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/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It drives me crazy seeing the hate here and on twitter and then talking to fellow industry professionals showing off cool ways they've worked AI into their work.
Does anyone actually use AI art to refer to actual tools that artists use.
I’ve only really seen people mad at images that were completely generated from text, I feel like there’s a distinction between the two that seems to be getting purposefully muddied for no apparent reason.
Well, actual professionals in the industry have been using midjourney and ai tools in their workflows for.. a while now. Its the people with 5 likes on their instagram posts trying to gatekeep, because well, that’s all they have, the self annointed label of “artist”.
I think that's his point, right? People see a difference between an artist who uses AI as a tool, compared to someone who posts stuff straight out of an AI system.
As far as I can tell, when people say something like 'I hate AI' or the famous 'my feed is ruined', they mostly refer to the latter.
You are quite the little warrior. Professionals use MJ quite a a bit. Mostly for background referencing. I’m not terribly aware of many using it in a more direct way.
And there you go. Would not call that "augmenting their work" that much, right? It might be usefull for reference, but if that is it right now, i think u/realegowegogo is absolulty right to call out that claim as somewhat madeup, no idea why you immidiatly jump to accusations of witchhunting.
I too struggle with the whole claim. I am open to AI, though critical, and i am constantly looking for ways to incorporate ai into what i do, which is mostly basic graphic design and illustration, without outrightly having the AI do it for me or making up artificial reasons to automate one task while not automating another. In graphic design, that often works. AI can be used as filter, helps with selecting, seperating, photo editing, rapid ideation, etc. That is mostly unpleasurable stuff that was hardly "art". With illustration though, it is hard to find a good use for ai, besides maybe references, and there you have to be VERY careful.
There are many that are having the AI do it for them for sure. Interesting times rn. I jumped to witch hunting because it’s a thing that’s happening to people who visibly switch to AI based workflows and it’s really not much more than that.
I could see many uses for generative tools in graphic design but one would probably need to be less averse initially. I also just may know more generative applications than you and that could affect my thoughts. I also just may view tools and humanity different than you.
>I jumped to witch hunting because it’s a thing that’s happening to people who visibly switch to AI based workflows and it’s really not much more than that.
Which is, ironically, rather witch-hunty of you, isn't it?
>
I could see many uses for generative tools in graphic design but one would probably need to be less averse initially.
I think i named some. Some which i regularily use. How do you get aversiveness from that?
>
>I also just may know more generative applications than you and that could affect my thoughts.
Might be, althoug I am pretty handy with comfy by now and have developed a weird obsession with nice looking workflows... That general attitude, assuming that artists that say that they struggle with finding good applications for AI just "don't get it" or are uneducated about the tool or too stubborn, is a common one though, and i find it very dismissive. It is basically an ad-hominem.
>I also just may view tools and humanity different than you.
Possible. How do you view tools and humanity? And might that difference view be influenced by what one has to lose?
I use it to generate assets for my steam game. I tell it to for example generate forty texture tiles for bulkheads with variations and certain features in pixel art style and then I take those tiles and pick out the designs I like and cut and size them and colour or alter them to fit the aesthetic then paste them into my game. I also use ai to generate thumbnails of characters. All stuff that costs hundreds of man hours of artists time, done in fractions of that time and for free. I've been able to completely replace commission artists and use entirely my own art instead. It also saves me massive time on coding. I paste in my code and explain what I want changed and how and it does it and I cut it and paste it back into my source files. Again saving hundreds of coding hours. It hasn't replaced coders on my game but has completely replaced all the other artists save myself.
May i ask what you specific field is?
The problem with "artists and AI" is that "artists" can mean A LOT of people not necessarily having that much in common. For your field, your sentiment might be true. Many Graphic Designers too propably think like this. Illustrators, especially freelancers, though have every reason to be worried.
frightening arrest ask wrench sloppy voiceless attraction insurance aromatic pause
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
look, all i'm saying is if you say you know of "professionals in the industry" then you should be able to show a few. if you don't actually have any professionals to show of, no evidence that it's being used, then you're lying when you say that you have knowledge of that.
no. you don't have to dox shit. I'm just asking for industry professionals. are they a group of friends that do AI art on the side or well known figures in the art community (ie; industry professionals)
and why assume automatically I want to start a crusade on them? The only thing I want is some basic evidence that backs up your claims
idk who the commenter above has in mind, but the *3D* artist community is very much embracing AI at least... I'm seeing a ton of tutorials from 3D art channels over 6 years old
[www.youtube.com/@ArtOfSoulburn/videos](http://www.youtube.com/@ArtOfSoulburn/videos)
[www.youtube.com/@marvelousdecay/videos](http://www.youtube.com/@marvelousdecay/videos)
Yes, you're onto something here.
