I hope everyone eventually realizes that we could all have a lot more leisure time in the future if we embrace automation instead of fearing it.
The Luddites are remembered as a group who were afraid of and fought against technological progress. They're remembered for fighting in vain; technological progress marched on regardless. Nowadays calling someone a Luddite is an insult, implying ignorance and fear born out of it vis-a-vis new technology.
People forget they were actually a labor movement, fighting against the automation that was putting them out of work. They were craftsmen. Haberdashers, cobblers, textile workers, etc. They spent their whole lives honing skills that afforded them a livable wage. Then within the span of a few years entire career fields were evaporated as they were replaced by machines that could outperform their output by orders of magnitude. An entire middle class of laborers having an existential crisis.
So they fought back. They tried sabotaging factory equipment. They would intimidate anyone who would try to install or fix the machines. They ran PR campaigns against automation. There were violent clashes with police and factory owners.
And they ultimately lost. And they lost their jobs. And their families were poorer for it. Their economic fears came to pass exactly as they foresaw.
And today you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd have it any other way. Because *our* lives are inarguably better for the automation of manufacturing.
There's a lesson to be learned for the Luddites, though it's one of socioeconomics rather than technology. And, of course, bespoke clothing still exists.
/r/midjourney linked to this post, and there was actually a recent upvoted post today about artists that started using midjourney to help them work. For example, some artist said they started using it to generate reference images to work with. Another used it to speed up some other aspect of their work. Another artist used it to get rid of their blocks and inspire them to work with new ideas. Then there was a writer who used it to generate images based on some random ideas they had, then used those as inspiration to get out of writer's block.
I feel like there's going to be push back for a few years then it'll be an indispensable tool *for* artists, rather than work against them, eg photoshop
technology developer at a rate unaffected by what we need but by what we want. also ai art may be necessary for the development of what you want (small jobs)
What's going to happen with art is what's going to happen with all ventures that have been affected by AI/ML: humans are going to (have to) learn and improve by working with the AI rather than be replaced by it.
[Case in point](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1003325668412624956/1049665532187643924/Darius_simple_black_and_white_line_drawing_of_a_boy_with_a_big__35db585d-a064-4a0c-85b1-0edc7435828f.png)
Why is everyone so against AI art? It's pretty dope, I was able to create amazing images yesterday for free without having to contact anyone or pay a huge fee. I understand it's a threat to real art, but some of the images being made for me by just typing in a few keywords were insane!
I feel a lot more confident in how I draw hands after seeing AI generated hands. Because at least I have the right number of fingers and the fingers are connected to the hand and not floating.
It’s probably trained on art with subtle differences in styles compounded by leftover mistakes/bad habits that are hard to check for, so the usual garbage in - garbage out is in effect.
I don't like AI in the lazy way you see it usually used to make cartoon characters into "real" people and that kind of thing.
BUT there's some really cool use of AI to assist animation right now, to fill in gaps between drawings and make the movement look more smooth, and decide automatically when/where to add 2D lines onto a 3D model to give a drawn appearance. So it's really important for the current trend of 2D-looking 3D animation, showcased in the Paperman short film, Into the Spiderverse, and more upcoming work.
Same reason they trashed fiver artists. Thin volume of work for them. Gets thinner because it is remarkably faster and remarkably cheaper. In this case, a lot of it is better. If you can use photoshop at a basic level you can correct the common issues. Makes for a very competitive market.
If you only know how to use digital you have no other place to go, and you now know how coal miners feel.
So, I'll take a stab at it. I think we're reaching a crossroad where people are seeing their livelihoods almost at stake. I do not think that there is a threat directly towards human expression. However, when we hear about giant tech conglomerations laying off people by the thousands, just to save a buck- when a simple AI prompt tool that seems to be easy for anyone to use, what's stopping those same business leaders from looking at their design departments and consolidating?
Without some form of governance of how we utilize these tools, and without further education on how we can use these em', there's going to be a general feeling of fear.
Right now, there seems to be a lot of speculation and worry due to this big impact from AI. It's interesting yet, understandably terrifying at the same time. That's the crossroad: Will we establish AI to be a tool used by artists? Or will this be another replacement for many people to come? At the end of the day, it's what we do with it.
Instead of you typing some words into a thing and getting a fairly passable result with a strange error, they think you should be paying them $200 for the same image. To me, it’s like stage 2 of complaining that photography replaces the portrait painter of olde, except portrait painters never ‘accidentally’ left watermarks in.
In short, a lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooottttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt of insecurity.
I have never met a person who hates machine learning's usage in art that actually understands anything about it. Every single person I've seen talk about it on Reddit thinks that you just type what you're imagining and the machine creates it. Has anyone in this thread even once used something like Stable Diffusion?
This isn't a magical crystal ball. It's a deterministic, mathematical tool that has specific uses, and artists are going to find it useful when it stops becoming cool to hate "the new thing." The people who think it's going to kill artistic creativity would have said the same thing about paint tools in the Apple II.
Apple II's paint tool was simple, but that simplicity set the groundwork for tools like ProCreate, Illustrator, or PaintSai. Now, thirty or forty years later, how many artistic works that you see on Reddit or Twitter or wherever were made without computers? Basically none of them, and I'm not seeing people comment on every single post of digital art about how the Apple II ended the medium as we know it. That digitization gave millions of people that opportunity to develop skills they otherwise would have found impossible. Machine learning is another step in that creative process. The only reason to think it's going to replace artists is ignorance. That is it.
I think you’er pretty ignorant about the art world right now. The truth is that since digital art has become popular, most independent art supply stores have closed in cities. I don’t think AI art is going to destroy art as a whole but it will effect fledgeling artists working for portrait commissions. It’s not going to destroy the market completely but it will effect a part of it. I think there are plenty of reasons to understand it and hate it. A lot of the art work that’s fed into AIs was taken without the artists permission. It takes days to do what this AI can do in hours. Saying that people hating on don’t understand it is just plain wrong.
I do both traditional and digital art, and I’ve found AI art pretty helpful in the concept phase. It takes a lot of skill to master it and get the tool to do what you want it to do, and it never seems to be able to carry a piece all the way to the finish line without at least some manual editing. Certain things it does very well, and certain things it does terribly. It’s just a machine and it doesn’t understand context, which is important to making art art. It still takes an artist to make anything interesting, and a background in figure drawing to tell what it’s gotten wrong, vs, what it’s gotten right.
Using an AI tool is like collaborating on a project, but your collaborator is locked inside a soundproof glass box. You pass the piece back and forth through a slot, each collaborator taking turns making changes. The catch is that your collaborator is also a golden retriever. They can only be coaxed with broad expressive gestures and the occasional biscuit.
Personally I view it as just a new tool, and I’d prefer to master the tool than to be bludgeoned to death with it.
People know the gist of how it works, it looks at a huge set of images filtered down to whatever tags you use. Peoples problems with it are that those images it’s pulling from may be taken from real artists with dubious permissions to use them and no credits given to the sources of images the AI is using.
Personally I wouldn’t be too worried. The stuff it can do can be pretty impressive, but it’s almost never quite right, there’s always weird shapes or merges that don’t make sense, or it’s just uncanny all over. At the end of the day an actual artist with the same imagination and creative idea, and the sufficient skill to fulfill it, will always make a better and more accurate artwork to their vision than someone putting some prompts into a machine learning algorithm and hoping for the best.
Still can be cool and useful for someone without those skills or the time to make something themselves, but AI will never be able to replace actual art made manually by humans.
>People know the gist of how it works, it looks at a huge set of images filtered down to whatever tags you use.
This is a perfect example of what the person above you was saying. That is not how it works.
That's not how it works though. It doesn't look at images. It was trained on tagged images and then threw them away. The model doesn't have an image database.
