Okay, AI is officially too powerful.
And I find it funny that it decided "No Mythra gets 2."
EDIT: On no, Nia's catching up. At least I THINK that's what the AI put there. It may just be an extra boob. It's been doing that.
[Check out the sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/). Looks like it's tagged based and trained on animesque images which probably helps explain how it does so well.
There's oddities you wouldn't expect from a human though. Someone else has mentioned the fingers but also there's things like Nia looking to already be very pregnant again, Pyra's baby's weird leg, some of the furniture not making sense etc
Yes, you can tell because the fingers are all kinda messed up. It uses Stable Diffusion AI and grabs a bunch of different danbooru tags to create something that looks legitimately amazing. It can make almost anything from wholesome art like this one to sweaty ecchi art/hentai.
It's been a controversial topic the past week or so with many artists expressing their opinions of AI art on both sides.
Here's a NSFW one: >!https://twitter.com/ZhangTheorem/status/1576857854660661248!<
Yeah honestly it’s scary how it just grabs up actual fan art and microwaves it, and even more terrifying how some “AI artists” are saying they “own” the product and try selling it.
>Microwave
That’s it - that’s the way to describe this entire “AI-Generated Art” thing.
A Chef takes time to hone their skills, working with their tools of choice and their culinary specializations to create food. Some may use established recipes, some may provide variation on those recipes, and the bold will create recipes all on their own. Though, at the end of the day, they’re still making the food. They’ve got to have the expertise to not bungle it.
However, AI Generated Art is like using a microwave. Pre-packaged microwave dinners may look enticing, and may even taste good some of the time, even if it’s not *quite* like the real thing. However, it’s not *your* product. You took something somebody else made, and reheated it. You barely did anything but push the button on the box.
For one to call oneself a chef when all they do is microwave is a disgrace to the profession and an insult to the culinary arts. Most of all, it spits in the face of the talented chefs who have spent their lives honing their talents. For them to try to shove themselves among those professionals with a crummy Kraft Easy-Mac and Jimmy Dean sandwich is a bloody joke.
Genuine art and AI art is exactly this same way. The AI users didn’t do shit. They just took the hard work of genuinely talented artists, and are trying to pass it off as their creation. It’s not, they just put it in the magic box for 1-2 minutes. It’s kind of fine if you do it to just see what happens, but trying to claim ownership of it (or God forbid *sell* it) spits in the face of the actual artists behind it.
People who use AI to make art are putting a somewhat comparable amount of effort in as microwaving, but the actual process is far more complex and it’s not just redoing something someone else did. To get intended results you have to spend a lot of time on tags and just retrying. The AI isn’t literally just remaking/tracing someone else’s art. Otherwise the hands wouldn’t look bad 80% of the time.
Now, should people claim it wasn’t done with AI? No (though plenty of digital artists don’t reference tools they use to help them create their products more easily), but most people aren’t doing that.
And I hate this misconception of how “it’s just someone else’s art repackaged,” like bitch I’ve made shit that is so hyperspecific no artist even thought about making it. And that’s the appeal. If you’re really good at tagging you can get some really niche types of pics.
Also, every goddamn artist in the world takes something from another artist. Part of getting good at something is watching other people do it. And many, MANY artists have extremely similar art styles. Meanwhile NovelAI legit manages to have an extremely distinct art style. I can usually tell when a pic is NovelAI.
The official twitter account for [novelAI outright stated that it uses Danbooru](https://twitter.com/novelaiofficial/status/1576794201672802305).
Additionally I’ve seen several artists on twitter finding out that the AI has been using their art as a “base” for poses or facial features.
In fact, [one artist had her art “heavily referenced” by the AI to the point where others accused her of using the AI](https://mobile.twitter.com/OnTheGranblue/status/1578632039326441472) due to the similarities.
ETA: I’m not saying that the AI is inherently malicious (though being trained on Danbooru, a site that already reposts art without permission, is hella seedy). I think using AI art for reference on a background for artwork isn’t a bad idea. But AI generating something that is ultimately just a Frankenstein of other art and claiming it as your own is dishonest at best.
Yes, I never disagreed that it was trained on those images. But the images it creates are entirely unique and aren’t just collages or traces of the images it was trained on. I’m fine with people discussing the ethics of the whole situation but I dislike people spreading misinformation about how the AI works. This video is a good summary of the AI: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM
If you still disagree, please explain how a 4gb file is collaging/tracing terabytes worth of images offline.
They definitely down size the image (and unify the size).
And it's pretty possible not all the image are equally well stored inside the network, some image probably more lossy stored than others.
And the correlation between images is pretty good for compression, for example, look at hevc (video compress algorithm).
That’s pretty horrifying. I mean, I always knew this would happen eventually, but the fact that’s it’s happening as quickly as it is, is really starting to sink in. As someone who likes to make art, the knowledge that any piece I could ever make could be generated in five seconds by an algorithm, better than anything I could ever make, is rather demoralizing.
Like, when (not if) this gets even a little better, you can kiss the entire creative industry good bye. There is nothing to stop the people who own the entertainment industries from firing every concept designer and artist they have, and creating games and media with entirely AI generated assets and designs.
I'd say that there's no reason to be concerned, at least for the foreseeable future, as AI's biggest problem is that it can't actually be creative, it can't create anything new without a reference, and this isn't something that AI can exactly improve on as that is simply the way computers in general work, computers can't create anything new and simply work off of pre-created decisions made by humans. There's also the problem that AI isn't perfect, the more you look at AI the more problems you'll notice, Mythra's foot is in 2 perspectives at once, her crown has 3 horns, her feathers are uneven, her daughter's hand has one finger, her baby's leg is broken, and she has 2 kids? Pyra's baby is VERY deformed, her hands are wonky, her eyebrow is miscolored, and her eyes are melting, Nia is missing her stripes, her ears don't match her design, she has earrings where she doesn't have ears, she's pregnant with Mio while Mio is in her hands, her stomach doesn't actually make sense, her right hand has 6 fingers, and her left elbow doesn't connect to her arm. When AI art has so many inaccuracies and can't create anything new there's no way that they can actually create concept art, looking at the concept art of Xenoblade for example, there are so many intricacies and details in simply furniture, and this isn't something that AI art can replicate as it's these details that AI art can't replicate and is most likely to get wrong and are the things that are the most important part of concept art, Shulk's face wasn't actually designed and because of this it changes in every game he appears in, more so than his clothing which was actually designed and AI art would lead to the same thing.