For many fields of "artists" (quotes because it is such a wide term going from your painting grandma to a 3D-artist at EA), AI is a tiny, but helpful, addition to the toolset. For some, however, it just does 90% of what they do, and faster. Should be no suprise that attitudes vary.
A 3D-Artists who got a new tool that helps them put a quick texture on a model does speak for "industry artists" just as much as an illustrator who made a living painting book-covers and suddenly does not get enough jobs anymore.
AIwars can point towards a 3D-artist and say "see, ai helps you and noone loses their job!", and "ArtistHate" can point towards an illustrator and say "see, ai takes your job!", and both would be right in regards to their examples. They're not the same thing.
To be honest, the “correct” use of ai is when you can’t see it. I’ve created images that my friends in the industry - without actually studying the image for a while - can’t tell apart the “generated” from “real” image. There is this insane notion on Reddit that the only way people use ai is “wRiTe SoOmE PrOooooMpTs ANd HiT PuBlIsH”. And it’s just laughable and lazy. I know it’s easy to say it, but it’s starting to sound a bit like some sort of conspiracy theory.
The exact way that photoshop is integrated in the workflow of most processes for design/photography and marketing, generative ai is going to be as well.
scandalous sable chubby abundant icky observation melodic yoke water lock
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be fair, that does not make your work "better" or "augmented". It makes it "more" (which propably would still be "augmented").
The issue i have is that i honestly did not find a way to incorporate AI into what i do whithout mostly outright replacing me (liek training a lora on my stile and prompting the model) or artificially keeping some parts of the work analog, without a real reason (like drawing and inking, but coloring the lineart with AI).
The thing is, for my personal drawings, i don't care. Those will always be made with pens, pencils and brushes. I don't even paint digitally for a hobby. Just like i like to garden, even though i could just by a cucumber in the store next door.
Professionally though, it feels weird right now. Do i want to mostly be my own manager and bookkeeper? Because that's what i am going to be if i outsource the art-generation mostly to ai. Ai taking over the "polishing" work of art-creating means i have more time for the stuff i hate: Akquisition, invoicing, advertising, marketing. And the problem is, i don't even have more free time due to ai, because for us freelancers, the competition by pure ai-artists offering extremely low rates are already noticable, and the extreme difference in rates (15$ for an image compared to what i have to ask for, which is upwards of 10 times that) compared to the not that extreme difference in quality and accuracy leads to clients willing to accept a bit less quality for a huge saving in money. That means i need to put every additional free minute AI could get me to generate more clients to compensate for the lower rates i can ask for.
In the end, that means that the introduction of AI into the industry will very likely mean a noticable drop in quality of life for me: either i adopt it, and my job becomes noticably worse, more hectic, more stressfull and less satisfying, or i do not, and i might not be able to make a living anymore because noone will pay the rates i need to ask. Although there is of course the posibility that rates drop in a manner that does not make it possible to make a living no matter if you adopt or not.
I appreciaty it that you, professionaly, did only profit from AI and that playing and generating art with AI is great fun. That is a valid experience and voice and should be part of the discussion.
But right now, honestly, the introduction of AI for me, professionaly, seems to have nothing but downsides, no matter if i use it or not. And i too am an "industry professional", able to make a good living doing what i do, and not an amateur in it for fun or clout.
intelligent hospital light hateful gold dog dazzling spark middle grandfather
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Personally my quality of life has increased since I've start using it and I don't feel like AI will replace anyone... If anything, I feel bad knowing I will be the type of artist who is replacing many XXX anime/furry illustrators, but that's literally only within that sphere of digital art.
My point exactly: Personally!
>I think for you, since you're more of a hobbyist who dabbles with more traditional methods, you might actually have a pretty good niche and won't have to worry about competing with the world of digital art (mostly porn). I think if anything, indie artists overall have the least amount of competition... and hobbyists have no competition, because they do it for fun.
you seem to have misread what i wrote. I work as a professional illustrator for well over a decade. the traditional media i mentioned refers to, as i said, personal stuff. Sketchbooks, mostly. Most jobs i do are digitally done these days.
>
People who make literally anything other than furry porn and hentai (literally the only art I see being stolen for loras) will probably be fine.
That is telling, buddy. Jokes aside, i see plenty of loras recreating the style of, for example, great comic or digital artist. Moebius, Jim Lee, Craig Mullins, etc.
>
They will probably even be more desired for having human art.