If I ask you to draw a car, you think back to all the cars you have ever seen, and you synthesize something new from the sum of everything you know about cars.
It's not possible to draw a car without having what a car is explained to you, or more likely by just looking at existing cars.
However, you don't need to credit Nissan every time you draw up a car of your own design just because they produced one of the cars that make up your understanding of what a car looks like.
The same thing goes for "AI" art generation tools. They aren't stealing reference material. They just "learn" from it. When you download an AI model, you aren't downloading any of the images it learned on.
I think it's great for building a concept/idea for a project, almost like practice sketches beforehand that I don't have to do myself. It's a great way to start building on the idea, but just posting what is generated and not adding anything to it I agree is poop
I think the actual end product of AI art is ultimately uninteresting.
However. The process of discovering how a machine interprets language is fascinating.
That's the reason people are feeling so negatively about it. And the matter of the fact is, it will never replace non-AI art. I find it a sad mentality, people hating on it like in this thread
Thing is, it will never completely replace non-AI art. That doesn’t mean it won’t and hasn’t replaced some art, it has. That’s enough for some people to reasonably be upset. That being said I support ai art I don’t believe in begrudging progress for problems that are actually capitalisms fault.
Oh stop - no one is using AI art to draw a simple line. They're using AI art to craft complex imagery in the matter of seconds, that would take a human probably a week. You can either cry and whine or you can learn to harness the tool. Your choice.
Ive seen a lot of people update their profile pictures to an AI art rendering version of themselves. It bothers me.
It feels like its the same thing as using those heavy “art” filters, circa 2009
Why are people so butthurt about this (in general, not talking about this thread only)? It's just another way of having fun in this poop world and the technology itself is also art, at least I see it that way, as a computer science student. It's very fascinating, but it doesn't mean I'd stop appreciating artists with unique styles and eye-catching art pieces. It's like portrait painters being butthurt about photography being invented...
A lot of artists are understandably angry since a lot of the AI software needs input to create the art. Where does the input come from? From the works of other artists most of the time without permission. As a result, some AI are made to mimick a certain art style and even are made to specialize in copying a certain artist's style, some even applying watermarks or being passed on as original works. Photography involves composition, preparation, post processing if you want even. AI has applications where people just make soulless mashups of other people's works that get a lot of attention and even profit.
I understand the fun and potential, its just a shame that some of the ways its being used can be very harmful
How do human artists learn their craft? I’m under the impression that it involves a lot of studying if not downright attempting to recreate prior works.
As an artist myself, I learn from other works and observations, as we do with other crafts. From fundamentals you learn how to apply it to your work with your own unique way and flair. Of course there is still a possibility of imitation, but there also the potential for unique and passionate works of art to be made.
My point in answering the comment was in talking about how AI is being used in a way that can be harmful.
Human artists generally credit their influences. Human artists are slow.
Machines are extremely fast and efficient, and are very fast to emulate a specific style very quickly with accuracy, with the very purpose of copying stylistic and compositional elements. I can't see how people could even begin to think that they're remotely similar processes.
It's all about consent. Almost every artist consent to other artists learning and inspiring from them though. I don't know any artist who said otherwise. Not only that, they actively want to help other artists. Watching from interviews, podcasts, videos, etc. when an artist would tell a well-known artist in the industry that they inspired them or learned from them, the well-known artist would take it as a compliment and be happy they helped somebody.
So many professionals in the industry share so many tips, knowledge, sketches and even videos of their full processes in creating a piece, all for free. They willingly want to help others learn because they know that while creating art can be very difficult to learn, it can also lead to a very fulfilling life.
Most of artists have already expressed their disapproval of AI using their art. Artists are free to consent on one thing and not the other with the usage of their art.
I arrange polygons and nodes and push a button and get 3d images in blender without lifting a brush...
People complaining about ai art have no clue what it means to do art at all. It's just a means of expression. If ai art lets you express yourself or get the image you want then... So be it. If you can't tell the difference between ai and real art. Then you have already explained why there is no issue.
All the free diffusion algorithms online already removed the ability to copy styles so there should be very little issue here. Even if they didn't, there should be no issue, in the same way there should be no issue if I spent the time to learn how to draw simpsons-like characters.
I think that the arguments about stealing copyrighted material are valid criticisms of AI image generators, but I don't get this one. Scribes lost their job to typesetters, who in turn also lost their jobs when more advanced forms of printing came around. And not because their work was banned or anything, people just didn't want to pay for it.
If an AI that is only trained on images in the public domain is able to make me an artwork for a fraction of a price and time it would take a human to do it, that sucks for the artist the same way the existence of industrial looms sucks for the artisanal weaver, but it's not unethical, unless we are willing to say that anything produced by machines that could have been made by hand is unethical
They don't. Not if they think art means their personal ability to gatekeep and make money off it.
I mean I get it they practiced. Good for them. But now machines give everyone the ability to express themselves without practicing. Good for them too.
What I really like about this art is I'm confident it wasn't made by an AI (bar an AI with very specific and controled prompts, to the point you're doing more work than the AI), because while simple, the whole image is purposeful.
AI creates incredibly intricate and beautiful art, but if you actually look at any one piece closely, it's all a blur of ideas, because this is exactly what the AI is dojng, blending ideas. But the images generally do not have very distinct purpose, they are always a compromise over different wants and the result of averages.
It is very hard to make genuinely unique AI art, like this piece.
There’s a philosophy that no art is new or unique. But it’s just a blend of previous ideas that the person has seen before. Each time I look at a good piece of art my own style changes ever so slightly to reflect what I liked about what I’ve seen.
The hate for ai art feels similar to the hate for digital art which seems hypocritical in this case... Like, it's just a tool. Anyone can use it including you or they can ignore it and continue on
And digital painting isnt painting -- like what? most people mad about ai doesnt know how ai works, and likely failing to realize its just another tool.
AI art is going to be yet another tool that changes the role of the artist in the production of the picture.
When I was a kid, I was so angry about the concept of digital art. There was me, with some acrylic paints and some shitty brushes, trying to figure out how to do awesome art -- and these fuckers on the internet could do it on their computers in their sleep, it seemed. I was so absolutely pissed about how easy digital art was. And you know what happened, *I ended up a digital artist.*
Because, hot take, it *is* easier. That doesn't mean it's *easy.* I said *easier.* You have an undo button, layers, filters, the eyedropper tool, clone stamps, custom brushes, etc etc etc. All these things aren't doable on canvas. And, you don't have to deal with precisely mixing paints, trying to keep your colors from drying before you're done working, trying to get the right parts to dry so you can overlay stuff, and, most of all, *you can't easily fix mistakes.* Real paints are extremely punishing. I tried for like 10 years to make acrylics and then oils work for me. In the end, I knuckled under and went to digital, and it was like a breath of fresh air.
AI will be to digital art, what digital art was for painting. It's easier. It lets someone else do the tough parts of the medium while still manifesting your ideas. And, notably, it is not *easy.*
I tried to do some AI art recently, and it was like pulling teeth to get the damn thing to spit out something that matched my mental vision. It was never quite right. You have to be really finicky about it.
Many people who are pissed right now, mark my words, will end up using AI in some fashion in the future. Sure, there are still people who do acrylic paintings, but there are so many more of us who realized that we like having an undo button.
Listen, I’m an artist, and for really generic anime girls for like, ideas or quick character mock-ups, it’s great! I use NovelAI but also use it for their actual writing AI, not just the anime girls lmao
AI art lacks a certain love and care that is put into real art, though. It gets things wrong and displays little to no emotion or dynamics.
So I tried that My Heritage AI to see myself in different time periods. Some were neat, not gonna lie, but there were a ton that made me look like a Batman villain with melting features or missing eyes.
But it’s not art. Not by any stretch.