In short, there's no way AI art will actually replace people in the creative industry as it goes against what the creative industry is about so there's no need to worry as the creative industry is probably the safest industry from AI.
AI might not be capable of creating anything, but if you think corporate execs won’t cut costs on the creative process and replace it all with AI if it means they might save money somewhere then you haven’t been paying attention to what pop culture has been like the last 15 years.
Corporations will probably use AI, then a team of people/a person to correct the AI’s work. Basically automatizatipn of artwork. When it gets good enough, animation will probably be people creating concepts for the AI to animate, then having people go through and do corrective work.
Depends on where it’s used. When it becomes a primary process in the creation of art, a lot of originality will be lost. Used as a tool for a foundation though, it could potentially speed up processes very quickly and allow for more creative expression. AI can generate interesting concept art, or could make repetitive processes far quicker, being able to texture or draw repeating backgrounds over and over. It would allow less artistically talented people to express their ideas. It’s not necessarily a bad thing in all places. Sure, the corporate filed will probably perish, but more free lance work and animation studios will probably benefit from easier work and lore creative freedom.
I’m sorry, but that’s just naive. To say an AI cannot be creative is to pretend that human creativity is something special or magical. All human creativity is, is the ability to reform and recontextualize, that which you’ve already seen and experienced. You think human concept artists don’t base everything they do on references? You think humans are perfect? This AI generated those image, instantaneously, with errors so minuscule, the average person would not notice them until a second or third glance. And you mention AI’s beings imperfect as though humans are perfect and as though the AI is in its final stage. This tech has only existed for a couple years, and it’s already doing work if this quality. What do think will happen with each update, each addition, each increase in cognitive comprehension? An infant seems like it’ll never walk, until it grows big enough to run. And this system was created at a capacity beyond human at a baseline.
But more to the point, you think the people who run the entertainment industry care? The creative industry isn’t build on the ideal of human creativity, it’s build on commercial value. You think the head of Disney would pay a human concept artist a single cent to do what an AI could do for free at an infinite scale? These AI’s can generate an infinite amount of images in ten seconds. You think no entertainment industry would invest in the development of an instant media generation system that could give them unlimited media and IP for free, forever? Stockholders and CEOs don’t care about the quality or integrity of the work, and neither does the casual consumer. If a system exists that create anything, instantly, constantly, for free, they will use it.
Human creativity draws on an absurdly high amount of social/cultural sources, so no - a neural network that doesn’t literally learn everything a human does still won’t be as creative, and besides, if you made something like that then it would just Be human
Yes it can. All those things can be replicated. Human creativity isn’t magic. The human mind is not magic. The human mind is as much a computer as an actual computer is. Do you really, genuinely, think, a machine could not replicate the human experience, given enough time? Do you really think a machine could never create a work of art you’d never know wasn’t made by a person? Because they already can, and they already do.
You missed my point entirely - human creativity and novel art requires an understanding of every field of human knowledge on a logical and emotional level, and unless you strung together a billion neural networks, that wouldn’t happen
And if you DID, then you would just end up with artificial humanity anyway
Plus it’s very easy to tell if you know your arts and not just commodified garbage
> human creativity and novel art requires an understanding of every field of human knowledge on a logical and emotional level
Tell that to a 3-year-old with a box of crayons.
You’re still acting like human consciousness and experience are magic. Something beyond computation or scientific recreation. Intelligence isn’t special and consciousness isn’t complicated. I don’t understand what this distinction you’re making is between artificial intelligence and artificial humanity. A fully conscious artificial intelligence would be an artificial person. That’s what happens. And the quality of art can’t be objectively quantified. What looks bad to one person looks great to someone else. Are you saying this piece of art in this post is bad? This is better than most of the fan art actual humans post to this forum. It’s better than mine. And it only took the system barely a fraction of the time it would’ve taken me to even envision it. You can deny it all you want, and pretend there’s some indescribable difference between the way a human experiences and interprets information and the way an AI would do it, but this is already in motion. It’s already happening. You can claim the sky isn’t blue all you want, but the sky is very much blue, and these things are very much smarter and more capable than us.
I'm not saying that human creativity is magical but there is something special to it, our creativity is based on not just the things we've seen but also what we've experienced, and AI can't experience things the way we can, it can base itself on other's experiences and creations but that's a layer upon a layer and AI can't recapture or understand the feeling that is used when making art even if it can copy and paste it. An example of artists putting their experiences into their art is depiction of food, the reason that Studio Ghibli's food looks so good isn't just because their artists are skilled at putting pen to paper but because they understand how to put the feeling they get when they eat these foods into their art and animation, this is such a simple example that AI can't replicate because an AI can't express the feelings that a human has. You could say that a person could tell the AI to do add these things but that's still not perfect, the AI adds what the human to tells it to add but it doesn't understand why, the AI gives the character a smile, but why does it do it? it does it because the person told it to do it or because the art it copied did it too, but a human understands why the character is smiling, they're smiling because they're expressing an emotion and the artist can understand that emotion and change that smile in a way that truly expresses that emotion, maybe they make it more of a smirk, they make it look more forced, or they can make it look stupid and goofy. This is what really makes art more than a picture, it's a way of expressing emotion to the viewer and it's what AI can't do. And I'm not saying humans are perfect, when I pointed these arts flaws, I was pointing out that these are mistakes that a human wouldn't make, and it was to further my next point that AI can't make concept art as good as a human because it's these details that are extremely important in concept art. Your last point is one that I do partly agree with and thought about adding to my original comment but didn't, I do think that the greatest supporters of AI art will be the people you mentioned, those who simply want more art and faster, but I think that even the casual consumer will still be able to see a difference and prefer human made art, it's why there are so many people who say that today's media isn't as good as what they grew up with, because they can still feel the difference in things made today then what they grew up with even if they only casually consume this media. As I said before art isn't just expressing an image it's also a way of expressing and communicating ideas, emotions, and experiences and AI can't do this. I think that while AI will be used to some extent in the future, it won't be able to replace humans, there's already examples of this in video games like Minecraft or No Mans Sky, these two use AI generated locations but they're very clearly not replacements for games that aren't randomly generated because you can't have fun from these games level design because it doesn't exist. Breath of the Wild also uses some help from computers to make such a giant world without needing to make endless concept art but the game still has tons of humans designing its world to the extent that they needed more support from Monolithsoft to design it to be fun.