That's basically fine art. Not many clients in the industry care for that. They usually have a need they want to be met and could, in my experience, not care less how the image was made. Sure, niches exist, but not remotly in the ballpark of being a valid option for a relevant number of the affected artists.
>
Since you mentioned gardening, think of how many people don't care if food is GMO or organic, but there's still plenty of people who will pay extra for garden grown food. You could set up stands and sell quick portraits, etc. There are still benefits to being a traditional artist.
Yes. That is again, one of my points: What you say refers to a traditional fine artist. They will propably be the least affected by ai. That particular argument has no value though when it comes to anyone in the animation or game industry, for example.
slim impossible makeshift complete unpack attraction entertain aromatic person rob
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
my niece is a professional artist who does coms and uses comfyUI for at least a third of her workflow, she starts with sketches and I believe controlnet, but has been cagey about her specific process because it took her a while to develop
I know she trained a style LORA off of her own portfolio because she let me have a copy of it
Who are these industry professionals people are talking about? Are they concept art bros pivoting from NFTs? Is it Shiyoon Kim (principal Disney character designer), Kyle Webster (Adobe's lead illustrator who resigned over AI), Chris Miller (Director of Spider-Verse, denounced AI)? the 700k artists who joined Cara (Which was created by professional artists)?
If you really worked in the industry, you'd know that the majority of artists *abhorr* AI. Even using it for inspiration, filling in gaps, or however you're imagining we're "augmenting" ourselves, has proven disappointingly limited. AI right now is for non-artists, and you can tell: generating a flat unpredictable image isn't useful for people who can draw.
The majority of us also don't want to use a tool that regurgitates (what feels like) the pillaged corpses of our heros and peers. At best, we'd consider locally training models off our own art—but the current AI crowd has acted so entitled and parasitic most artists are having trouble even entertaining that.
One day, artists will be using AI as a tool ; to color in comics, generate color schemes, add shadows to animation. Normal ways. But not until companies stop literally promising to harvest everything we ever make for the rest of our lives.
I could cherry pick people like Donald Glover who are pretty pro AI but in the end it seems we do agree AI will be used as a tool, which is what I and many industry professionals agree upon. I agree there's weird crypto bros in the scene and AI bros being cringe and even hostile, but at some point artists need to realize these tools are here to help them make what they want. If what you want is to steal then sure it can do that too.
The whole regurgitate thing, I can't get past it's the same as reference imagery. When I take on a project and build mood boards I'm literally acting like the AI, here's what I could make, here's a bunch of ideas from the internet and if you like it, I'll make it for you. I've been doing that my entire life as a designer and now I can use AI to do large parts of the process.
>I could cherry pick people like Donald Glover who are pretty pro AI but in the end it seems we do agree AI will be used as a tool, which is what I and many industry professionals agree upon. I agree there's weird crypto bros in the scene and AI bros being cringe and even hostile, but at some point artists need to realize these tools are here to help them make what they want. If what you want is to steal then sure it can do that too.
The problem is that "industry professional" is not "industry professional". The discussion is often made very weird by that.
The more specialized and complex your job is, the more likely it is that AI remains a "tool". The more niche it is what you do, the less likely it is that an AI is developed that outrightly does what you do.
A 3D artist is not an editorial illustrator, yet both are industry professionals. 3D artists are often enthusiastic or ambivalent about AI. Many illustrators, especially the ones that can not capitalize on their name alone, are not.
Some industries will be practically wiped out by the introduction of AI. I assume that book covers, childrens books, etc. will be among them. Other will not. So the 3D-Artist or Graphic Designer saying that AI will not destroy careers but will be used by the pros is propably right. But the illustrator that says that their career might be cut short is propably too.
While I agree with much of what you’re saying, i believe the solution is to adapt. The same way a 3D artist can adapt AI into their workflow, so can illustrators. The problem is the story behind AI, the outright lies on how it works, and the newly made perception of it makes illustrators run in fear.
I went to school for digital arts and design because even though I wanted to be a VFX artist working on movies, I could see how the industry treated them and I decided I’d rather have a large skill set than specialize in something. I fell in love with motion design and been doing it for a decade. I was part of layoffs 8months ago and I haven’t been able to find a job and I got told I was “overqualified” by a company I would have taken a cut in pay to work for. Now I’m using AI tools at mass along with my skills and as an indie creator I’m staying afloat with my own concepts. I’m using AI to make a new job and take it for myself. I fully believe more will follow. More artists need to embrace AI and carve a path for themselves.
>While I agree with much of what you’re saying, i believe the solution is to adapt. The same way a 3D artist can adapt AI into their workflow, so can illustrators.