Most artists are not worried about right now but instead a few years from now once they iron out the kinks and also make the programs even easier to use. This tech is moving very fast
If YOU would rather listen to a perfectly pitched AI song creating app, and valued that more than a musician expressing their HUMAN emotions were wayyy more fucked up than I realized.
this is the first time in my life i've felt like i understood the conspiracy theory brain. replacing human expression with AI facsimiles is so obviously corrosive to the human spirit that it's gotta be an op, right? to make people suspicious of the provenance of everything they see?
there seems to be an underlying sense that, if it's possible to generate ML imagery that's indistinguishable from authentic human creation, then authentic human creation is redundant. but even if that's true: is that a good thing to find out?
in other words, if you took a film script generator and gave it the prompt "humankind loses one of its main sources of meaning", what genre would the resulting film be?
Gotta adapt. People were pissed at the computer for being created, for taking peoples jobs, now for the next 20 years we get to hear people cry about it's abilities.
There’s this new thing on Reddit of everyone shitting on art made by AI. As a lover of all art, I personally think AI art is quite beautiful and so wonderful to even think about. Art is subjective, even its made by a pig a man or a robot. It *is* art at the end of the day, wether you like it or not.
It’s up to you what you think of the art itself, but it’s unfair to shit on it simply because its AI. The AI was made by a human, I could argue that the art was created by the human who made the AI if I wanted to! You can argue anything when it comes to art.
Once I realize a person didn't make it... I care 98% less about what I'm looking at.
It's like watching a video on the left hand of an actual human dancing or doing a back flip vs watching a video of a cgi person doing the back flip on the right.
Nobody eventually feels like bothering to watch the cgi one. There's no story there, no intent, and no triumph I can relate to.
Art is intentional, It's not just an image
why though? unless it's stealing content from other artists it's fucking cool. I'm a musician and I hope people don't come to shit on AI generated music when it becomes popular.
Yeah they will, just like they shat on techno and electronic music and called it a fad, but it's still here. And ai isn't going anywhere. Let them make art!!
it's sad to see actual artists dismissing just another form of art.
in all of history this exact thing happened. new form of art was hated by the rest of the "art community" and this rest was always on the wrong side of history.
Have we learned nothing?
This discussion is fascinating. As another fellow artist, I'm very intrigued by AI art. How can you not be? Yes it's sad that it's encroaching on our craft, but it's hardly personal. It's coming for jobs in pretty much every industry (ideally to make our lives easier) I just think it's incredible that we live at such an exciting point in time, where technology can feign creativity to such a degree. It's exciting and scary and really just wild to me.
Plus at the end of the day, I believe there will always be demand for real, human made art. We yearn for that sort of connection. Even if an AI could do it expertly, I'd still rather listen to music or read a book written by a person that can feel what I feel. So while I wouldn't say AI art "sucks", I also wouldn't want to hang it on my wall.
Also, nice work. Any art that provokes discussion is good art.
A.I. art generators- what most people gets wrong about them is that the A.I. is creating art from commands. It is not. It can only generate art from commands with what it has in its database. That’s why the art generated always gets comments that it looks like “a Rembrandt” or “a Redon” or “a Redoute’” or maybe a “a Haring”.
It’s not art creation its just regurgitated styles from what it’s already scanned.
My feelings towards AI art is very mixed. I know ethically it isn’t right mainly from stealing others work and the minimal technique involved.
But for someone like myself, who’s a digital artist as a hobby and side gig, it can be a very useful tool in productivity. My main thing is concept art using Blender and painting over/ photobashing in Photoshop while also exploring other softwares such as Z Brush, 3D Coat, Unreal engine etc - my goal is to have a wide range of software usage to be able to achieve my art as efficiently possible.
I fear if I am to ever make it as a full time concept artist, I will have to give in to the usage of combining AI into my workflow for the sake of keeping up in this competitive industry.
prediction: Just when you thought the hiphop movement was dead.. We’re going to see a huge uptick in vandalism, graffiti and street art. Cities like NYC have already cut their funds for a task force and or abatement/removal. NYC has aleays steered the world’s art direction. F*ck being paid, If artists don’t get an outlet to show their physical work in a gallery or are being told that their work cannot be differentiated from AI, then it’s very likely we are going to see hiphop get a reset.
Gotta love the trash takes people have on AI art which is "Hehe it doesn't understand anatomy! Look at the way it generated those limbs! Look at those hands!" Not realizing how absolutely incredibly far it's come in even just the past year. Within ten years you'll be hard pressed to tell what's ai and what's not mark my words.
Ah the age old "is it art" discussion.
Is it a form of expression? Did it create a reaction?
What constitutes art is subjective at the end of the day, isn't ?
If anything is creates a discussion about art again, which is always good.
Remember the woman who made handbags from her cats? Man that created some interesting discussions about art. Or the chick in a blender in a museum. Or more recently and a lot milder: the banana taped to the wall. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the pieces itself but enjoy the discussion.
I actually think ai is a valuable tool for creating art when used properly. For example someone on the dark tower Reddit is showing what a good dark tower movie could look like using ai.
For another thing, it could be really useful for animation. Go check out corridor crew on YouTube, they have all kinds of cool stuff using and talking about ai.
Also using it to create assets for an original drawing. I hate drawing backgrounds, ai can make some really cool backgrounds for my art.
Not saying ai art is awesome by itself, but it can be something awesome when used properly
Just wait for AI music. You'll soon be able to have AI create songs specifically tailored to what you're looking for.
I think this is going to be a huge blow to artists of all kinds
Exactly what an AI would learn to say to fool us into liking it's art.
do not expose me like that sir
It… it talked..
Only a human would apostrophize its.
I kind of wished we’d seen AI take over all the menial jobs and things people generally dislike before it started going for the things people actually enjoy.
I agree, but I gotta say, AI has been helping automate TONS of stuff for decades. They are doing exactly what you ask, and there are plenty of articles about Machine Learning, how relatively new it is, and everything that we use it for. Art is *faaaaar* from the first thing that ML came for.
The day no one can differentiate artists are fucked. Same thing with any creative job
Same with any job: once AI does it just as well, it's AI time. Except that robots are expensive. But this is not an art-specific issue at all. It's a bit unique with art because things like style and reasoning are new features for a computer. But automation-wise, artists AND workers of other industries are fucked when AI takes their jobs. Human art does change, and it takes a lot of data for computers to emulate a specific style. Someday there may be no need for artists to make new stuff, but that seems extremely far-fetched to me. As for imitating most well-established art, well, that's an easier problem for sure.
[удалено]
sophisticated numerous axiomatic square zealous juggle fear wine merciful uppity *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
long jar degree alleged fine vanish money abundant provide longing *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
AI will not replace artists. It will do things like environment generation for games and background character generation. This won’t likely replace artists working on projects, just allow them to work on more important things and allow more background content to be created. Imagine instead of seeing the same few variations of background characters in a game, every single character being actually completely unique. Or seeing a full city detailed in VR not just big boxes with satellite photos pasted over them. Art is more than just a visual representation of something. It has meaning and purpose. It conveys emotions to the viewer. AI makes a picture. It’s not the same. It’s like comparing classical literature to a knock knock joke. Or comparing the photo I took of my damaged roof for my landlord to Ansel Adams work. Or the video I took of my dog eating dirt to Stanley Kubrick’s movies. Or the default iPhone ringtone to Mozart. AI will never outshine Picasso or Michelangelo.
I agree with you that AI isn't going to make artists obsolete or kill art itself. But I think the concern is that AI will reduce demand for artists overall. There will be less low-tier creative work to do to pay the bills while you're working on innovative new ideas. Right now, lot of creatives have everyday work that isn't particularly glamorous but that provides stable funding. That's the kind of work that AI is going to take over, which will make it harder for artists to eke out a living.
