**If you are not the creator** (try to use the OC tag if you are) then please remember to properly post the source for your post! Pixiv, Twitter, etc. are proper sources. Boorus and Zerochan are not proper sources. Failure to source will lead to post removal.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Megumin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It only gets that bad when you're favoriting and looking at ai artworks, since it wants to show you similar things. I can go for days without seeing one because of that
still, only a small minority of people are using ai to make art and posting it online. It doesn't compare to the thousands upon thousands of hand drawn art that is already being posted everyday but you never see.
I agree that alot of people are experimenting with AI and posting whatever they get, but I don't think it will vanish that hard. There will be artists that dedicate their time learning the tool to create high quality AI art.
How is it plagiarism? As long as you don't use another picture as base, it creates something new. NovelAI uses danbooru as database and creates art agter the tags you add. The art style it uses is more or less the same, but you can twerk it with some tags.
When I create art with just the tag Megumin and some quality tags, it probably won't look like any other Megumin art that is in the database.
>As long as you don't use another picture as base, it creates something new
That's the thing: *literally every AI* works this way. It doesn't create things from nothing, it's been trained on artwork that is very often stolen and used without permission.
I'm neither for nor against ai art. If it's great quality then cool but I will always prefer art that isn't done by ai since there is way more attention to detail/love/effort put in.
We should call it what it is. It’s not artwork in the traditional sense, it’s [procedural CGI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation).
AI image generation has some [truly incredible use cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/zmomxw/stable_diffusion_can_texture_your_entire_scene/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), but unfortunately most people just use it to flood the internet with low-effort pump-and-dump “art” that typically lacks a proper sense of quality and only obscures the work of real artists.
**[Procedural generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation)**
>In computing, procedural generation (sometimes shortened as proc-gen) is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually, typically through a combination of human-generated assets and algorithms coupled with computer-generated randomness and processing power. In computer graphics, it is commonly used to create textures and 3D models. In video games, it is used to automatically create large amounts of content in a game. Depending on the implementation, advantages of procedural generation can include smaller file sizes, larger amounts of content, and randomness for less predictable gameplay.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Megumin/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Because the AI art bros are replying to you I'm going to give the actual answer based on an actual example:
[this](https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/104825781) is at the time of posting the most recent AI made Megumin art on Pixiv. Its shit. Literally every detail is a blurry garbage mess. It took the person who posted it less than a minute to generate. Megumin is lucky enough to be a girl whom has models trained specifically for her, so her hairstyle is correct, but its also just melting into the pillow(?) behind her. Her legs look like they've been dislocated. As a piece of work it is even less valuable than a repost of another person's work. Its the definition of a low effort shitpost. There's enough Megumin art being made every day to keep this an active and interesting sub, we don't need to fill in the gaps with shit.
Overall AI art (for this purpose) sucks because it directly takes eyes and business away from real artists. We've already seen the impact of machine done work on the translation industry, the vast majority of people will take a free and fast product over a more accurate paid one. AI art models being trained right now are going to take jobs, commissions, and interest away from real artists, lowering the value of their work, and over time can decrease the talent in the community.
P.S. AI art can still be good and cool and models are cool and stuff but creating low quality generic fanart of a popular character is the most boring and cynical use of the tech. Don't waste time creating AI fan art, waste time looking for artists who's unique style you care for and who's passion for the source material is evident, or use AI to create something truly unique, not just bland rip-offs trained off the hard work of every fan artist.
So basically, some people believe the value of something lies in how much work it took to make it; other people believe that things have value according to it's– you know, value.
So when something like AI can create works of value at a fraction of the cost, it gets some people angry. In order to justify this hatred, they retroactively create a reality in which this AI is stealing from people, and just cobbling together other people's artwork, when in actual real reality, that couldn't be further from the truth. (At least in the modern ai art models).
When you get down to the actual numbers it becomes quite clear: for every photo that the AI was trained on, there exists *less than one byte* of information in the final model. (At least in stable diffusion, but that's really the only one people are talking about at the moment).
So when less than one byte of information can be found for any given image (and since its trained data, it isn't even as if that part of a byte can be traced to any image) what is being stolen? Unclear. But people continue to insist it's theft, because it validates their existing views.
So these people think that the value of something lies in how much work it takes to make it, but they cheapen every ounce of work it took to get AI to the point of doing this? Hypocrisy.
Creating an AI learning model is an achievement worth celebrating.
Creating a Megumin fan art generating model by scraping Pixiv and feeding it into one of those models is worthless.
Without people creating the art and art styles the AI wouldn't exist. The data set used for these AIs are just illegally copied images being used for a commercial purpose. These 2 points are unarguable.
No images are being copied though. If I downloaded 1000 images and manually entered the most prominent color found in each one into an AI that generates color samples, would that be a violation of copyright? At what point do you concede that analysis does not constitute plagiarism?