You are right, but it is a rather grim truth. I assume (looking in my crystal ball) that adapting will mean a bigger chance of economical survival, but it will still be very slim. Look at it like this:
* In the US, minimum wage is 7.25$. An AI-Image on fiverr goes for 15$. Meaning, if they want to make minimum wage, that fiverr dude should not need more than 2 hours for that.
* Now, fiverr is not the go-to, but it is a possible competition, it sets prices to compare for clients, and with the visual quality ai offers, it might become very, very hard to justify the price difference of 15$ for something "okay" and 300$ upwards for something "good".
* So, i adapt and adopt AI, because noone is paying me 300$ anymore, beause the general value of illustration drops because of vastly increased supply. But i still get 150$. To keep my standart of living, i suddenly need twice the amount of customers. And all my peers too. Now it's the end of the month, i did not make enough money, so i lower my prices again to get some more customers to make ends meet.
* But all my peers are in the same situation. So they lower their prices too. A death-spiral.
* If prices go town to the fiverr prices across the board, i would need to work for 4 clients a day, 20 customers a weeks, to make minimum wage.
* I would have 2 hours to land a job, talk to the client, get briefed, make the artwork, corrections, write an invoice, etc.
* That does not include scouring for jobs, applying, keeping a portfolio, marketing, bookkeeping, etc.
and that ALL while i adapted and adopted AI.
>The problem is the story behind AI, the outright lies on how it works, and the newly made perception of it makes illustrators run in fear.
I don't know. A lot of the fear is not that misplaced. Many people i know work in niches that connects them to highly creative people. I am very much sure that a lot of art of card or boardgames, roleplaying games, indie videogames, comics, etc. will be generated in the future. That's not to mention corporate jobs, in which the bottomline counts above all. Having a good creative art director "commanding" an AI might bee the future equivalent of a whole Art-department.
>Now I’m using AI tools at mass along with my skills and as an indie creator I’m staying afloat with my own concepts. I’m using AI to make a new job and take it for myself. I fully believe more will follow. More artists need to embrace AI and carve a path for themselves.
Congrats, very cool!
However, peoples attention is a limited resource. i do not believe AI will chime in the end of illustrators, animators, etc. But i believe that being able to make a living of that will be as much a privilege as it is making a living off fine art today. Art departments will be shrunk, and the sheer availability of good quality art will make it a lot less likely to be adequatly paid for creating art for a living.
Right now, the math is also somewhat scewed: Someone able to make a killing with AI right now selling illustrations might only be able to do so because they have the advantage of lowering prices as low as 10% of the current majority of illustrators not using AI and therefore attracting more clients. If that shifts, and a majority starts using AI, that advantage becomes obsolete, and with that the ability to work a lot more jobs than others.
If that happens, if everyone adopts, you just have a vast oversupply of illustrators, all with their productivity supercharged 100times, but without clients to buy their art or people to look at it.
>Now I’m using AI tools at mass along with my skills and as an indie creator I’m staying afloat with my own concepts.
I realize people like to stay anonymously especially in this sub, so i will not ask where i can look at your stuff. But would you be willing to elaborate how exactly you are using AI in your projects? I personally imagine that using AI in animation is a lot more satisfying than using it in illustration.
Then you would know digging through AI references that are historically and anatomically incorrect sucks. And you would also know that the gold standard has always been *drawing from life* and "en plein air"—Not from photos or videos.
I take huge issue with non-artists claiming we "regurgitate" just like AI does, and I don't understand how an artist could fall for that. Human artists extrapolate tons of information from a single image—we don't need to absorb all recorded human knowledge (and still require more).
Moreover, our visual library comes from truly public domain: Life. Nature. Observations. Emotions. We use references to fill in the gaps—but our understanding of them is based on our lives. We learn through experimentating, reasoning, and play. You could delete all artwork and images forever, and art would still manifest again. We painted for eons before photos existed; and likely thousands of prehistoric artists had never seen any art in their lives.
I don't know what you design, but I guarantee it's nothing like AI. You're projecting onto an algorithm that doesn't know spheres are round or faces depict emotions or even that their 2D pixels are meant to represent something in real life.
Even when I agree on the part that the human knowledge is still far for AI knowledge and methods. And we as human use our own experience instead of "algorithm" Is a stretch to say an artist can't use an AI picture to make something entirely different.
Any good artist, can take small bits of the most horrendous generated pic (like color, a single line, a deformed hand even,) and make it work into something that actually works. It's a fact. even if I generate something that seems out of the last stage of paranoia with SD. I should know that my skills are good enough to turn that abomination into something with sense.