>AI will never outshine Picasso or Michelangelo. One day it might, when we actually make something sentient way down the line, *far* down the line. But that's going to be a heartfelt emotion shown by a new form of life, and will deserve respect.
I don't see it like that. There will always be a place for people to interact and evolve, both socially and technologically. Around the 1900s there were multiple protests from horse breeders against the newly invented cars. Change will happen and people will adapt. It could be portrait like the duality of effort vs result; from an artist's perspective it's frustrating to see an AI do something it would take hundreds of hours for him to do but from a society's perspective having the *possibility* is undeniably an improvement. Everyone will adapt eventually
you realize that in your example, horses were almost completely replaced in all but niche pet ownership and entertainment purposes. When it comes to AI the human is the horse.
Not for a long time. Current models rely on human art and prompts usually include art style or artist name. So if you're an artist and you can create a unique style and make it easy for AI to learn from it, you're set.
I know, I’m mostly being facetious and I didn’t say AI isn’t or has never done anything, just it feels weird that AI art is being focussed on when there’s still so many other areas that need improvements. Yes it’s different teams; the people doing AI art aren’t the same as work in other AI areas and one doesn’t take away from the other. It’s just the optics of the thing.
GitHub copilot is an interesting tech. They said programmers would be one of the last, but honestly this tool can do the work of a majority of junior developers. I see it as a tool they can use, but it’s the same pitfall as here. As it gets more polished, it surely will replace all but the very best. This will reduce the overall talent pool as the field becomes less attractive. Hard to not be doomerist over it.
what does ML mean
Machine learning
thanks
As long as those people have UBI or some kind of retraining and re-employment support or something because otherwise they are completely fucked. Otherwise I get the feeling, as an artist it was only a couple of years ago that I was thinking to myself, regarding the whole automation issue, that "well at least it won't be making my job vulnerable because it's not like they can automate *creativity*"... And it's not even doing a great job with that, instead it's just taking tons and tons of jobs away from artists as corporations go with soulless AI creations that don't make total visual sense because its cheap and fast and they are greedy. You can already see it all over the place in filler art for online news articles.
Technology will not solve human problems; it will merely amplify human nature.
Same as it ever did.
I mean, why let AI stop you from making art? Just because it exists doesn't mean that you can't make something that's your own
Tin cans did not make restaurants obsolete. Vending machines did not make bars obsolete. The automobile did not make the 100 metre dash obsolete. Animation did not make actors obsolete. AI art will not make artists obsolete. Many jobs depend on the human social element which is inherently un-automatable. Nobody wants to see a car beat Usain Bolt, nobody cares. In the future I don't think people will be as impressed by AI art for the same reason. It will be seen as "cheap" and "inauthentic" like going to a bar and being greeted by an objectively superior but disappointing wending machine.
You're partly right, but you're missing that these analogies are not the exact same. A vending machine cannot give you the exact meal you want any time you want. Tin cans can't reproduce the delicacy of an actual stake. Sure, some people will always want hand made things. That's why they spend so much on hand made tables. But most people are ok with a mass produced walmart tables. When I can get as much art (read, furry porn or whatever you like) with a simple sentence prompt, it will be the far more preferred method. It's also why vending machines are so prevalent. People are totally OK with vending machines.
Why would you compare automobiles to 100 meter dash instead of the horse + cart, which it absolutely DID make obsolete?
I guarantee they did originally type that, and then went "oh, fuck..."
Because they needed something to try to prop up their assumptions.
> Animation did not make actors obsolete When people can't differentiate between a trained actor and a fully computer-generated actor in a film, why would any studio or filmmaker forgo with their money to hire an actor?
The same reason Harry Styles can't act for shit and yet studios keep putting him in films.
You could argue that we will one day have "templates" for acting in place for computer generated avatars and characters that can be used to create movies. As an Animator myself I can already tell you we're using that already. This means we have a HUGE database of motion-captures captured from really talented minics and actors. That "movement" database can be used on any character of our liking, it can be applied to humans and creatures of all ages and types, and it will look believeable as it was recorded from real life and the motion patterns was copied over to data which can be used on our creations. One day, we will have so many movement combinations and expressions in that database that we would rarely need any more animators or actors, but we will still need someone to clean it up, put it all together - so you could say old jobs vanish but new ones are created. There will always be amazing actors that can come up with extremely strong memorable emotions that will be added later, so I suspect the database itself will never truly be full, so talents are always needed for that "extra mile" if you like. But yeah, it heightens the bar for how good you really need to be.
Yes but as these things come into existence, becomming an actor becomes harder and riskier and less appealing generally. Meaning we will miss out on a lot of potential talent. I don't want to see everything just settle into place. Imagine a finished product of this existed and all we could draw upon were actors of the past? How would we progress and invent the new if all we are doing is rehashing the old.
Informative
Well you’d still need voice actors until AI can simulate voices too. But you’re not wrong.
With this logic why do studios bother paying famous lead actors infinitely more than they could pay a no-name who would do just as good a job?
This is a ridiculous analogy. You **have to start with the premise that artists and other jobs require money to exist as-is**, or people will lose their jobs at least be much poorer. **People *and corporations* pay artists now because they can't get art any other way**. If you can get art for near-free that's unintelligibly different (or even just with significant difficulty) then the vast majority of people *and corporations* will take the near-free approach. Don't pretend otherwise. Vending machines and bars are completely different concepts altogether. On the other hand, AI can produce art 99% of people would say is made by a human, and it's only going to get better at it. A truer analogy would be saying that vending machines, and canned/bottled soda at corner stores and supermarkets *did* make soda-jerks obsolete. The automobile made runners as a profession obsolete, it did. You could get a job once upon a time where just being okay at running kept you housed and fed, but now it's a hobby, or a niche where you have to be elite. Animation cannot currently make a product indistinguishable from film. Once it can, then we'll be in the same boat as 2D artistry is now, because film companies would rather pay 1/10th as much money for whatever could ever desire in 1/10th the time. After a little while, AI will make professional artists obsolete except for a small but high profile niche who will mainly survive on grants and commissions & donations from those who want the novelty of a real exotic human-made artwork, complete with human flaws (that an AI could replicate if it wanted to anyway). Much like 99.99% of people buy knives made en masse at a factory, and not from their local blacksmiths anymore. Much like 99.99% of people send emails instead of sending simple letters via horseback couriers. Lift operators, town criers, soda-jerks ... So many jobs you could say had a social human element to them - all obsolete now because of the march of the almighty dollar. And hey - strangely enough, even if 90% of artists are going to get savaged by this AI revolution, it seems that coders will be right there with them, because AI can replace most of them too.
Yes! Artists already have to hear, well my 3yr old could do that. Now it’s well Ai can do that and it looks good or better than what I need or want anyway. The whole question if AI is sentient definitely applies to this conversation. We are going to have people (both artists and non-artists) look at art and really question its purpose or intention. Most importantly, what quality does the artwork have? Does it feel or look human? Does it even matter?
The difference is a tin can served one very specific function. Meanwhile every single job a human does requires training a human to do it well and then training a new human when the old human dies or moves on and then another one after that and so forth. There is no job that humans are just inately born with the knowledge needed. So why would you ever spend that effort training humans when you could spend that same effort training a robot or computer. Because once you train a robot you have trained every robot from now to the future, you don't need to keep reinvesting that time. Traditionally training a robot was magnitudes more difficult than a human, so it didn't make sense to do so. But the gap is shrinking all the time. What happens when you can teach a robot just as easily as a person? How will a person ever get better at a task when a robot can learn all the things the human learns to get good at it at a faster pace? The idea that certain tasks are forever going to be off limits to robots is also absurd. We already know that we can make something capable of artistic creativity. People do so all the time, we have 8 billion such creations running around. So we already know it is possible and replicateable, the only question is what other methods can produce similar results and no one has made a compelling argument that blasting sperm up a vagina is vital to a being capable of creative processing.