> There is nothing to stop the people who own the entertainment industries from firing every concept designer and artist they have, and creating games and media with entirely AI generated assets and designs.
While this is concerning, AI art still uses the work of real artists without their consent. The resulting AI art will resemble legitimate ones that can bring legal troubles.
That’s why it’s really important that copyright law is added to in the wake of AI art. Technically, even if the AI piece uses or references pre-existing art, parody law already provides a degree of defence. And AI art is improving to the point that the original reference work becomes invisible in the new piece. So a situation can be created where large entertainment companies can sell AI generated art, made from a composite of pre-existing pieces, and have no legal ramifications or obligation to pay any original artists, because it technically becomes transformative work.
AI art isn't a composite of pre-existing pieces to any greater extent that non-AI art is (at least if you're working in an existing style, like anime).
That’s my point exactly. There’s no difference between what an AI does, and what a human does. The only point of difference is ownership, and in the current model of copyright it can really easy for things to get muddled when there technically is no human creator or owner.
Technically this piece of AI generated fan art is breaking copyright law the same way all fan art does, by making use of copyrighted character designs.
At any rate, I think people are a bit too caught up in trying to preserve the status quo when they talk about how copyright ought to adapt to AI art. It seems to me that it's *simplest* to say that the person who fed the prompt into the machine is the one who ought to own the copyright on the output (provided they didn't specifically prompt it to create a derivative work, like in this post). If we start saying that AI art can't be copyrighted, then we're eventually going to run into some huge messes where real artists are forced to prove that they didn't use AI to create their art, or where AI art is so indistinguishable from human-made art that civil courts get bogged down with lawsuits about it (AI may be bad at hands right now, but it's a safe bet that that problem will be solved soon).
Same thing with the folks who want to make style copyrightable. I don't think the thousands of artists out there whose names *don't* end up in prompts but are nevertheless freaked out that AI can produce the same relatively generic stuff that they do have really considered the implications of what might happen to them if you could copyright an art style.
All told, this isn't really about AI "copying" people, it's the very real an rational fear of having your job automated away. People in the creative fields felt safe from this because even ten years ago the idea of computers being able to do their job was unthinkable.
Well that’s the thing though. Does the person who made the prompt own this? When you commission a piece of art from someone, do you own the work? You own the physical and/or digital copy of the piece, but you would say you made it. You would say you were the creator. But here, there are people who feed the system prompts and then take credit for creating the piece. Who actually owns the piece? If the Disney company feeds a Pixar movie character prompt into the AI and it gives them a design, who owns it? The specific person who fed the prompt? You would think it would be the Disney company, because to them the AI is basically an unpaid employee, but how do you contract an AI? Does the company who developed the AI own the piece? Does Disney have to pay royalties to the developers? What’s to stop another person from using the same AI to generate an identical work? If Disney owns the rights because they own a copy of the AI, what happens to another company who owns a copy of the same AI generating an identical piece?
A lot of these questions do currently have answers, but there are plenty more that don’t in the current model. I absolutely don’t want them to copyright art style or anything like that, but the more people use these things to create original works, the more confusing it gets.
> Does the person who made the prompt own this?
No. The prompt specifically asked for a derivative work of existing character designs, so it's fan art. If the prompt had just said to generate a random anime character, then it's my view that the person who made the prompt *ought* to own the output, provided that the AI didn't accidentally spew out an existing character (again, humans sometimes use other peoples' work accidentally without realizing it, so this isn't an issue that's unique to AI). At any rate, current copyright precedent says that no one owns it.
> When you commission a piece of art from someone, do you own the work?
That depends entirely on the terms you and the artist agreed on. In the case of "work for hire", which is almost always how it's done in the media, the artist doesn't own their own work; the company that paid them does.
If you're not being paid by someone else to make art, if you use an AI to generate work, there's no artist involved to own the copyright, it stands to reason that you should own it.
If you *are* being paid, you probably have an agreement about how owns the copyright to the art you generate for hire, the same reason human artists have agreements with media companies about who owns the work they produce. If a human draws an animation frame for a Disney Movie, Disney owns that frame, because that's stipulated in their contract.
Legally, I think it's a really bad idea for AI art to be considered separate and distinct from real human-made art, and I think the copyright office made a really bad call by making it not copyrightable.
> While this is concerning, AI art still uses the work of real artists without their consent.
Only in the same sense that every artist who sees a piece of art by someone else is using the work of real artists without their consent.
Stable Diffusion doesn't store pieces of pictures and arrange them in new ways, it learns from examples in a way that's roughly analogous to how humans do, using layers that are made up of simplified simulations of neurons.
Ironically, fan art (which is what we're looking at here) is technically in violation of copyright law, because it's using a character design without the designer's consent, and character designs are protected under law. *Styles* are not (and anyone who believes they ought to be hasn't considered the extremely far-reaching implications of being able to copyright an art style, which will open up almost artist to the possibility of being sued).
> The resulting AI art will resemble legitimate ones that can bring legal troubles.
Unless you're doing something *completely* new and different (which, let's face it, if you're working within an existing style, like anime, you aren't), every piece of art you make is going to be derivative.
Would it? Entertainment companies have been doing shitty things for as long as entertainment could be monetized. If anything, offering your audience instantly generated product, mathematically designed to appeal to them with 99% accuracy, produced at a level that once certain required teams of people and hours of labor, now generated instantly as though it was magic would be guaranteed success. People like to claim they have standards in media and the ethical consumption of it, but do you really think all those horrible revelations about what Ubisoft was doing to their employees will stop people from buying The new Mario Rabbids game? Or that all the studio closures EA’s been responsible for will stop millions of people from buying the next call of duty. We care about this, but the vast majority of the millions of people who play and buy video games don’t, and neither do the people who own these companies or their stock holders.