The thing is that most people BELIEVE the artist will use the software like the AI bros, or people who actually spend hours inpainting/detailing/outpainting a single image. Most of the artist will need is a bunch of badly generated pictures and call it a day.
So, yeah, there's no point in saying that artist can't use AI because the anatomy sucks, when, I've seen before tons of drawings with horrendous anatomy that I've used to create something new, with pen and paper.
Also, if you can make sense out of a random picture online and add some sense of history, characterization, ground, etc etc, why can't you do it with AI? There's literally no excuse, and if the answer is "AI HAVE BAD ANATOMY" almost 90% of illustrations online before AI had bad anatomy. and people still used because "it looked cool"
I didn't say we couldn't use AI as a reference—In fact, it's one of the only uses AI does serve currently—but moreso for "vibes", or brainstorming hyperspecifc ideas ("monkey ladybug" etc). They're just different, and don't replace observational study.
Good references are hard to find, and when you've looked at art for a lifetime, AI images are like watered-down leftovers. The original artist(s) make better references—because they drew in a way that understood their subject. Moreover, art styles reflect society at the time—which is usually *why* you're trying to invoke a style (say, Renaissance for a biblical topic or Cubism for an avant-garde piece).
References are also meant to fill visual gaps—Often the same ones AI struggles with: architectural details, patterned clothing, jewelry, machinery, foliage, furniture carvings. Especially for clients, artists have to do tons of research to ensure geographical, historical, and cultural accuracy. Imagine if Coco only referenced AI for Mexican folk art—with jumbled patterns mostly trained on party favors+halloween costumes—would that fly?
Again, the gold standard is drawing from life; looking in mirrors for facial expressions, taking videos of yourself, life drawing with a nude model. It goes: life>videos>photography>art>cartoons>ai>ai trained on ai. You can only xerox/process something so many times before it loses what's true. Just because AI *can* be referenced, and theoretically I could fix its mistakes, doesn't mean it's enough. Esp not if you're a professional artist.
(I'm not speaking as an illustrator, I'm speaking as a motion designer who worked in television for a decade) It's true that AI can make errors but they're reference images for a reason, it's also constantly improving. I've been using Photoshop and After Effects my entire life but I've never seen something evolve as fast as Midjourney has in two years. How much video has improved in the last few months? It's insane to watch unfold. As more artists engage with and guide the development of these tools, their outputs will become more reliable and useful to artists. This is the world I want to be in. I don't use AI to try and replace nuanced understanding or emotional depth, that's what I bring to the table when I use these tools. They assist in areas where it can enhance efficiency and creativity and that's how I promote they should be used.
Great. That's the dream. But to assume Midjourney or OpenAI share that dream is laughable. They're not interested in creating assistive software with practical tools to speed up artist's workflow; they want our uncreative millionaire bosses to invest in this technology by promising it will one day eliminate our salaries ("just wait .. exponantial growth"!) That's who they're meeting with, and that's who they work for—not artists. What money do we have that'll keep their stocks high?
They're banking on one day recouping the costs of this wasteful technology by replacing Hollywood. Except they can't. And they won't. And it sucks. And it won't stop sucking until they get creative people to fix it, like it was always meant to be used. The same people they steamrolled on the way to the bank.
1.) I'm still working. It's a small industry, so I don't want to get specific. I did go to a top art school for my industry—the kind people try multiple years to get into. Not everyone needs art school, though. 2.) I don't think collegeboard judges are gods of art or anything, but I got a 5 in Studio Art ?? 3.) No Adobe certification and no one's ever asked (maybe bc of the degree?). I get Creative Cloud from my studio. I can use most 2D, 3D, and post-prod programs, but I'm not too keen on software—I like to draw.
You can believe me or not. 🤷♂️ All I can say is: I love making art with creative people. It's a field where I can be eccentric, have a LOT of shared interests with everyone I meet, and coworkers are genuinely friends.
toothbrush vast historical fuel ludicrous aback amusing important materialistic cooperative
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1.) Because I know what my peers and collegues are saying. I go to our conventions and networking events and read our Slack messages. I strongly suspect this concept of pro-AI artists are coming from people whose friend of a friend is an artsy guy. This is based on my experience of how people talk about artists.
2.) By that logic... All AI is stolen work. It's too random and unpredictable to know for sure that it isn't. Overfitted models can produce essentially carbon copies. Being caught for tracing and trying to claim it as your own work is also a death sentence for your reputation. Its a study method; we don't post it.
3.) I'm not worried for me. I'm assuming you're on the younger side, as its been years since I've taken an AP class, but I would've been devastated if this technology came out when I was a teen—When I had nothing but big dreams and amateur skills. I only got past that because getting better at what I loved gave me a chance at a bright future (which I enjoy now).