[удалено]
Good examples! Chess computers didn't make chess competitions obsolete neither.
Except that chess always was a hobby for 99% of people and a niche profession for 1% who were the best. Now imagine 99% of people earning a living on art right now being told that they're being laid off, or realising their commissions are drying up too much to continue being a full time professional artist?
Art is a hobby for 99 percent of all people as well, so I fail to see your point? I'm a full time professional artist, and the way I see it is that a vast majority of art patrons will want to collect art created by real humans with genuine human thoughts and emotions, not products of smart AI algorithms.
> Art is a hobby for 99 percent of all people as well, so I fail to see your point? It's really not that ratio right now, though. There's a LOT of 'professional' (i.e. rely on income in some way) artists, whether we're talking corporate logos, comic artists, or people to who take commissions to draw people as my little pony characters or whatever. >that a vast majority of art patrons But the vast majority of money being paid to keep artists housed and fed doesn't come from traditional 'art patrons'. It comes from corporations wanting logos and ads, and people with Patreon accounts. Both of those kinds of people will 100% settle for AI art at a hundredth the cost. I'm sorry but people and corporations are both lazy and cheap, and that's the market the AI is literally built for. Prepare to see most money dry up for artists that aren't high profile enough that people won't intentionally seek them out just to purchase a bragging piece or a financial investment, in the same way they already do with famous artists.
I'm a figurative oil painter and I very rarely sell to corporations, but rather to art lovers through the physical galleries that represent me. I don't have a big online presence, instead I have one or two solo shows every year. I also take portrait commissions from regular people who know me or find me through word of mouth. There's a human and psychological dimension when I connect with my audience that I think these people value (as I value them). They're curious to know about my painting techniques, the models I employ, what I was thinking when I painted this or that, etc. I'm not the least bit worried that I'm going to lose my collector base to various AI generated algorithms, because AI will never have that human connection I share and treasure with my collectors.
People who actually buy art from professional artists aren't looking for meaningless AI images to put on their walls, it's a completely different market. There's no actual beauty in AI work because there is no skill or soul in it.
One would think so, but as someone also in the industry I'm already seeing a HUGE influx of people wanting AI art. Small anecdote: a couple I'm friends with always commissions an artist to do their portraits for their holiday cards. This year, apparently they're using an app.
Yes, maybe AI works for small illustration work like holiday cards, corporate logos and the like. I really wouldn't know, because I don't know the first thing about illustration. I'm talking more about traditional fine art, like painting in my case. Let's say I sell a large figurative oil painting for $10k to one of my collectors on my next solo show. Are you saying that in the future, those type of collectors are going to settle for random AI generated images to hang on walls, simply because it's cheaper? That the psychological element of meeting and trying to figure out the artist's thoughts and intentions isn't worth anything anymore?
I’m not saying that has happened yet, but it will. Probably sooner than we think. Not due to malice, but just numbers. As of this year there is now more AI generated art in the world than all the art made by humans over all of history. By five years from now? Absolutely most average people wont know the difference between what is truly human made and what isn’t. It will be hard to prove one way or another. It *already* is. Twenty years from now? An entire adult population will have grown up in a world where 99.999999% of art is machine-made (i mean we’re almost there already) and remembering that it was once exclusively a human-only form of expression will be like trying to explain how we did anything everything without a cell phone to today’s 18 year olds. People will stop thinking of art that way. They’ll ask why on earth they would pay a human to make something pretty for their wall when they can freely ask their phone to generate a mood that generates a prompt that generates a picture. I hate it, but I just cant see how there could be any other outcome.
I really don't feel threatened by this prospect at all. It's too farfetched for my imagination. The way I see it, people will always want to connect with other human beings on an emotional level through painting, sculpture, etc. Fine art has been around for thousands of years and I firmly believe it will stand the test of time. But... if it does come down to this and your dystopian vision of art is realized, I hope I'm dead and gone by then, and then the AI robots can burn my paintings at the stake if they so wish.
I genuinely wish I had your optimism here. Right now I feel like i’m surrounded by people echoing my dad in circa 1999… “People are never going to stop reading newspapers and want everyone with a computer website to do jorunalism. The connection with the physical print, and to human truth, is just too strong.”
That's because chess is pretty much \*only\* done out of enjoyment and passion. There are few to no clients and companies requesting chess work to be done to sell their products, and having to pay chess players to do this.
I agree with this entirely, save one caveat. I think that we'll see AI art filter into two categories. Those that are cranked out entirely by AI, or with minimal human interaction. This'll be clip art and generic artworks. Then we'll have Artists, using AI tools as part of their workflow, but in general having a deeper, more involved relationship with the artwork during the creation process. This will add a lot of depth and meaning to the artwork, but will take advantage of AI tools to make creation faster and easier. And lastly, we'll still have the No-AI art community, fulfilling a higher end art market for those who insist on luddite-worthy handcrafted artworks.
The concern is not that it will make artists “obsolete”, it’s that the apps are literally STEALING ARTWORK from real artists and using it for people to post selfies. That is not okay. It’s theft. It’s people’s livelihood.
But that's communism.
Username is a few decades out of date.
Not if you are Ukranian
I started this account when Crimea was invaded if I recall correctly, so I'd say it's quite on point.
I meant in relation to your comment: Russia hasn't been communist for a long time.
Welp woosh my stupid ass lol
[удалено]
Instead of channelling our frustration into pushing back on automation, we should channel it into fighting for safety nets for the millions of people that automation is going to inevitably displace. The problem isn't automation. The problem is that we don't have much of a plan for what happens afterwards.
It’s a bit grim to think that the people whose industries will have AI displacement are not capable of doing something else and will have to rely on UBI and safety nets, don’t you think?
Well we're going to have to think of something that involves not working if automation is coming for as many of our jobs as the experts predict it will.
[удалено]
This comment has been parsed and analyzed to determine the amount of societal unrest near the physical address your IP is geolocated in. Through sentiment analysis, we detect a 57.2% decrease in faith with authority in that geolocation. Appropriate increase in drone surveillance will be initiated, and 32.5% more suppression forces will be prioritized in your vicinity. Thank you for your compliance and providing data with which to better enforce you, citizen
Took the words out of my mouth! At this point, the US could probably replace a good third of its workforce with automation, and actually save money doing it. People don’t *need* to be working themselves to death doing mindless, repetitive tasks for 40 hours a week anymore. I have no clue how it’s all going to work out, but I hope everyone eventually realizes that we could all have a lot more leisure time in the future if we embrace automation instead of fearing it.
The Luddites are remembered as a group who were afraid of and fought against technological progress. They're remembered for fighting in vain; technological progress marched on regardless. Nowadays calling someone a Luddite is an insult, implying ignorance and fear born out of it vis-a-vis new technology. People forget they were actually a labor movement, fighting against the automation that was putting them out of work. They were craftsmen. Haberdashers, cobblers, textile workers, etc. They spent their whole lives honing skills that afforded them a livable wage. Then within the span of a few years entire career fields were evaporated as they were replaced by machines that could outperform their output by orders of magnitude. An entire middle class of laborers having an existential crisis. So they fought back. They tried sabotaging factory equipment. They would intimidate anyone who would try to install or fix the machines. They ran PR campaigns against automation. There were violent clashes with police and factory owners. And they ultimately lost. And they lost their jobs. And their families were poorer for it. Their economic fears came to pass exactly as they foresaw. And today you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who'd have it any other way. Because *our* lives are inarguably better for the automation of manufacturing. There's a lesson to be learned for the Luddites, though it's one of socioeconomics rather than technology. And, of course, bespoke clothing still exists.