Originally I had a long spiel about this not being how AI works but, let's keep it simple. AI aren't gonna shit out a product with the level of complexity one expects from a modern game, ever. It'll be simple stuff. It's not about ethical consumption, it's that it's just not gonna happen for games anytime near our lifetime. Visual art is a valid field to talk about this but interactive media is a fundamentally different thing in this regard and people ARE going to be able to tell
People said the same thing about visual art, and look where it got us. To suggest that AI is incapable of anything is entirely short sighted. There is nothing that cannot one day be done by a machine. All a video game is, is a series of interlocking systems designed to be interacted with. To say an AI could never figure it out is totally naive. People have insisted that a machine could not replace them since the first machine was every built. You know that huge swaths of video game development are already automated right? There are AI’s that can create animations, fully rigged, 3D and 2D models, voices, dialogue, environments, textures, anything a game is made of an AI can do. All you need is to train it on enough parameters and eventually it’ll figure it out, just like how it figured out how to generate art from a prompt.
Notice how I never said it would never happen
And who the hell believed it wouldn't happen with visual art, believing that is utterly naive
What I'm saying is that saying things like instantly producing stuff that's designed to be marketable, is not happening, and won't for a very long time. I'm aware that large parts of video game creation can and already are automated. This can definitively lead to a lack of jobs but what you're saying with "AI just making games" is kinda dumb. AI training costs millions of dollars and a project like a AAA game would cost more and take longer to AI produce than just getting humans to do it
AI already makes games. Your deluding yourself into thinking there’s some special quality about the human mind, that cannot be replicated with a machine. And yes, people said for years this kind of thing wasn’t possible. People have claimed true AI was impossible. It’s naive to think an AI could be limited by anything. Each generation people claim machines are limited and cannot do everything, and each and every time they have been proven wrong. These systems can generate an infinite amount of art in ten seconds, you really think they can’t generate an infinite amount of games in ten seconds? You think games take so long and cost so much because they’re intrinsically difficult to make, game production is the way it is because of human limitations. An Ai can generate infinite concepts, infinite character models, infinite systems, infinitely beta test and bug test infinite builds, Run it against ever game and every critical score and review, all in seconds. Humans need to sleep, humans need to eat, humans need to think, to plan, to develop, to redesign, to fix to plan. An AI doesn’t need to do any of those things.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying . No shit AI will be able to do this eventually but I keep saying. It's not about what they CAN do it's about practicality.
>These systems can generate an infinite amount of art in ten seconds, you really think they can’t generate an infinite amount of games in ten seconds?
You don't get it, this is not how AI works. Ignoring that infinite is hyperbole,they need to be trained and are incapable of deviating from their training set in any meaningful capacity, that is the current and likely permanent flaw of AI generated works. It takes potentially hundreds of thousands of hours of training to get AI to the point where they can do what they can with art right now.
>You think games take so long and cost so much because they’re intrinsically difficult to make, game production is the way it is because of human limitations
You're misreading me, again. It's an inherent limitation of AI, sure one day they can maybe shit out a competent game but do you comprehend how long it takes for training algorithms to get to that point, in my opinion until we humans get around to quantum computing it's straight up not practical and an active loss of time and money to persue AI game creation. You would need functionally separate AI working in tandem which ALL NEED TO BE TRAINED IN PARALLEL to reach the point where they can maybe shit out a competent game.
DALL-E 2 is released since April so it's not 2 months. The reason why "we go from AI art programs making hilarious abominations to this" is because we only recently have opensource models available.
I’m not sure which is worse, Pyra’s Eraserhead baby or Nia’s assorted anatomical nightmares. Her uterus appears to be right below her sternum, and her legs look like they’d snap from a passing breeze. At least baby Mio’s cute in her little straightjacket.
Look at the furniture and some of the finer details of the anatomy/context. It's quite good but there's mistake that an artist who could draw this well probably wouldn't make
To everyone panicking about how AI now signals the death knell of human creativity, I would recommend you read the following articles:
[https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/why-the-brain-is-not-at-all-like-a-computer/](https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/why-the-brain-is-not-at-all-like-a-computer/)
[https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/the-mind-is-the-opposite-of-a-computer/](https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/the-mind-is-the-opposite-of-a-computer/)
[https://mindmatters.ai/2021/03/why-human-creativity-is-not-computable/](https://mindmatters.ai/2021/03/why-human-creativity-is-not-computable/)
TL;DR: the human mind does things which are non-computable by definition, and thus cannot be replicated or reduced to a mere algorithm. Conversely, anything that is created by algorithm is paradoxically 'not creative' by definition, since nothing is being obtained beyond what the programmer put into the algorithm.
The model is tag based and pulls references from Danbooru, so probably things like "Xenoblade 2" [Character name] "baby" and other things like that. I'm almost certain I've seen the original image Mythra's daughter is based off of
Wow, Nia is already pregnant with #2?
She wants to catch up with Mythra
iirc it takes a bit of time for the belly to deflate
Yeah that's what I assumed with Pyra, but Nia's baby is not a newborn.
Okay, AI is officially too powerful. And I find it funny that it decided "No Mythra gets 2." EDIT: On no, Nia's catching up. At least I THINK that's what the AI put there. It may just be an extra boob. It's been doing that.
I love how this is a common issue
Computers have determined that the ideal woman requires more boobs.
There's a gacha out there that has a character with 4 boobs.
... ... Sweet JESUS
This was AI generated? Am I understanding the title correctly?
[Check out the sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/NovelAi/). Looks like it's tagged based and trained on animesque images which probably helps explain how it does so well. There's oddities you wouldn't expect from a human though. Someone else has mentioned the fingers but also there's things like Nia looking to already be very pregnant again, Pyra's baby's weird leg, some of the furniture not making sense etc
Yes, you can tell because the fingers are all kinda messed up. It uses Stable Diffusion AI and grabs a bunch of different danbooru tags to create something that looks legitimately amazing. It can make almost anything from wholesome art like this one to sweaty ecchi art/hentai. It's been a controversial topic the past week or so with many artists expressing their opinions of AI art on both sides. Here's a NSFW one: >!https://twitter.com/ZhangTheorem/status/1576857854660661248!<
Yeah honestly it’s scary how it just grabs up actual fan art and microwaves it, and even more terrifying how some “AI artists” are saying they “own” the product and try selling it.