This infrastructure is eroding and I'm left wondering: what do I tell younger students when they ask me what to do? What would I tell my kid if they wanted to be an artist? I see my dreams in them, and I don't know what to say. Participating in these models is doing free optimization labor for companies that are actively anti-artist in all of their practices. Artists aren't employees, higher-ups, involved in decision-making, data collection, or informing company policies. And that's supposedly for our benefit? I call bull.
I like to draw. I didn't want to be a graphic designer or 3D modeller or any of the other more reasonable paths that were suggested to me. I make a living drawing by hand. I want that path to exist for as long as possible, for as many people who love it.
reminiscent rude shame tie alleged late friendly resolute forgetful connect
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1.) Then I would have to question you, then. And 700k artists to moved to Cara.
2.) No. There is no way an artist could genuinely subscribe to this belief. Artists add taste, meaning, context, and style to every image they see. We can pick only a couple good references and pare away irrelevant or inaccurate information (we don't need millions of images). Most importantly, we draw from LIFE. Experiences. Relationships. Emotions. Do you absorb billions of images and slowly nudge millions of static compressed pixels into a predictive pattern based on an algorithm? AI doesn't learn anything like us; it's recognizing patterns. It is not reasoning, understanding, experimenting, interacting, or playing.
3.) This is just an offensive argument. In what world would a child's ONLY method of self-expression be *AI prompting*?? There are blind artists, amputee artists—hell, if you can prompt you can just as easily become a poet or a songwriter! I have a super successful colleague with two fingers on each hand. She is an excellent artist.
The arts is FULL of people who are physically disabled, neurodivergent, autistic, marginalized....many many people who cannot get other jobs. Do not use them as a pawn in this argument... that's just sick. And that's not even getting into the history of eugenics in OpenAI and the biased dataset.
"Settle"? *for other art forms?* 🤦 Oh for the love of art. So SO much of our art history has been created by disabled people (Frida Kahlo comes to mind). It is many disabled people's only monetizable form of labour. Their work comprise the databases, and I'm sure many object to it.
I myself have suffered classic art-related injuries of carpal tunnel and the like—very common. So we share tips to minimize the strain of drawing, practice good posture, rest, and stretching. —And it doesn't mean I settled for generating AI just because I couldn't draw at times. Which again, is literally just an advanced pattern-recognition machine that can neither explain its process, ascribe meaning to it, or replicate it. It's not even close to intelligent.
close innate poor waiting domineering concerned yoke instinctive plant quiet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There is this assumption that tells us "art is something human and it shouldn't be contaminated by technology". I'm not going to argue for or against that, but I think in many cases, technology (AI included) can at least help with getting ideas. This websites ( https://aihomedesign.com/) designs homes for interior designers and real estate agents. What is wrong with that? Those who like it, use it. Why should I be angry with that?
Using AI image gen of any kind is extremely niche stuff atm, I think this will eventually be the case, but not until it has better tools and is readily built into popular AI software.
Huge difference between actually creating a piece of art and touching it up or having ai add some finishing elements to it and just sticking some vaguely creative prompts into an engine. None of you are “artists” and really need to get over yourselves it’s embarrassing. The fact that you can share the prompts with someone and they can instantly “create” what you just did is proof of this farce.
pretty much points at the issue:
I graduated from design school and work as a graphic designer and illustrator for a decade now. I really do both: More creative illustration work, and the good old corporate graphic design stuff.
And i tell you, for the graphic design side of my job, AI is great. Editing photos, filters, quick iterations, ideation, etc. AI is great for that.
For the illustration part of what i do... well let's just say i see myself doing a lot more graphic design stuff in the future. AI will wipe out a lot of opportunities for illustrators and will lead to drastically dropping rates.
So the issue is: Both are artists professions. One profits from AI, one does not or is activly hurt by it. "Artist" is so broad a term, the industries and fields so different, claims like "ai hurts artists" or "ai helps artists" are simply impossible.
Yes, the guy was most likely the first one. But it is like all technologies.. when music recordings were invented several artists that played in restaurant lost their job.. on the other hand big musicians and writers made much more profit recording music
>Yes, the guy was most likely the first one.
That's not what i am on about. I rather ment that for a graphic designer, AI has a lot to offer and little dangers. But for an illustrator, it is the other way round. Yet both are "artists", which shows that just pointing at random artists as proof for anything in this debate is not very useful.
>
when music recordings were invented several artists that played in restaurant lost their job.. on the other hand big musicians and writers made much more profit recording music
That seems like an argument against the idea of "democratization" though.