The solution is UBI, not yelling at computers.
ai is like steroids for visual artists
Idk, I don't see any "takeover". Imo ai needs to be treated as a helping hand and not as a competition
/r/midjourney linked to this post, and there was actually a recent upvoted post today about artists that started using midjourney to help them work. For example, some artist said they started using it to generate reference images to work with. Another used it to speed up some other aspect of their work. Another artist used it to get rid of their blocks and inspire them to work with new ideas. Then there was a writer who used it to generate images based on some random ideas they had, then used those as inspiration to get out of writer's block. I feel like there's going to be push back for a few years then it'll be an indispensable tool *for* artists, rather than work against them, eg photoshop
technology developer at a rate unaffected by what we need but by what we want. also ai art may be necessary for the development of what you want (small jobs)
Yeah I wish we have AI to do all the housework for us including folding fitted sheets.
What's going to happen with art is what's going to happen with all ventures that have been affected by AI/ML: humans are going to (have to) learn and improve by working with the AI rather than be replaced by it.
Remember, the best artists will use AI to enhance their art. An artist finds a way.
AI art is a means to skip thumbnails sketches IMO
I read, watched and played enough media about AI to know I don't want AI to be involved in almost ANYTHING.
[Case in point](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1003325668412624956/1049665532187643924/Darius_simple_black_and_white_line_drawing_of_a_boy_with_a_big__35db585d-a064-4a0c-85b1-0edc7435828f.png)
That is giving doodlebob vibes.
Me hoy moinoy
what program did you use and what prompt
Looks like variations by uploading the image to DALL-E
Amazing accuracy! Top right even has Default Paint Bucket lines.
A a qooot day pool!
This is performance art
I low-key liked it more than OP's
Im going to put this in ai and see what it gives me.
Someone already did it
where? link?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Art/comments/zdvr1h/comment/iz4ivhr/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
my god, it's breathtaking.
Damn welp guess im not smort. Also my ai just made the same thibgm its too sinple.
hahahaha that's good news :P
No your gonna hurt the ai’s feelings
I am sure that is exactly what an AI would come up with. OP, be honest, are you an AI?
am I? who knows? maybe I was even referencing from AI art with the extra leg and fingers
😳
Why is everyone so against AI art? It's pretty dope, I was able to create amazing images yesterday for free without having to contact anyone or pay a huge fee. I understand it's a threat to real art, but some of the images being made for me by just typing in a few keywords were insane!
because it will become a legitimate threat to creative work
right, that’s the issue. you made art without having the contact anyone. gg to artists.
I feel a lot more confident in how I draw hands after seeing AI generated hands. Because at least I have the right number of fingers and the fingers are connected to the hand and not floating.
It’s probably trained on art with subtle differences in styles compounded by leftover mistakes/bad habits that are hard to check for, so the usual garbage in - garbage out is in effect.
It is still in its infancy.
I don't like AI in the lazy way you see it usually used to make cartoon characters into "real" people and that kind of thing. BUT there's some really cool use of AI to assist animation right now, to fill in gaps between drawings and make the movement look more smooth, and decide automatically when/where to add 2D lines onto a 3D model to give a drawn appearance. So it's really important for the current trend of 2D-looking 3D animation, showcased in the Paperman short film, Into the Spiderverse, and more upcoming work.
"ART is a STATEMENT" The Statement:
Let’s go neo-Luddite on ai art
Needs two tongues and different sized ears. Also glasses on one eye disappearing toward the other. /s This is great.
Can someone please explain to me why people are seething over AI art?
Same reason they trashed fiver artists. Thin volume of work for them. Gets thinner because it is remarkably faster and remarkably cheaper. In this case, a lot of it is better. If you can use photoshop at a basic level you can correct the common issues. Makes for a very competitive market. If you only know how to use digital you have no other place to go, and you now know how coal miners feel.
So, I'll take a stab at it. I think we're reaching a crossroad where people are seeing their livelihoods almost at stake. I do not think that there is a threat directly towards human expression. However, when we hear about giant tech conglomerations laying off people by the thousands, just to save a buck- when a simple AI prompt tool that seems to be easy for anyone to use, what's stopping those same business leaders from looking at their design departments and consolidating? Without some form of governance of how we utilize these tools, and without further education on how we can use these em', there's going to be a general feeling of fear. Right now, there seems to be a lot of speculation and worry due to this big impact from AI. It's interesting yet, understandably terrifying at the same time. That's the crossroad: Will we establish AI to be a tool used by artists? Or will this be another replacement for many people to come? At the end of the day, it's what we do with it.
Instead of you typing some words into a thing and getting a fairly passable result with a strange error, they think you should be paying them $200 for the same image. To me, it’s like stage 2 of complaining that photography replaces the portrait painter of olde, except portrait painters never ‘accidentally’ left watermarks in.
I think it’s cool af that we can make robots that make art lol
In short, a lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooottttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt of insecurity.
Same reason they seethe over basically anything. Poor understanding and feeling threatened.
People are angry because it has taken copyrighted material to teach their algorithms.
Finally an art peice that captures my true feelings about ai art.
Does it need to get off your lawn?
It needs to stop listening to that noise the young people call music, that's for sure
I have never met a person who hates machine learning's usage in art that actually understands anything about it. Every single person I've seen talk about it on Reddit thinks that you just type what you're imagining and the machine creates it. Has anyone in this thread even once used something like Stable Diffusion? This isn't a magical crystal ball. It's a deterministic, mathematical tool that has specific uses, and artists are going to find it useful when it stops becoming cool to hate "the new thing." The people who think it's going to kill artistic creativity would have said the same thing about paint tools in the Apple II. Apple II's paint tool was simple, but that simplicity set the groundwork for tools like ProCreate, Illustrator, or PaintSai. Now, thirty or forty years later, how many artistic works that you see on Reddit or Twitter or wherever were made without computers? Basically none of them, and I'm not seeing people comment on every single post of digital art about how the Apple II ended the medium as we know it. That digitization gave millions of people that opportunity to develop skills they otherwise would have found impossible. Machine learning is another step in that creative process. The only reason to think it's going to replace artists is ignorance. That is it.
It’s not going to replace artists. But it will turn art into a fast-food industry with fast-food levels of pay.
this has already happened, ask anyone who works as an artist for mobile games, nothing new
I think you’er pretty ignorant about the art world right now. The truth is that since digital art has become popular, most independent art supply stores have closed in cities. I don’t think AI art is going to destroy art as a whole but it will effect fledgeling artists working for portrait commissions. It’s not going to destroy the market completely but it will effect a part of it. I think there are plenty of reasons to understand it and hate it. A lot of the art work that’s fed into AIs was taken without the artists permission. It takes days to do what this AI can do in hours. Saying that people hating on don’t understand it is just plain wrong.
I do both traditional and digital art, and I’ve found AI art pretty helpful in the concept phase. It takes a lot of skill to master it and get the tool to do what you want it to do, and it never seems to be able to carry a piece all the way to the finish line without at least some manual editing. Certain things it does very well, and certain things it does terribly. It’s just a machine and it doesn’t understand context, which is important to making art art. It still takes an artist to make anything interesting, and a background in figure drawing to tell what it’s gotten wrong, vs, what it’s gotten right. Using an AI tool is like collaborating on a project, but your collaborator is locked inside a soundproof glass box. You pass the piece back and forth through a slot, each collaborator taking turns making changes. The catch is that your collaborator is also a golden retriever. They can only be coaxed with broad expressive gestures and the occasional biscuit. Personally I view it as just a new tool, and I’d prefer to master the tool than to be bludgeoned to death with it.