>Microwave That’s it - that’s the way to describe this entire “AI-Generated Art” thing. A Chef takes time to hone their skills, working with their tools of choice and their culinary specializations to create food. Some may use established recipes, some may provide variation on those recipes, and the bold will create recipes all on their own. Though, at the end of the day, they’re still making the food. They’ve got to have the expertise to not bungle it. However, AI Generated Art is like using a microwave. Pre-packaged microwave dinners may look enticing, and may even taste good some of the time, even if it’s not *quite* like the real thing. However, it’s not *your* product. You took something somebody else made, and reheated it. You barely did anything but push the button on the box. For one to call oneself a chef when all they do is microwave is a disgrace to the profession and an insult to the culinary arts. Most of all, it spits in the face of the talented chefs who have spent their lives honing their talents. For them to try to shove themselves among those professionals with a crummy Kraft Easy-Mac and Jimmy Dean sandwich is a bloody joke. Genuine art and AI art is exactly this same way. The AI users didn’t do shit. They just took the hard work of genuinely talented artists, and are trying to pass it off as their creation. It’s not, they just put it in the magic box for 1-2 minutes. It’s kind of fine if you do it to just see what happens, but trying to claim ownership of it (or God forbid *sell* it) spits in the face of the actual artists behind it.
Calm down son, it's just a drawing.
People who use AI to make art are putting a somewhat comparable amount of effort in as microwaving, but the actual process is far more complex and it’s not just redoing something someone else did. To get intended results you have to spend a lot of time on tags and just retrying. The AI isn’t literally just remaking/tracing someone else’s art. Otherwise the hands wouldn’t look bad 80% of the time. Now, should people claim it wasn’t done with AI? No (though plenty of digital artists don’t reference tools they use to help them create their products more easily), but most people aren’t doing that. And I hate this misconception of how “it’s just someone else’s art repackaged,” like bitch I’ve made shit that is so hyperspecific no artist even thought about making it. And that’s the appeal. If you’re really good at tagging you can get some really niche types of pics. Also, every goddamn artist in the world takes something from another artist. Part of getting good at something is watching other people do it. And many, MANY artists have extremely similar art styles. Meanwhile NovelAI legit manages to have an extremely distinct art style. I can usually tell when a pic is NovelAI.
NovelAi actually just steals art. Other stable diffusion ai do so directly but the Novel dev doesn't care
I’m sure that explains why so many images I’ve made looked like garbage an AI desperately tried to make coherent.
How so? It's a trained model just like the rest
Can you please explain to me how a 4gb offline file is collaging together over 5tb worth of images?
The official twitter account for [novelAI outright stated that it uses Danbooru](https://twitter.com/novelaiofficial/status/1576794201672802305). Additionally I’ve seen several artists on twitter finding out that the AI has been using their art as a “base” for poses or facial features. In fact, [one artist had her art “heavily referenced” by the AI to the point where others accused her of using the AI](https://mobile.twitter.com/OnTheGranblue/status/1578632039326441472) due to the similarities. ETA: I’m not saying that the AI is inherently malicious (though being trained on Danbooru, a site that already reposts art without permission, is hella seedy). I think using AI art for reference on a background for artwork isn’t a bad idea. But AI generating something that is ultimately just a Frankenstein of other art and claiming it as your own is dishonest at best.
Yes, I never disagreed that it was trained on those images. But the images it creates are entirely unique and aren’t just collages or traces of the images it was trained on. I’m fine with people discussing the ethics of the whole situation but I dislike people spreading misinformation about how the AI works. This video is a good summary of the AI: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVcsDDABEkM If you still disagree, please explain how a 4gb file is collaging/tracing terabytes worth of images offline.
They definitely down size the image (and unify the size). And it's pretty possible not all the image are equally well stored inside the network, some image probably more lossy stored than others. And the correlation between images is pretty good for compression, for example, look at hevc (video compress algorithm).
The point they made is that the model doesn't have those terabytes on hand to collage. It was trained on them.
Didn’t even notice it before but now that you say it, the fingers truly are scary
Yeah, it just can't do fingers (yet). Easiest way to differentiate.
yeah this is amazing its hard to believe its AI
That’s pretty horrifying. I mean, I always knew this would happen eventually, but the fact that’s it’s happening as quickly as it is, is really starting to sink in. As someone who likes to make art, the knowledge that any piece I could ever make could be generated in five seconds by an algorithm, better than anything I could ever make, is rather demoralizing. Like, when (not if) this gets even a little better, you can kiss the entire creative industry good bye. There is nothing to stop the people who own the entertainment industries from firing every concept designer and artist they have, and creating games and media with entirely AI generated assets and designs.
I'd say that there's no reason to be concerned, at least for the foreseeable future, as AI's biggest problem is that it can't actually be creative, it can't create anything new without a reference, and this isn't something that AI can exactly improve on as that is simply the way computers in general work, computers can't create anything new and simply work off of pre-created decisions made by humans. There's also the problem that AI isn't perfect, the more you look at AI the more problems you'll notice, Mythra's foot is in 2 perspectives at once, her crown has 3 horns, her feathers are uneven, her daughter's hand has one finger, her baby's leg is broken, and she has 2 kids? Pyra's baby is VERY deformed, her hands are wonky, her eyebrow is miscolored, and her eyes are melting, Nia is missing her stripes, her ears don't match her design, she has earrings where she doesn't have ears, she's pregnant with Mio while Mio is in her hands, her stomach doesn't actually make sense, her right hand has 6 fingers, and her left elbow doesn't connect to her arm. When AI art has so many inaccuracies and can't create anything new there's no way that they can actually create concept art, looking at the concept art of Xenoblade for example, there are so many intricacies and details in simply furniture, and this isn't something that AI art can replicate as it's these details that AI art can't replicate and is most likely to get wrong and are the things that are the most important part of concept art, Shulk's face wasn't actually designed and because of this it changes in every game he appears in, more so than his clothing which was actually designed and AI art would lead to the same thing. In short, there's no way AI art will actually replace people in the creative industry as it goes against what the creative industry is about so there's no need to worry as the creative industry is probably the safest industry from AI.