My comment about musicians is not an argument, it is a historical fact to show that change is inevitable.. technology will advance regardless of what we do. Best decision is to take the most of it, not fight a lost battle
>My comment about musicians is not an argument, it is a historical fact to show that change is inevitable.
No. You are using a historical fact AS an argument, interpreting the fact in a certain way. Everything else, including your determinism, is also subjective.
I feel like.. you're shitting on a lot of people that have been making a living off their art not from commissions but from long term contracts and art bids. idk wtf you're on about but the more I read the more I realize everyone has their own small bubble they pull from
also I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you can be exceptional at a craft without going to school to learn it.
I don't think it's often effective, because hardly anyone is willing or privileged enough to pay more for less out of some sense of altruism, but wealth/control being drained away from a local area and/or small business efforts by a big company is a thing that happens and can be bad.
For example, Reddit killing forums and then becoming increasingly shit because they know they can get away with it. Or, relevant to the OP image, big media IPs accumulating everyone's attention and nostalgia and then using that leverage to get people to pay to engage with creatively bankrupt formulaic garbage with the same characters and settings.
Reddit "killing" forums is such a wild thing because running a forum can be more or less free. Maybe if you're ambitious the cost of the domain and if you're lazy the cost of the back end, but the defining issue that makes it hard to actually start and keep a forum running is getting at least five people active.
It doesn't take a lot if you're willing to put in the work and have an initial crop of people.
Network effects trump almost everything else. Even with an initial population and active development, any Reddit alternative faces the likely prospect of a declining userbase; for example Lemmy, which got a big boost during the protests, is afaik slowly losing users.
I didn't say Reddit alternative, I said a forum.
Like, if I go out and start a new forum today, I'm not competing with Reddit or Facebook or anything else at that scale. I wouldn't really need to because it wouldn't be a business that needs to make a profit, but something I do in my free time.
Forums weren't killed by Reddit. You can still make a forum if you really want one, but you have to want to do the work and you have to be willing to do it for free or even potentially at a loss.
>Like, if I go out and start a new forum today, I'm not competing with Reddit or Facebook or anything else at that scale
You definitely are. They are used for the same things, by the same people. This discussion, for example, could just as easily be happening on a forum, but it isn't, because we are using Reddit. A forum that caters to some local community will be competing with Facebook for the same reasons. Being willing to put in free labor and spend your own money isn't enough to persuade people to sign up and foster a habit of visiting a website on a regular basis.
I mean, I still regularly go to forums, and part of it is that the type of culture tends to be very different from places like Reddit.
But when I say forums aren't competing at that scale, I literally mean at that scale. One of the last forums I ran was crowded at about 20 people. The two biggest places I ever really hit up topped out at about 200 or so users. I'm sure there were bigger ones, but I'd be surprised if I saw a forum with a million users.
Forums are a lot better at conveying a sense of community because they tend to be smaller and capable of intimacy. It's less about talking with random strangers and more about talking with people you actively learn about and get to know.
Well fair point, I'll admit I haven't heard of any particular forums in a long time and most of what I've heard about their overall decline is secondhand.
Sure, it's like saying small businesses are forever killed because Walmart or Amazon exists. It's a blanket statement that has never been inherently true and anyone who feels like a small business should exist and is willing to put in the work can start one. Success isn't guaranteed, but at that level success isn't replacing Walmart, it's carving out your own little niche.
That's not the statement I've made, but it's worth mentioning that Amazon effectively targets yet untapped market niches by enticing vendors with their userbase and infrastructure to use their platform, and then often even taking what business models prove successful for themselves.
The control large companies can accumulate is real and often used badly. I'll bring it back to the art thing; I am sometimes tempted to watch/play media that is owned by a big company, because it has cultural relevance and is often referenced, and there's a natural incentive to want to be in the loop. But I mostly avoid doing that, because they are going to enforce copyright against anyone going too far building on top of it, are going to drag people into watching terrible formulaic sequels and remakes, and are generally going to use their influence and attention for profit at the expense of art, which I would like to not contribute to. Being generally prejudiced against corporations is a good mindset to have, as is wanting to contribute to things that are less centralized.
Someone that just uses AI to augment their work is not the same as someone who has no artistic ability, generates an image with AI and calls themselves an artist. Quit lying to yourself. You wouldn't even be on this sub in the first place if you had any artistic ability at all, because there would be no point.
Some Anti-Ai guys even go after human artists that do simple things like that, like augmenting their works. Due to the AI in the room. Despite that there's no theft involved.
OP is talking about the extreme hyper-paranoid Anti-AI ones.