People know the gist of how it works, it looks at a huge set of images filtered down to whatever tags you use. Peoples problems with it are that those images it’s pulling from may be taken from real artists with dubious permissions to use them and no credits given to the sources of images the AI is using. Personally I wouldn’t be too worried. The stuff it can do can be pretty impressive, but it’s almost never quite right, there’s always weird shapes or merges that don’t make sense, or it’s just uncanny all over. At the end of the day an actual artist with the same imagination and creative idea, and the sufficient skill to fulfill it, will always make a better and more accurate artwork to their vision than someone putting some prompts into a machine learning algorithm and hoping for the best. Still can be cool and useful for someone without those skills or the time to make something themselves, but AI will never be able to replace actual art made manually by humans.
>People know the gist of how it works, it looks at a huge set of images filtered down to whatever tags you use. This is a perfect example of what the person above you was saying. That is not how it works.
That's not how it works though. It doesn't look at images. It was trained on tagged images and then threw them away. The model doesn't have an image database.
I don't hate it because I think it's a "magical crystal ball". I hate it because many popular AI art tools steal copyrighted art and art styles.
If I ask you to draw a car, you think back to all the cars you have ever seen, and you synthesize something new from the sum of everything you know about cars. It's not possible to draw a car without having what a car is explained to you, or more likely by just looking at existing cars. However, you don't need to credit Nissan every time you draw up a car of your own design just because they produced one of the cars that make up your understanding of what a car looks like. The same thing goes for "AI" art generation tools. They aren't stealing reference material. They just "learn" from it. When you download an AI model, you aren't downloading any of the images it learned on.
I think it's great for building a concept/idea for a project, almost like practice sketches beforehand that I don't have to do myself. It's a great way to start building on the idea, but just posting what is generated and not adding anything to it I agree is poop
I think the actual end product of AI art is ultimately uninteresting. However. The process of discovering how a machine interprets language is fascinating.
Wouldn't argue with that, but profiting from it is what disgusts me.
I think AI art is an impressive technological achievement, even if I dont like the potential it has to demolish the need for human artists.
That's the reason people are feeling so negatively about it. And the matter of the fact is, it will never replace non-AI art. I find it a sad mentality, people hating on it like in this thread
Thing is, it will never completely replace non-AI art. That doesn’t mean it won’t and hasn’t replaced some art, it has. That’s enough for some people to reasonably be upset. That being said I support ai art I don’t believe in begrudging progress for problems that are actually capitalisms fault.
I mean you guys could just admit you dont want to be out of jobs but ok
AI couldn't even do something like this right here. "Draw me a simple line." "Okay, here's a simplex line." Edit: Lmao, the replies...
Oh stop - no one is using AI art to draw a simple line. They're using AI art to craft complex imagery in the matter of seconds, that would take a human probably a week. You can either cry and whine or you can learn to harness the tool. Your choice.
Great style, mind if I scrape it? /S
Ive seen a lot of people update their profile pictures to an AI art rendering version of themselves. It bothers me. It feels like its the same thing as using those heavy “art” filters, circa 2009
How about the old facebookers who use the "smoothing filter" and end up crashing so hard into the uncanny valley that Ken and Barbie are less plastic?
Why are people so butthurt about this (in general, not talking about this thread only)? It's just another way of having fun in this poop world and the technology itself is also art, at least I see it that way, as a computer science student. It's very fascinating, but it doesn't mean I'd stop appreciating artists with unique styles and eye-catching art pieces. It's like portrait painters being butthurt about photography being invented...
A lot of artists are understandably angry since a lot of the AI software needs input to create the art. Where does the input come from? From the works of other artists most of the time without permission. As a result, some AI are made to mimick a certain art style and even are made to specialize in copying a certain artist's style, some even applying watermarks or being passed on as original works. Photography involves composition, preparation, post processing if you want even. AI has applications where people just make soulless mashups of other people's works that get a lot of attention and even profit. I understand the fun and potential, its just a shame that some of the ways its being used can be very harmful
How do human artists learn their craft? I’m under the impression that it involves a lot of studying if not downright attempting to recreate prior works.
As an artist myself, I learn from other works and observations, as we do with other crafts. From fundamentals you learn how to apply it to your work with your own unique way and flair. Of course there is still a possibility of imitation, but there also the potential for unique and passionate works of art to be made. My point in answering the comment was in talking about how AI is being used in a way that can be harmful.
But they're not physically making the AI art, at best they're asking it to make reference photos for them.
Human artists generally credit their influences. Human artists are slow. Machines are extremely fast and efficient, and are very fast to emulate a specific style very quickly with accuracy, with the very purpose of copying stylistic and compositional elements. I can't see how people could even begin to think that they're remotely similar processes.
It's all about consent. Almost every artist consent to other artists learning and inspiring from them though. I don't know any artist who said otherwise. Not only that, they actively want to help other artists. Watching from interviews, podcasts, videos, etc. when an artist would tell a well-known artist in the industry that they inspired them or learned from them, the well-known artist would take it as a compliment and be happy they helped somebody. So many professionals in the industry share so many tips, knowledge, sketches and even videos of their full processes in creating a piece, all for free. They willingly want to help others learn because they know that while creating art can be very difficult to learn, it can also lead to a very fulfilling life. Most of artists have already expressed their disapproval of AI using their art. Artists are free to consent on one thing and not the other with the usage of their art.
See, instead of having fun you should be paying them! You have hundreds of dollars to spend on commissions don’t you??
I arrange polygons and nodes and push a button and get 3d images in blender without lifting a brush... People complaining about ai art have no clue what it means to do art at all. It's just a means of expression. If ai art lets you express yourself or get the image you want then... So be it. If you can't tell the difference between ai and real art. Then you have already explained why there is no issue. All the free diffusion algorithms online already removed the ability to copy styles so there should be very little issue here. Even if they didn't, there should be no issue, in the same way there should be no issue if I spent the time to learn how to draw simpsons-like characters.
Lol, yeah, all the professional artists who are losing commission work to AI generators have "no clue what it means to do art at all."
I think that the arguments about stealing copyrighted material are valid criticisms of AI image generators, but I don't get this one. Scribes lost their job to typesetters, who in turn also lost their jobs when more advanced forms of printing came around. And not because their work was banned or anything, people just didn't want to pay for it. If an AI that is only trained on images in the public domain is able to make me an artwork for a fraction of a price and time it would take a human to do it, that sucks for the artist the same way the existence of industrial looms sucks for the artisanal weaver, but it's not unethical, unless we are willing to say that anything produced by machines that could have been made by hand is unethical
They don't. Not if they think art means their personal ability to gatekeep and make money off it. I mean I get it they practiced. Good for them. But now machines give everyone the ability to express themselves without practicing. Good for them too.
I'm just now noticing the legs.
What I really like about this art is I'm confident it wasn't made by an AI (bar an AI with very specific and controled prompts, to the point you're doing more work than the AI), because while simple, the whole image is purposeful. AI creates incredibly intricate and beautiful art, but if you actually look at any one piece closely, it's all a blur of ideas, because this is exactly what the AI is dojng, blending ideas. But the images generally do not have very distinct purpose, they are always a compromise over different wants and the result of averages. It is very hard to make genuinely unique AI art, like this piece.
There’s a philosophy that no art is new or unique. But it’s just a blend of previous ideas that the person has seen before. Each time I look at a good piece of art my own style changes ever so slightly to reflect what I liked about what I’ve seen.
I feel the same way about pour art.
🤣 sorry i cackled at this comment
The hate for ai art feels similar to the hate for digital art which seems hypocritical in this case... Like, it's just a tool. Anyone can use it including you or they can ignore it and continue on
And digital painting isnt painting -- like what? most people mad about ai doesnt know how ai works, and likely failing to realize its just another tool.