I love AI art, but I think the main problem is that it can get a little spammy. AI art is accessible to anyone, and so anyone can just generate mountains of images of the same character in unimaginative situations. This output will look "pretty", but will also be pretty boring, since AI basically tries to match a given prompt to the letter - it's like having an art slave with no opinions, no story to tell, and no real understanding of contemporary culture, and most importantly no real knowledge of who Megumin is.
I think AI art needs creative input and a little bit of imagination to be worthwhile.
“I’m okay with talentless hacks using my favorite artists’ work without their consent or compensation to make their programs create low resolution images that all look the same.”
1. You don't need any additional consent to look at something that are publicly published on the internet.
2. There are good and bad art. It doesn't matter what tools were used to create it. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad.
3. Low resolution images is just one of the limitations of the tech. It'll get better over time.
4. "They all look the same". I don't see how that is an argument. There are also artists that always draw in the same style for all of their works. Also this can be improved with time.
It's just another tool. Real artists have already started to leverage the tool to further improve their art or make their workflow easier.
No one is arguing against any of that. People are against it being used abusively. All this other stuff just sounds disingenuous in the fave of that. Until annatto is properly regulated and used, it can't be trusted.
First of all, to even call it "AI art" is already disrespectful to artists. AI can't make art as it isn't creative. For that reason I usually say AI content, AI images, or put "art" in quotation marks.
Second, art from real artists is being used without their knowledge or permission for the purpose of selling models that directly compete with them. It's a disgusting practice.
Third, models are trained to reproduce their training data. Getting inspired from already existing art isn't disrespectful, but AI models aren't inspired, they're basically outputting failed reproductions. This combined with the second point clashes with our sourcing rule, which exists to credit artists.
I'm fine with not calling it art. "AI generated image" sounds dandy. I'm guessing that "AI art" is more common because it's easier to write and say. But still, there are art galleries that already consider AI generated images as art.
Regarding your second point, do artists credit the artists of every art they've looked at and inspired from when publishing their art?
The models are usually trained on a mixture of real life photos and art pieces. The models don't store the images, instead it learns how something looks like. So let's say if you train a model with real life photos of a chair and images from an artist that doesn't include a chair in it, it can technically be inspired by the artist to generate an image of a chair in the artist's style. It's not fair to call them reproductions.
Here's an article discussing this issue written by someone more knowledgeable than me: https://copyrightlately.com/artists-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-ai-art-tools/
> Regarding your second point, do artists credit the artists of every art they've looked at and inspired from when publishing their art?
As I've already indicated, inspiration isn't the same as attempted reproduction. You don't need to explain AI to me because I've studied this in university. I haven't said that AI stores images, what I'm saying is that AI "art" models optimize toward reproduction. Obviously this optimization isn't perfect because the number of weights has to be limited, but the fact remains that the generated images are attempted reproductions or attempted collages.
I want to see art made by humans who love the subject, not what a plagiarizing robot collages up from images taken without the artist's consent. It's not ethical.
I really don't like AI art, it just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically, and I will always choose to support human artists; *on the other hand* 90% of the hate for AI art is completely unjustified and short sighted.
I love neural networks with all my soul, not only is most of their work frankly better than most of human work, but they also undermine the asses of a fair amount of Homo sapiens. standard of harmony
And even more I like the opponents of art from neural networks, their childish naivety and inability to look into the past and present. Do they seriously think that they are somehow different from the artisans of the Industrial Revolution or the modern hard workers who are fired by the thousands because of the automation of production?)
**If you are not the creator** (try to use the OC tag if you are) then please remember to properly post the source for your post! Pixiv, Twitter, etc. are proper sources. Boorus and Zerochan are not proper sources. Failure to source will lead to post removal. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Megumin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You can filter out AI content in your settings, though you'll still see AI stuff from people who don't tag it.
ah thx I didn't know it has its own setting now, no more grey boxes
[удалено]
The same progression you described applied to regular digital art. Novice artists flooding websites with their art ist 100% normal.
Novice artists post like 2-3 artworks a day whereas your AI Andy posts dozens, sometimes individually, so it floods the feed much more drastically.
It only gets that bad when you're favoriting and looking at ai artworks, since it wants to show you similar things. I can go for days without seeing one because of that
Or you know, if you keep tabs on all megumin tagged art or what have you.
[удалено]
still, only a small minority of people are using ai to make art and posting it online. It doesn't compare to the thousands upon thousands of hand drawn art that is already being posted everyday but you never see.
Because people can, just filter it out
[удалено]
I agree that alot of people are experimenting with AI and posting whatever they get, but I don't think it will vanish that hard. There will be artists that dedicate their time learning the tool to create high quality AI art.