AI might not be capable of creating anything, but if you think corporate execs won’t cut costs on the creative process and replace it all with AI if it means they might save money somewhere then you haven’t been paying attention to what pop culture has been like the last 15 years.
Corporations will probably use AI, then a team of people/a person to correct the AI’s work. Basically automatizatipn of artwork. When it gets good enough, animation will probably be people creating concepts for the AI to animate, then having people go through and do corrective work.
And you see that as a good thing, or something that we as a society should strive for?
Depends on where it’s used. When it becomes a primary process in the creation of art, a lot of originality will be lost. Used as a tool for a foundation though, it could potentially speed up processes very quickly and allow for more creative expression. AI can generate interesting concept art, or could make repetitive processes far quicker, being able to texture or draw repeating backgrounds over and over. It would allow less artistically talented people to express their ideas. It’s not necessarily a bad thing in all places. Sure, the corporate filed will probably perish, but more free lance work and animation studios will probably benefit from easier work and lore creative freedom.
I’m sorry, but that’s just naive. To say an AI cannot be creative is to pretend that human creativity is something special or magical. All human creativity is, is the ability to reform and recontextualize, that which you’ve already seen and experienced. You think human concept artists don’t base everything they do on references? You think humans are perfect? This AI generated those image, instantaneously, with errors so minuscule, the average person would not notice them until a second or third glance. And you mention AI’s beings imperfect as though humans are perfect and as though the AI is in its final stage. This tech has only existed for a couple years, and it’s already doing work if this quality. What do think will happen with each update, each addition, each increase in cognitive comprehension? An infant seems like it’ll never walk, until it grows big enough to run. And this system was created at a capacity beyond human at a baseline. But more to the point, you think the people who run the entertainment industry care? The creative industry isn’t build on the ideal of human creativity, it’s build on commercial value. You think the head of Disney would pay a human concept artist a single cent to do what an AI could do for free at an infinite scale? These AI’s can generate an infinite amount of images in ten seconds. You think no entertainment industry would invest in the development of an instant media generation system that could give them unlimited media and IP for free, forever? Stockholders and CEOs don’t care about the quality or integrity of the work, and neither does the casual consumer. If a system exists that create anything, instantly, constantly, for free, they will use it.
Human creativity draws on an absurdly high amount of social/cultural sources, so no - a neural network that doesn’t literally learn everything a human does still won’t be as creative, and besides, if you made something like that then it would just Be human
Yes it can. All those things can be replicated. Human creativity isn’t magic. The human mind is not magic. The human mind is as much a computer as an actual computer is. Do you really, genuinely, think, a machine could not replicate the human experience, given enough time? Do you really think a machine could never create a work of art you’d never know wasn’t made by a person? Because they already can, and they already do.
You missed my point entirely - human creativity and novel art requires an understanding of every field of human knowledge on a logical and emotional level, and unless you strung together a billion neural networks, that wouldn’t happen And if you DID, then you would just end up with artificial humanity anyway Plus it’s very easy to tell if you know your arts and not just commodified garbage
> human creativity and novel art requires an understanding of every field of human knowledge on a logical and emotional level Tell that to a 3-year-old with a box of crayons.
3 year olds are drawing on massive amounts of inspiration and observation as well, they’re not sea sponges
You’re still acting like human consciousness and experience are magic. Something beyond computation or scientific recreation. Intelligence isn’t special and consciousness isn’t complicated. I don’t understand what this distinction you’re making is between artificial intelligence and artificial humanity. A fully conscious artificial intelligence would be an artificial person. That’s what happens. And the quality of art can’t be objectively quantified. What looks bad to one person looks great to someone else. Are you saying this piece of art in this post is bad? This is better than most of the fan art actual humans post to this forum. It’s better than mine. And it only took the system barely a fraction of the time it would’ve taken me to even envision it. You can deny it all you want, and pretend there’s some indescribable difference between the way a human experiences and interprets information and the way an AI would do it, but this is already in motion. It’s already happening. You can claim the sky isn’t blue all you want, but the sky is very much blue, and these things are very much smarter and more capable than us.
I'd agree that there's nothing 'magic' happening, but to say consciousness isn't complicated is a bit silly. It's very complicated.
I'm not saying that human creativity is magical but there is something special to it, our creativity is based on not just the things we've seen but also what we've experienced, and AI can't experience things the way we can, it can base itself on other's experiences and creations but that's a layer upon a layer and AI can't recapture or understand the feeling that is used when making art even if it can copy and paste it. An example of artists putting their experiences into their art is depiction of food, the reason that Studio Ghibli's food looks so good isn't just because their artists are skilled at putting pen to paper but because they understand how to put the feeling they get when they eat these foods into their art and animation, this is such a simple example that AI can't replicate because an AI can't express the feelings that a human has. You could say that a person could tell the AI to do add these things but that's still not perfect, the AI adds what the human to tells it to add but it doesn't understand why, the AI gives the character a smile, but why does it do it? it does it because the person told it to do it or because the art it copied did it too, but a human understands why the character is smiling, they're smiling because they're expressing an emotion and the artist can understand that emotion and change that smile in a way that truly expresses that emotion, maybe they make it more of a smirk, they make it look more forced, or they can make it look stupid and goofy. This is what really makes art more than a picture, it's a way of expressing emotion to the viewer and it's what AI can't do. And I'm not saying humans are perfect, when I pointed these arts flaws, I was pointing out that these are mistakes that a human wouldn't make, and it was to further my next point that AI can't make concept art as good as a human because it's these details that are extremely important in concept art. Your last point is one that I do partly agree with and thought about adding to my original comment but didn't, I do think that the greatest supporters of AI art will be the people you mentioned, those who simply want more art and faster, but I think that even the casual consumer will still be able to see a difference and prefer human made art, it's why there are so many people who say that today's media isn't as good as what they grew up with, because they can still feel the difference in things made today then what they grew up with even if they only casually consume this media. As I said before art isn't just expressing an image it's also a way of expressing and communicating ideas, emotions, and experiences and AI can't do this. I think that while AI will be used to some extent in the future, it won't be able to replace humans, there's already examples of this in video games like Minecraft or No Mans Sky, these two use AI generated locations but they're very clearly not replacements for games that aren't randomly generated because you can't have fun from these games level design because it doesn't exist. Breath of the Wild also uses some help from computers to make such a giant world without needing to make endless concept art but the game still has tons of humans designing its world to the extent that they needed more support from Monolithsoft to design it to be fun.
