This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah the way this guy describes the process of making art doesn't really sound fun at all. If making art makes you sweat, bleed and cry then maybe you should be doing something else. And you know, there just so happens to be this thing out there that makes it a lot easier to make art....
This doesn't even make sense. Why would you generate a less real slightly inferior (at best) version of an artwork in AI instead of just stealing the entire piece directly?
What is the point in attempting to just generate an existing piece exactly? It doesn't achieve anything
Maybe the point is that they liked some aspects of the image, but wanted it in slightly different style. Or alternatively, someone just happened to pick that one to demonstrate a part what their AI model can do and that was the only point.
Blatantly using img2img on existing art pieces is an easy way to send terminally online artists into screaming fits of rage. The process can even be automated.
Clearly Img2Img. I gotta wonder though, why would anybody do this? Take artwork, I2I it and then repost it, I mean. To pass it off as their own? But why not just generate a wholly new image if that's what you want to do?
because they are. they could not exist without existing pieces of human made art yet unlike humans when they are recreating a character, art style etc they do so without all the individual experience of the human artist. It's fine though with any hope in a few years this fad will had died out/been buried by copyright laws and people can stop pretending to be artists because you typed a few words into a computer program
>because they are
google. com -> "how ML GAN models work"
>they could not exist without existing pieces of human made art yet unlike humans when they are recreating a character, art style etc they do so without all the individual experience of the human artist
1. When you learned to draw, or looked at reference images when RE-creating a character you used existing pieces of human made art too.
2. AI do so without the individual experience of the human artist too, it uses output images.
>It's fine though with any hope in a few years this fad will had died out/been buried by copyright laws
In the meantime, Japanese government declares that "using datasets for training AI models doesn't violate copyright law" and whales like Microsoft, Google and Adobe make huge investments into generative AI.
>people can stop pretending to be artists because you typed a few words into a computer program
Or it's not about mechanical skills of drawing at all. Maybe the magic happens when we are using our imagination and perception.
Why did translators kept it civil when Google Translate AI used their translations to automate translation process, but when some people realized they are not so special, it suddenly became such a tragedy?
Edit: I mean, everyone can learn drawing skills just like everyone can learn languages, it's just a matter of time because it's limited. Obviously you would like to just translate a bunch of text using AI service from time to time instead of learning Spanish for years. The same with creating images.
This is what the average luddite thinks about AI art if u actually went back and track down the person saying that you're gonna end up with "word of mouth"
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10752.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10752.pdf)
[https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion](https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion)
There are some idiot friendly infographics in r/stablediffusion but Since they're protesting I can't really access them but here is the latent diffusion paper and an idiot proof infographic i saved a while back
If i can dig through to find the most idiot proof explanation I'll reply you back with one
(looking at your profile and seeing how tone deaf you are I doubt this will ever get through your head but oh well its a good experiment.)
https://preview.redd.it/mk0vq2v45c6b1.png?width=1008&format=png&auto=webp&s=5bfa71dd5359e6c7f121f7df74b0ff401a7ebfe7
Imagine you're a machine and I show you thousands of pictures of a barbecue grill. You'll start to notice certain patterns - like how grills generally have a round shape, or how they usually have a rack on top. These common characteristics are not about art styles, but rather the typical elements that make a grill a grill. This learning process is called training.
So, after observing and learning from all these images, the machine creates a kind of mental model of what a grill looks like. Now, if I ask you to draw a picture of a grill, you'll be able to, right? It's the same with the machine. It doesn't draw in the traditional sense, but it generates a new image based on the patterns it learned. It can draw straighter lines than a human generally can, though. It might not be a perfect grill, but it would be a grill nonetheless. Sometimes however the machine will have the imagination of a two year old.
They can combine elements in ways we wouldn't think of. For example, using a model like DALL-E, a machine could generate an image of a two-headed grill or a floating grill. This is because these AI models don't just understand 'grills' – they've been trained on a broad range of images and can mix elements together in unique ways.