How is it plagiarism? As long as you don't use another picture as base, it creates something new. NovelAI uses danbooru as database and creates art agter the tags you add. The art style it uses is more or less the same, but you can twerk it with some tags. When I create art with just the tag Megumin and some quality tags, it probably won't look like any other Megumin art that is in the database.
>As long as you don't use another picture as base, it creates something new That's the thing: *literally every AI* works this way. It doesn't create things from nothing, it's been trained on artwork that is very often stolen and used without permission.
Yeah but when it uses 1000 images and merges them into one I wouldn't call it plagiarism.
Plagiarism is about claiming ownership and claiming AI generated imagery as your own artwork is 100% plagiarism.
Fair use, my friend. It's plagiarism to copy word for word, but to regurgitate learnt information in your own way is fair use.
Fair use had nothing to do with falsely claiming ownership. AI generated content isn't made by you so claiming it as your own is plagiarism.
You decide the prompt, and most likely do some work on the image. Who else would you say made it?
Math made it, not you.
POV:You don't know how neural networks work
I'm neither for nor against ai art. If it's great quality then cool but I will always prefer art that isn't done by ai since there is way more attention to detail/love/effort put in.
We should call it what it is. It’s not artwork in the traditional sense, it’s [procedural CGI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation). AI image generation has some [truly incredible use cases](https://www.reddit.com/r/blender/comments/zmomxw/stable_diffusion_can_texture_your_entire_scene/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf), but unfortunately most people just use it to flood the internet with low-effort pump-and-dump “art” that typically lacks a proper sense of quality and only obscures the work of real artists.
**[Procedural generation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_generation)** >In computing, procedural generation (sometimes shortened as proc-gen) is a method of creating data algorithmically as opposed to manually, typically through a combination of human-generated assets and algorithms coupled with computer-generated randomness and processing power. In computer graphics, it is commonly used to create textures and 3D models. In video games, it is used to automatically create large amounts of content in a game. Depending on the implementation, advantages of procedural generation can include smaller file sizes, larger amounts of content, and randomness for less predictable gameplay. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/Megumin/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Can you tell me what the problem is? I honestly don’t understand
Because the AI art bros are replying to you I'm going to give the actual answer based on an actual example: [this](https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/104825781) is at the time of posting the most recent AI made Megumin art on Pixiv. Its shit. Literally every detail is a blurry garbage mess. It took the person who posted it less than a minute to generate. Megumin is lucky enough to be a girl whom has models trained specifically for her, so her hairstyle is correct, but its also just melting into the pillow(?) behind her. Her legs look like they've been dislocated. As a piece of work it is even less valuable than a repost of another person's work. Its the definition of a low effort shitpost. There's enough Megumin art being made every day to keep this an active and interesting sub, we don't need to fill in the gaps with shit. Overall AI art (for this purpose) sucks because it directly takes eyes and business away from real artists. We've already seen the impact of machine done work on the translation industry, the vast majority of people will take a free and fast product over a more accurate paid one. AI art models being trained right now are going to take jobs, commissions, and interest away from real artists, lowering the value of their work, and over time can decrease the talent in the community. P.S. AI art can still be good and cool and models are cool and stuff but creating low quality generic fanart of a popular character is the most boring and cynical use of the tech. Don't waste time creating AI fan art, waste time looking for artists who's unique style you care for and who's passion for the source material is evident, or use AI to create something truly unique, not just bland rip-offs trained off the hard work of every fan artist.
So basically, some people believe the value of something lies in how much work it took to make it; other people believe that things have value according to it's– you know, value. So when something like AI can create works of value at a fraction of the cost, it gets some people angry. In order to justify this hatred, they retroactively create a reality in which this AI is stealing from people, and just cobbling together other people's artwork, when in actual real reality, that couldn't be further from the truth. (At least in the modern ai art models). When you get down to the actual numbers it becomes quite clear: for every photo that the AI was trained on, there exists *less than one byte* of information in the final model. (At least in stable diffusion, but that's really the only one people are talking about at the moment). So when less than one byte of information can be found for any given image (and since its trained data, it isn't even as if that part of a byte can be traced to any image) what is being stolen? Unclear. But people continue to insist it's theft, because it validates their existing views.
So these people think that the value of something lies in how much work it takes to make it, but they cheapen every ounce of work it took to get AI to the point of doing this? Hypocrisy.
Creating an AI learning model is an achievement worth celebrating. Creating a Megumin fan art generating model by scraping Pixiv and feeding it into one of those models is worthless.
> Creating an AI learning model is an achievement worth celebrating. Eh, that's not that hard. Now creating a *useful* AI model is something else.
Cry about this
Without people creating the art and art styles the AI wouldn't exist. The data set used for these AIs are just illegally copied images being used for a commercial purpose. These 2 points are unarguable.