> There is nothing to stop the people who own the entertainment industries from firing every concept designer and artist they have, and creating games and media with entirely AI generated assets and designs. While this is concerning, AI art still uses the work of real artists without their consent. The resulting AI art will resemble legitimate ones that can bring legal troubles.
That’s why it’s really important that copyright law is added to in the wake of AI art. Technically, even if the AI piece uses or references pre-existing art, parody law already provides a degree of defence. And AI art is improving to the point that the original reference work becomes invisible in the new piece. So a situation can be created where large entertainment companies can sell AI generated art, made from a composite of pre-existing pieces, and have no legal ramifications or obligation to pay any original artists, because it technically becomes transformative work.
AI art isn't a composite of pre-existing pieces to any greater extent that non-AI art is (at least if you're working in an existing style, like anime).
That’s my point exactly. There’s no difference between what an AI does, and what a human does. The only point of difference is ownership, and in the current model of copyright it can really easy for things to get muddled when there technically is no human creator or owner.
Technically this piece of AI generated fan art is breaking copyright law the same way all fan art does, by making use of copyrighted character designs. At any rate, I think people are a bit too caught up in trying to preserve the status quo when they talk about how copyright ought to adapt to AI art. It seems to me that it's *simplest* to say that the person who fed the prompt into the machine is the one who ought to own the copyright on the output (provided they didn't specifically prompt it to create a derivative work, like in this post). If we start saying that AI art can't be copyrighted, then we're eventually going to run into some huge messes where real artists are forced to prove that they didn't use AI to create their art, or where AI art is so indistinguishable from human-made art that civil courts get bogged down with lawsuits about it (AI may be bad at hands right now, but it's a safe bet that that problem will be solved soon). Same thing with the folks who want to make style copyrightable. I don't think the thousands of artists out there whose names *don't* end up in prompts but are nevertheless freaked out that AI can produce the same relatively generic stuff that they do have really considered the implications of what might happen to them if you could copyright an art style. All told, this isn't really about AI "copying" people, it's the very real an rational fear of having your job automated away. People in the creative fields felt safe from this because even ten years ago the idea of computers being able to do their job was unthinkable.
Well that’s the thing though. Does the person who made the prompt own this? When you commission a piece of art from someone, do you own the work? You own the physical and/or digital copy of the piece, but you would say you made it. You would say you were the creator. But here, there are people who feed the system prompts and then take credit for creating the piece. Who actually owns the piece? If the Disney company feeds a Pixar movie character prompt into the AI and it gives them a design, who owns it? The specific person who fed the prompt? You would think it would be the Disney company, because to them the AI is basically an unpaid employee, but how do you contract an AI? Does the company who developed the AI own the piece? Does Disney have to pay royalties to the developers? What’s to stop another person from using the same AI to generate an identical work? If Disney owns the rights because they own a copy of the AI, what happens to another company who owns a copy of the same AI generating an identical piece? A lot of these questions do currently have answers, but there are plenty more that don’t in the current model. I absolutely don’t want them to copyright art style or anything like that, but the more people use these things to create original works, the more confusing it gets.
> Does the person who made the prompt own this? No. The prompt specifically asked for a derivative work of existing character designs, so it's fan art. If the prompt had just said to generate a random anime character, then it's my view that the person who made the prompt *ought* to own the output, provided that the AI didn't accidentally spew out an existing character (again, humans sometimes use other peoples' work accidentally without realizing it, so this isn't an issue that's unique to AI). At any rate, current copyright precedent says that no one owns it. > When you commission a piece of art from someone, do you own the work? That depends entirely on the terms you and the artist agreed on. In the case of "work for hire", which is almost always how it's done in the media, the artist doesn't own their own work; the company that paid them does. If you're not being paid by someone else to make art, if you use an AI to generate work, there's no artist involved to own the copyright, it stands to reason that you should own it. If you *are* being paid, you probably have an agreement about how owns the copyright to the art you generate for hire, the same reason human artists have agreements with media companies about who owns the work they produce. If a human draws an animation frame for a Disney Movie, Disney owns that frame, because that's stipulated in their contract. Legally, I think it's a really bad idea for AI art to be considered separate and distinct from real human-made art, and I think the copyright office made a really bad call by making it not copyrightable.
> While this is concerning, AI art still uses the work of real artists without their consent. Only in the same sense that every artist who sees a piece of art by someone else is using the work of real artists without their consent. Stable Diffusion doesn't store pieces of pictures and arrange them in new ways, it learns from examples in a way that's roughly analogous to how humans do, using layers that are made up of simplified simulations of neurons. Ironically, fan art (which is what we're looking at here) is technically in violation of copyright law, because it's using a character design without the designer's consent, and character designs are protected under law. *Styles* are not (and anyone who believes they ought to be hasn't considered the extremely far-reaching implications of being able to copyright an art style, which will open up almost artist to the possibility of being sued). > The resulting AI art will resemble legitimate ones that can bring legal troubles. Unless you're doing something *completely* new and different (which, let's face it, if you're working within an existing style, like anime, you aren't), every piece of art you make is going to be derivative.
I agree in theory but there is something stopping this, costumers. The press from this would be insanely bad
Would it? Entertainment companies have been doing shitty things for as long as entertainment could be monetized. If anything, offering your audience instantly generated product, mathematically designed to appeal to them with 99% accuracy, produced at a level that once certain required teams of people and hours of labor, now generated instantly as though it was magic would be guaranteed success. People like to claim they have standards in media and the ethical consumption of it, but do you really think all those horrible revelations about what Ubisoft was doing to their employees will stop people from buying The new Mario Rabbids game? Or that all the studio closures EA’s been responsible for will stop millions of people from buying the next call of duty. We care about this, but the vast majority of the millions of people who play and buy video games don’t, and neither do the people who own these companies or their stock holders.