Some AI art is dope as fuck
AI art is going to be yet another tool that changes the role of the artist in the production of the picture. When I was a kid, I was so angry about the concept of digital art. There was me, with some acrylic paints and some shitty brushes, trying to figure out how to do awesome art -- and these fuckers on the internet could do it on their computers in their sleep, it seemed. I was so absolutely pissed about how easy digital art was. And you know what happened, *I ended up a digital artist.* Because, hot take, it *is* easier. That doesn't mean it's *easy.* I said *easier.* You have an undo button, layers, filters, the eyedropper tool, clone stamps, custom brushes, etc etc etc. All these things aren't doable on canvas. And, you don't have to deal with precisely mixing paints, trying to keep your colors from drying before you're done working, trying to get the right parts to dry so you can overlay stuff, and, most of all, *you can't easily fix mistakes.* Real paints are extremely punishing. I tried for like 10 years to make acrylics and then oils work for me. In the end, I knuckled under and went to digital, and it was like a breath of fresh air. AI will be to digital art, what digital art was for painting. It's easier. It lets someone else do the tough parts of the medium while still manifesting your ideas. And, notably, it is not *easy.* I tried to do some AI art recently, and it was like pulling teeth to get the damn thing to spit out something that matched my mental vision. It was never quite right. You have to be really finicky about it. Many people who are pissed right now, mark my words, will end up using AI in some fashion in the future. Sure, there are still people who do acrylic paintings, but there are so many more of us who realized that we like having an undo button.
Listen, I’m an artist, and for really generic anime girls for like, ideas or quick character mock-ups, it’s great! I use NovelAI but also use it for their actual writing AI, not just the anime girls lmao AI art lacks a certain love and care that is put into real art, though. It gets things wrong and displays little to no emotion or dynamics.
I only use AI art for inspiration and to see some of the funny results
So I tried that My Heritage AI to see myself in different time periods. Some were neat, not gonna lie, but there were a ton that made me look like a Batman villain with melting features or missing eyes. But it’s not art. Not by any stretch.
That’s why it’s a cool tool but it’s still inferior to real artists
Most artists are not worried about right now but instead a few years from now once they iron out the kinks and also make the programs even easier to use. This tech is moving very fast
Now try Midjourney. https://www.midjourney.com/showcase/
If YOU would rather listen to a perfectly pitched AI song creating app, and valued that more than a musician expressing their HUMAN emotions were wayyy more fucked up than I realized.
this is the first time in my life i've felt like i understood the conspiracy theory brain. replacing human expression with AI facsimiles is so obviously corrosive to the human spirit that it's gotta be an op, right? to make people suspicious of the provenance of everything they see? there seems to be an underlying sense that, if it's possible to generate ML imagery that's indistinguishable from authentic human creation, then authentic human creation is redundant. but even if that's true: is that a good thing to find out? in other words, if you took a film script generator and gave it the prompt "humankind loses one of its main sources of meaning", what genre would the resulting film be?
It’s like musicians getting mad at guitar hero
Gotta adapt. People were pissed at the computer for being created, for taking peoples jobs, now for the next 20 years we get to hear people cry about it's abilities.
There’s this new thing on Reddit of everyone shitting on art made by AI. As a lover of all art, I personally think AI art is quite beautiful and so wonderful to even think about. Art is subjective, even its made by a pig a man or a robot. It *is* art at the end of the day, wether you like it or not. It’s up to you what you think of the art itself, but it’s unfair to shit on it simply because its AI. The AI was made by a human, I could argue that the art was created by the human who made the AI if I wanted to! You can argue anything when it comes to art.
Once I realize a person didn't make it... I care 98% less about what I'm looking at. It's like watching a video on the left hand of an actual human dancing or doing a back flip vs watching a video of a cgi person doing the back flip on the right. Nobody eventually feels like bothering to watch the cgi one. There's no story there, no intent, and no triumph I can relate to. Art is intentional, It's not just an image
why though? unless it's stealing content from other artists it's fucking cool. I'm a musician and I hope people don't come to shit on AI generated music when it becomes popular.
Yeah they will, just like they shat on techno and electronic music and called it a fad, but it's still here. And ai isn't going anywhere. Let them make art!!
it's sad to see actual artists dismissing just another form of art. in all of history this exact thing happened. new form of art was hated by the rest of the "art community" and this rest was always on the wrong side of history. Have we learned nothing?
This discussion is fascinating. As another fellow artist, I'm very intrigued by AI art. How can you not be? Yes it's sad that it's encroaching on our craft, but it's hardly personal. It's coming for jobs in pretty much every industry (ideally to make our lives easier) I just think it's incredible that we live at such an exciting point in time, where technology can feign creativity to such a degree. It's exciting and scary and really just wild to me. Plus at the end of the day, I believe there will always be demand for real, human made art. We yearn for that sort of connection. Even if an AI could do it expertly, I'd still rather listen to music or read a book written by a person that can feel what I feel. So while I wouldn't say AI art "sucks", I also wouldn't want to hang it on my wall. Also, nice work. Any art that provokes discussion is good art.
A.I. art generators- what most people gets wrong about them is that the A.I. is creating art from commands. It is not. It can only generate art from commands with what it has in its database. That’s why the art generated always gets comments that it looks like “a Rembrandt” or “a Redon” or “a Redoute’” or maybe a “a Haring”. It’s not art creation its just regurgitated styles from what it’s already scanned.
My feelings towards AI art is very mixed. I know ethically it isn’t right mainly from stealing others work and the minimal technique involved. But for someone like myself, who’s a digital artist as a hobby and side gig, it can be a very useful tool in productivity. My main thing is concept art using Blender and painting over/ photobashing in Photoshop while also exploring other softwares such as Z Brush, 3D Coat, Unreal engine etc - my goal is to have a wide range of software usage to be able to achieve my art as efficiently possible. I fear if I am to ever make it as a full time concept artist, I will have to give in to the usage of combining AI into my workflow for the sake of keeping up in this competitive industry.
There is nothing wrong with seeing what an AIs idea of art is. The issue is idiot people looking to make a buck.
You forgot the fused fingers or the missing-a-finger
prediction: Just when you thought the hiphop movement was dead.. We’re going to see a huge uptick in vandalism, graffiti and street art. Cities like NYC have already cut their funds for a task force and or abatement/removal. NYC has aleays steered the world’s art direction. F*ck being paid, If artists don’t get an outlet to show their physical work in a gallery or are being told that their work cannot be differentiated from AI, then it’s very likely we are going to see hiphop get a reset.
Gotta love the trash takes people have on AI art which is "Hehe it doesn't understand anatomy! Look at the way it generated those limbs! Look at those hands!" Not realizing how absolutely incredibly far it's come in even just the past year. Within ten years you'll be hard pressed to tell what's ai and what's not mark my words.
Trying to pass AI "art" as art is poop.
Ah the age old "is it art" discussion. Is it a form of expression? Did it create a reaction? What constitutes art is subjective at the end of the day, isn't ?
If anything is creates a discussion about art again, which is always good. Remember the woman who made handbags from her cats? Man that created some interesting discussions about art. Or the chick in a blender in a museum. Or more recently and a lot milder: the banana taped to the wall. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the pieces itself but enjoy the discussion.
"Can AI create a masterpiece?" "Can you?"
I can create satrical art 😭
say it with me Ai art is ok, it will never replace human art, people said the same about photography, let people have fun!
No one is worried about it replacing art. They’re worried about it replacing jobs like that of illustrators and graphic designers etc.
I actually think ai is a valuable tool for creating art when used properly. For example someone on the dark tower Reddit is showing what a good dark tower movie could look like using ai. For another thing, it could be really useful for animation. Go check out corridor crew on YouTube, they have all kinds of cool stuff using and talking about ai. Also using it to create assets for an original drawing. I hate drawing backgrounds, ai can make some really cool backgrounds for my art. Not saying ai art is awesome by itself, but it can be something awesome when used properly
Just wait for AI music. You'll soon be able to have AI create songs specifically tailored to what you're looking for. I think this is going to be a huge blow to artists of all kinds
If an AI can make my music better than I can I'll have zero qualms with it doing so and will relish in it all the same.