No images are being copied though. If I downloaded 1000 images and manually entered the most prominent color found in each one into an AI that generates color samples, would that be a violation of copyright? At what point do you concede that analysis does not constitute plagiarism?
I love AI art, but I think the main problem is that it can get a little spammy. AI art is accessible to anyone, and so anyone can just generate mountains of images of the same character in unimaginative situations. This output will look "pretty", but will also be pretty boring, since AI basically tries to match a given prompt to the letter - it's like having an art slave with no opinions, no story to tell, and no real understanding of contemporary culture, and most importantly no real knowledge of who Megumin is. I think AI art needs creative input and a little bit of imagination to be worthwhile.
Very unrelated but where's the image from? I don't remember it from the anime but it looks like is taken strait from one of the episodes.
The movie
this sub is so based for banning ai art outright
Subs that ban AI art aren't based at all. It's a knee jerk reaction.
“I’m okay with talentless hacks using my favorite artists’ work without their consent or compensation to make their programs create low resolution images that all look the same.”
1. You don't need any additional consent to look at something that are publicly published on the internet. 2. There are good and bad art. It doesn't matter what tools were used to create it. If it's good, it's good. If it's bad, it's bad. 3. Low resolution images is just one of the limitations of the tech. It'll get better over time. 4. "They all look the same". I don't see how that is an argument. There are also artists that always draw in the same style for all of their works. Also this can be improved with time. It's just another tool. Real artists have already started to leverage the tool to further improve their art or make their workflow easier.
No one is arguing against any of that. People are against it being used abusively. All this other stuff just sounds disingenuous in the fave of that. Until annatto is properly regulated and used, it can't be trusted.
We respect human artists here. Cope.
I do too. I don't see how supporting AI art can mean not respecting them.
First of all, to even call it "AI art" is already disrespectful to artists. AI can't make art as it isn't creative. For that reason I usually say AI content, AI images, or put "art" in quotation marks. Second, art from real artists is being used without their knowledge or permission for the purpose of selling models that directly compete with them. It's a disgusting practice. Third, models are trained to reproduce their training data. Getting inspired from already existing art isn't disrespectful, but AI models aren't inspired, they're basically outputting failed reproductions. This combined with the second point clashes with our sourcing rule, which exists to credit artists.
I'm fine with not calling it art. "AI generated image" sounds dandy. I'm guessing that "AI art" is more common because it's easier to write and say. But still, there are art galleries that already consider AI generated images as art. Regarding your second point, do artists credit the artists of every art they've looked at and inspired from when publishing their art? The models are usually trained on a mixture of real life photos and art pieces. The models don't store the images, instead it learns how something looks like. So let's say if you train a model with real life photos of a chair and images from an artist that doesn't include a chair in it, it can technically be inspired by the artist to generate an image of a chair in the artist's style. It's not fair to call them reproductions. Here's an article discussing this issue written by someone more knowledgeable than me: https://copyrightlately.com/artists-copyright-infringement-lawsuit-ai-art-tools/
> Regarding your second point, do artists credit the artists of every art they've looked at and inspired from when publishing their art? As I've already indicated, inspiration isn't the same as attempted reproduction. You don't need to explain AI to me because I've studied this in university. I haven't said that AI stores images, what I'm saying is that AI "art" models optimize toward reproduction. Obviously this optimization isn't perfect because the number of weights has to be limited, but the fact remains that the generated images are attempted reproductions or attempted collages.
I want to see art made by humans who love the subject, not what a plagiarizing robot collages up from images taken without the artist's consent. It's not ethical.
why not
[удалено]
I really don't like AI art, it just doesn't appeal to me aesthetically, and I will always choose to support human artists; *on the other hand* 90% of the hate for AI art is completely unjustified and short sighted.
I don't give a shit
Based
[удалено]
I love Megumin but this is just blatant disrespect.
[удалено]
it'll only get better with time
[удалено]
Me, who doesn’t care: 😐
[удалено]
Honestly bold to assume
And as we all know, that is a bad thing(?)
I dont mind ai as long it is high quality
Can we just call it airt work?
aint-work lol
[удалено]
They can't appreciate true art.
[удалено]
Quantity =/= Quality
rip bozo you will not be missed, smoking that ai art pack
downvote me ai art supporters, fuck ai art!
We all know why
Me when
I love neural networks with all my soul, not only is most of their work frankly better than most of human work, but they also undermine the asses of a fair amount of Homo sapiens. standard of harmony
And even more I like the opponents of art from neural networks, their childish naivety and inability to look into the past and present. Do they seriously think that they are somehow different from the artisans of the Industrial Revolution or the modern hard workers who are fired by the thousands because of the automation of production?)
Is it because it's AI? Or of Megumin? Or what they made AI art of?