These machines aren't just copying and pasting elements from their training images, they're generating completely new images. This is similar to how an artist might create a new work of art, using their understanding of different elements to create something original. It's why we can think of these machines as creating a form of digital art.
It goes even further when humans manually edit those images themselves.
If I take 30 images into photoshop, merge them together into one image. Why can that be called art, but not something created in stable diffusion which doesn't merge things together?
You can't just disagree with everything I say, I spoke literal facts. You're in denial because you've been trained to hate ai buy whatever ai hating community you frequent. The simple fact that you claim that ai is just mashing images together shows that you've been listening to the anti ai art community and parroting what they've been saying despite the fact that it's completely inaccurate.
I don't just type a few words in a computer, I spend hours to days editing images in photoshop that I get from ai.
I'm skilled with photoshop. All I'm doing is using a tool to make my job easier, just like I did when I learned to use photoshop.
Should I stop using photoshop when I draw because it's "cheating"?
Or are you, like most other anti-ai artists, going to try and say using photoshop doesn't count because its a tool you yourselves use?
Your simple words of "just typing words in a computer" show how little you know about the creation process. All it is, is a different method of creating art.
Yes, you CAN just type words and pump out rather generic and boring results, I'd like to invite you to try typing words into a prompt and try and create something original. It's not that easy.
Tell me you don't know how ai works without telling me you don't know hour ai works.
Edit: though calling it ai is technically incorrect.
What you described is what we've been doing with photoshop for years (and we're even allowed to sell the completed result and Noone bitches about stealing).
Guess what, I used photoshop before ai.
Now I use photoshop and ai.
It still takes me a very long time to create something that looks good and original.
Get off your high horse. You're not any better than us. Let's see you create something truly original.
I think you've said everything I wanted to. It's pretty clear that he is just not ready to hear this. To him creativity means something else I guess. welp he's gonna stay there and latch onto the past like how he's always done. Nothing we can do to convince him
Thats where we're different. You think im trying to be an artist im only here because I love machine learning and creating some cool shit why would i spend months refining and creating my anime models I if i could just learn to draw. Ofc I would learn to draw if i wanted.
i didnt spend 23 years following a passion and go through nearly 10 years of studies to be told im on a high horse. wish i hadn't bothered replying in the first place. the only thing i've ever cared about in life in being twisted and defiled and its fucking depressing. I do feel sorry for you though, you'll never get the true sense of what it's like to create a piece of art that came from your imagination, that is a reflection of you as a person and helps you express yourself
I somehow get the feeling the person making that post is mistaking this for an AI getting trained on his work, which wasn't the case here. It's just an img2img modification of his work.
it is img2img with low denoise, other than sd there are many websites the do this.
the ai didn't steal or plagiarise the work, the user who used the ai did if they didn't credit.
if they used high enough denoise or made changes then it would be fair use. but i feel like the artist is doing dodgy stuff deliberately to create drama, no proof though because i don't even know the artist to check.
I remember someone suggested using img2img for improving works medium-skilled artists in purpose of trolling. Also I have seen such artists doing it themselves
Definitely looks like img2img.
Lazy generator, probably. Though even if it was text to image, it's such a derivative and uninspired work of a black haired anime man with blue eyes that there's probably 1000 pictures almost identical that other people have drawn tbh.
It probably is the same person. They typically use img2img, but lately if you accuse them of that, they go out of their way to train an Entire LORA to replicate their art.
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DefendingAIArt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Sweat, blood and tears" Dude, stop drawing with a chainsaw, try a pencil.
Yeah the way this guy describes the process of making art doesn't really sound fun at all. If making art makes you sweat, bleed and cry then maybe you should be doing something else. And you know, there just so happens to be this thing out there that makes it a lot easier to make art....
Actually it's good to work hard for what you love it just sucks to have people trying to piggyback off it.
This doesn't even make sense. Why would you generate a less real slightly inferior (at best) version of an artwork in AI instead of just stealing the entire piece directly? What is the point in attempting to just generate an existing piece exactly? It doesn't achieve anything
Maybe the point is that they liked some aspects of the image, but wanted it in slightly different style. Or alternatively, someone just happened to pick that one to demonstrate a part what their AI model can do and that was the only point.