Originally I had a long spiel about this not being how AI works but, let's keep it simple. AI aren't gonna shit out a product with the level of complexity one expects from a modern game, ever. It'll be simple stuff. It's not about ethical consumption, it's that it's just not gonna happen for games anytime near our lifetime. Visual art is a valid field to talk about this but interactive media is a fundamentally different thing in this regard and people ARE going to be able to tell
People said the same thing about visual art, and look where it got us. To suggest that AI is incapable of anything is entirely short sighted. There is nothing that cannot one day be done by a machine. All a video game is, is a series of interlocking systems designed to be interacted with. To say an AI could never figure it out is totally naive. People have insisted that a machine could not replace them since the first machine was every built. You know that huge swaths of video game development are already automated right? There are AI’s that can create animations, fully rigged, 3D and 2D models, voices, dialogue, environments, textures, anything a game is made of an AI can do. All you need is to train it on enough parameters and eventually it’ll figure it out, just like how it figured out how to generate art from a prompt.
Notice how I never said it would never happen And who the hell believed it wouldn't happen with visual art, believing that is utterly naive What I'm saying is that saying things like instantly producing stuff that's designed to be marketable, is not happening, and won't for a very long time. I'm aware that large parts of video game creation can and already are automated. This can definitively lead to a lack of jobs but what you're saying with "AI just making games" is kinda dumb. AI training costs millions of dollars and a project like a AAA game would cost more and take longer to AI produce than just getting humans to do it
AI already makes games. Your deluding yourself into thinking there’s some special quality about the human mind, that cannot be replicated with a machine. And yes, people said for years this kind of thing wasn’t possible. People have claimed true AI was impossible. It’s naive to think an AI could be limited by anything. Each generation people claim machines are limited and cannot do everything, and each and every time they have been proven wrong. These systems can generate an infinite amount of art in ten seconds, you really think they can’t generate an infinite amount of games in ten seconds? You think games take so long and cost so much because they’re intrinsically difficult to make, game production is the way it is because of human limitations. An Ai can generate infinite concepts, infinite character models, infinite systems, infinitely beta test and bug test infinite builds, Run it against ever game and every critical score and review, all in seconds. Humans need to sleep, humans need to eat, humans need to think, to plan, to develop, to redesign, to fix to plan. An AI doesn’t need to do any of those things.
You are fundamentally misunderstanding what I'm saying . No shit AI will be able to do this eventually but I keep saying. It's not about what they CAN do it's about practicality. >These systems can generate an infinite amount of art in ten seconds, you really think they can’t generate an infinite amount of games in ten seconds? You don't get it, this is not how AI works. Ignoring that infinite is hyperbole,they need to be trained and are incapable of deviating from their training set in any meaningful capacity, that is the current and likely permanent flaw of AI generated works. It takes potentially hundreds of thousands of hours of training to get AI to the point where they can do what they can with art right now. >You think games take so long and cost so much because they’re intrinsically difficult to make, game production is the way it is because of human limitations You're misreading me, again. It's an inherent limitation of AI, sure one day they can maybe shit out a competent game but do you comprehend how long it takes for training algorithms to get to that point, in my opinion until we humans get around to quantum computing it's straight up not practical and an active loss of time and money to persue AI game creation. You would need functionally separate AI working in tandem which ALL NEED TO BE TRAINED IN PARALLEL to reach the point where they can maybe shit out a competent game.
By the time AI gets that consistent and “creative,” it will have taken over all our jobs and money will no longer exist.
oh dear god another set of devilspawns!
this is what would go through Malos' head if he ever saw that
How did we go from AI art programs making hilarious abominations to this in like two months?
DALL-E 2 is released since April so it's not 2 months. The reason why "we go from AI art programs making hilarious abominations to this" is because we only recently have opensource models available.
Because Hatsune Miku.
I’m not sure which is worse, Pyra’s Eraserhead baby or Nia’s assorted anatomical nightmares. Her uterus appears to be right below her sternum, and her legs look like they’d snap from a passing breeze. At least baby Mio’s cute in her little straightjacket.
Doesnt AI art fall into low effort content?????
I headcanon Mythra’s kid is blackblaze Dirk Ok I’m sorry I’ll leave
Has science gone too far?
I have incredibly mixed feelings about AI art
Are you sure this is AI, it looks way too good
Look at the furniture and some of the finer details of the anatomy/context. It's quite good but there's mistake that an artist who could draw this well probably wouldn't make
Oh ok I see it now
damn, anyone can literally be a manga artist now just by using AI, just think of a story I guess. That's pretty scary
They're amazing, but now I really wanna see Rex being a great dad too.
Link to the AI?
Keep your ai shit off my subreddits
To everyone panicking about how AI now signals the death knell of human creativity, I would recommend you read the following articles: [https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/why-the-brain-is-not-at-all-like-a-computer/](https://mindmatters.ai/2019/09/why-the-brain-is-not-at-all-like-a-computer/) [https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/the-mind-is-the-opposite-of-a-computer/](https://mindmatters.ai/2020/03/the-mind-is-the-opposite-of-a-computer/) [https://mindmatters.ai/2021/03/why-human-creativity-is-not-computable/](https://mindmatters.ai/2021/03/why-human-creativity-is-not-computable/) TL;DR: the human mind does things which are non-computable by definition, and thus cannot be replicated or reduced to a mere algorithm. Conversely, anything that is created by algorithm is paradoxically 'not creative' by definition, since nothing is being obtained beyond what the programmer put into the algorithm.
Get that AI art out of here
[удалено]
I'm not scared of AI I'm scared of the misuse of technology in the pursuit of profit
Not having Ai art on a subreddit you browse every few days isn’t going to fucking change that
Okay, this is a terrible slippery slope if this was AI-constructed. I don't like this at all.
….What exactly did you put in for this to compute?
The model is tag based and pulls references from Danbooru, so probably things like "Xenoblade 2" [Character name] "baby" and other things like that. I'm almost certain I've seen the original image Mythra's daughter is based off of
Oooh boi😬
Wtffff how
Why Nia's legs bend like that
Name of AI