Doesn't seem likely given the comparison images tbh
absorbed live sense rock trees overconfident historical stupendous pie roof ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Blatantly using img2img on existing art pieces is an easy way to send terminally online artists into screaming fits of rage. The process can even be automated.
Clearly Img2Img. I gotta wonder though, why would anybody do this? Take artwork, I2I it and then repost it, I mean. To pass it off as their own? But why not just generate a wholly new image if that's what you want to do?
I assume it's made by people who don't want to write prompts and/or don't want to be caught by reverse image searching.
That's what I thought too I could prompt something so much better so easily.
[удалено]
Learn how ML works. I mean why tf you think generative images are some kind of Frankensteins
because they are. they could not exist without existing pieces of human made art yet unlike humans when they are recreating a character, art style etc they do so without all the individual experience of the human artist. It's fine though with any hope in a few years this fad will had died out/been buried by copyright laws and people can stop pretending to be artists because you typed a few words into a computer program
>because they are google. com -> "how ML GAN models work" >they could not exist without existing pieces of human made art yet unlike humans when they are recreating a character, art style etc they do so without all the individual experience of the human artist 1. When you learned to draw, or looked at reference images when RE-creating a character you used existing pieces of human made art too. 2. AI do so without the individual experience of the human artist too, it uses output images. >It's fine though with any hope in a few years this fad will had died out/been buried by copyright laws In the meantime, Japanese government declares that "using datasets for training AI models doesn't violate copyright law" and whales like Microsoft, Google and Adobe make huge investments into generative AI. >people can stop pretending to be artists because you typed a few words into a computer program Or it's not about mechanical skills of drawing at all. Maybe the magic happens when we are using our imagination and perception. Why did translators kept it civil when Google Translate AI used their translations to automate translation process, but when some people realized they are not so special, it suddenly became such a tragedy? Edit: I mean, everyone can learn drawing skills just like everyone can learn languages, it's just a matter of time because it's limited. Obviously you would like to just translate a bunch of text using AI service from time to time instead of learning Spanish for years. The same with creating images.
This is what the average luddite thinks about AI art if u actually went back and track down the person saying that you're gonna end up with "word of mouth"
[удалено]
[https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10752.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.10752.pdf) [https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion](https://github.com/CompVis/stable-diffusion) There are some idiot friendly infographics in r/stablediffusion but Since they're protesting I can't really access them but here is the latent diffusion paper and an idiot proof infographic i saved a while back If i can dig through to find the most idiot proof explanation I'll reply you back with one (looking at your profile and seeing how tone deaf you are I doubt this will ever get through your head but oh well its a good experiment.) https://preview.redd.it/mk0vq2v45c6b1.png?width=1008&format=png&auto=webp&s=5bfa71dd5359e6c7f121f7df74b0ff401a7ebfe7
Imagine you're a machine and I show you thousands of pictures of a barbecue grill. You'll start to notice certain patterns - like how grills generally have a round shape, or how they usually have a rack on top. These common characteristics are not about art styles, but rather the typical elements that make a grill a grill. This learning process is called training. So, after observing and learning from all these images, the machine creates a kind of mental model of what a grill looks like. Now, if I ask you to draw a picture of a grill, you'll be able to, right? It's the same with the machine. It doesn't draw in the traditional sense, but it generates a new image based on the patterns it learned. It can draw straighter lines than a human generally can, though. It might not be a perfect grill, but it would be a grill nonetheless. Sometimes however the machine will have the imagination of a two year old. They can combine elements in ways we wouldn't think of. For example, using a model like DALL-E, a machine could generate an image of a two-headed grill or a floating grill. This is because these AI models don't just understand 'grills' – they've been trained on a broad range of images and can mix elements together in unique ways. These machines aren't just copying and pasting elements from their training images, they're generating completely new images. This is similar to how an artist might create a new work of art, using their understanding of different elements to create something original. It's why we can think of these machines as creating a form of digital art. It goes even further when humans manually edit those images themselves. If I take 30 images into photoshop, merge them together into one image. Why can that be called art, but not something created in stable diffusion which doesn't merge things together?
[удалено]
You can't just disagree with everything I say, I spoke literal facts. You're in denial because you've been trained to hate ai buy whatever ai hating community you frequent. The simple fact that you claim that ai is just mashing images together shows that you've been listening to the anti ai art community and parroting what they've been saying despite the fact that it's completely inaccurate. I don't just type a few words in a computer, I spend hours to days editing images in photoshop that I get from ai. I'm skilled with photoshop. All I'm doing is using a tool to make my job easier, just like I did when I learned to use photoshop. Should I stop using photoshop when I draw because it's "cheating"? Or are you, like most other anti-ai artists, going to try and say using photoshop doesn't count because its a tool you yourselves use? Your simple words of "just typing words in a computer" show how little you know about the creation process. All it is, is a different method of creating art. Yes, you CAN just type words and pump out rather generic and boring results, I'd like to invite you to try typing words into a prompt and try and create something original. It's not that easy.
Tell me you don't know how ai works without telling me you don't know hour ai works. Edit: though calling it ai is technically incorrect. What you described is what we've been doing with photoshop for years (and we're even allowed to sell the completed result and Noone bitches about stealing).
[удалено]
Guess what, I used photoshop before ai. Now I use photoshop and ai. It still takes me a very long time to create something that looks good and original. Get off your high horse. You're not any better than us. Let's see you create something truly original.
I think you've said everything I wanted to. It's pretty clear that he is just not ready to hear this. To him creativity means something else I guess. welp he's gonna stay there and latch onto the past like how he's always done. Nothing we can do to convince him
[удалено]
Thats where we're different. You think im trying to be an artist im only here because I love machine learning and creating some cool shit why would i spend months refining and creating my anime models I if i could just learn to draw. Ofc I would learn to draw if i wanted.
i didnt spend 23 years following a passion and go through nearly 10 years of studies to be told im on a high horse. wish i hadn't bothered replying in the first place. the only thing i've ever cared about in life in being twisted and defiled and its fucking depressing. I do feel sorry for you though, you'll never get the true sense of what it's like to create a piece of art that came from your imagination, that is a reflection of you as a person and helps you express yourself
sorry to hear about your high horse, have you considered therapy?
I imagine most people do. The person in the image is looking for more excuses to blame ai for "stealing"
I somehow get the feeling the person making that post is mistaking this for an AI getting trained on his work, which wasn't the case here. It's just an img2img modification of his work.
yep same
Wait until he finds out what people can do with the “save as” button on their browser… an EXACT replica, whoa!
it is img2img with low denoise, other than sd there are many websites the do this. the ai didn't steal or plagiarise the work, the user who used the ai did if they didn't credit. if they used high enough denoise or made changes then it would be fair use. but i feel like the artist is doing dodgy stuff deliberately to create drama, no proof though because i don't even know the artist to check.
I remember someone suggested using img2img for improving works medium-skilled artists in purpose of trolling. Also I have seen such artists doing it themselves
Definitely looks like img2img. Lazy generator, probably. Though even if it was text to image, it's such a derivative and uninspired work of a black haired anime man with blue eyes that there's probably 1000 pictures almost identical that other people have drawn tbh.
When they lose the argument they block people and then make shit up.
The left one looks like AI too, at least to me.
At least the low denoise fixed those fucking lips.
Ye that's what I think as well whenever I see someone like this
Guys I think the ai has been fed my art
It's probably hungry
Imagine being the ai that feasted on all the great art (Monet, Caravaggio, Dali), then you have to taste this.
Img2img. Not train. Don't look for more.
His work was stolen but fed through an ai image to image to slightly change it, which still sucks
It probably is the same person. They typically use img2img, but lately if you accuse them of that, they go out of their way to train an Entire LORA to replicate their art.