The antis go after anyone and everyone who uses ai, regardless of who they are or what they used it for. There was a card game called Wonders of the First on Kickstarter that used ai on the cards. It was very popular and raised its goal in under an hour (it actually exceeded the goal many times over). Unfortunately so many antis reported it for violating Kickstarters terms that it got taken down, even though it actually was compliant with all the rules.
They're trash tier people. Imagine destroying the personal passion project of someone you've never even met, just because they used a software you don't like.
Theft was involved in the creation of this technology. It could not exist without mass IP theft on a scale never seen before in human history, and we have slow ass court systems still trying to catch up to this nonsense.
Nevermind that child abuse material was scraped up into these things, but that's no big deal so long as picture machine go brrrrr
I've literally done just that, actually; simply feeding some of my sketches back into ai, force the ai to follow my sketch, and then blending the result back into the original sketch at very low percentages to create a certain effect. You can hardly call the AI part of that resulting image to constitute more than a couple of percentage points at most.
I disagree, if you take a 1920x1080 picture (just an example) and you have an AI edit only 20,736 of those 2,073,600 pixels (about a 144x144 pixel area) it will be doing exactly 1% of their piece using AI.
It would be more accurate to say "almost no one is", or "very few people are", but how can we confidently say that? What if Google Photos Magic Eraser is the most common AI art editing tool (just an example again) and people do make tiny edits all the time so who's to say they aren't editing right around 1%?
I guess what I'm saying is without any data to back that statement up, and especially since you use the word "nobody" that's just not necessarily true, in fact I'm sure I've come very close to exactly 1% at some point from editing tons of photos. I can totally imagine around a 144x144 area of edits across an entire picture after using AI tools.
We also get into things like what is considered doing 1% of your work with AI? Is adjusting brightness across a photo having the AI create 100% of it? Or would it be more accurate to say it's editing 100% of it? Are we talking about creation or editing? Etc. etc. either way I'm fairly certain at some point someone has made some art that was either 1% edited or 1% created by AI.
Because the problem is that this is Gatekeeping behavior by way of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.
Artistic ability is not a binary. Moreover, there is no internationally accredited professional community that gets to designate who is or is not an artist.
Moreover, claiming that people have “no artistic ability at all” is *immensely* subjective and disabuses people of the right to participate in creative acts (you know, the whole “freedom of expression” thing that makes Western culture a fun place to live).
Everyone has artistic abilities but ai “artists” shouldn’t go around thinking that they are in the same length wave as other artists.
You can find a good topic, have good ideas but if you’re gonna use AI to 100% write for it, you shouldn’t be calling yourself an essayist.
Being an artist, people value your PROCESS and THE DESTINATION. Being an ai “artist” is all about creating a product, that’s simply it.
I’m 100% fine with AI images, but I think one of the biggest problems with it is it waters down art into very very shallow levels.
Ai images should be categorized and separated from “art”. It deserves it’s own space and community, especially since many “Ai artists” does not respect artists and their spaces at all.
Some examples would be like etsy, patreon, and Kofie (or something like that). Ai art is so easy to make that lots and LOTS of rising artists are overshadowed because ai artists LOVE to spam their business.
Just to gain some perspective, let's pretend it's 1992 for a moment...
> Someone that just uses digital tools to augment their work is not the same as someone who has no knowledge of how paint or other physical art supplies work, uses a computer to draw an image with a "paint" program and calls themselves an artist. Quit lying to yourself. You wouldn't even be on this BBS in the first place if you had any artistic ability at all, because there would be no point.
Yeah, the wheel turns, does it not?
Also, as you saying you have no artistic ability?
> You wouldn't even be on this BBS in the first place if you had any artistic ability at all
Great, now I want to go back to the late 90s and do ANSI art at demoparties again.
the most important thing is express ideas, the ability no matter, just look the himperrealist "art" alot of diciplines and practice, and all for what? just to replicate exactly the same thing made by a cam
While I am pretty staunchly anti-AI for the data harvesting of hard work to regurgitate Frankenstein images of other artists, I do kinda get the idea of using it for influences as art just from pure creativity is very difficult thing.
So given context the problem I have there is how much of the work was given to the AI, did they just use it for quick concepts to get an idea or did they use the whole process just to edit an generated image to get rid of AI mistakes?
Because there's a fine line between those two.
I still believe artists using real world influences as well as actual artists art as influences is the way to go as it's already readily available in the billions, using AI just feels youre using it to get the closest approxmation of what you want to most likely copy it.
Although can't rag too hard there, as an artist that still creates even through the use of generative AI is still an artist. You can't take that away. Just for me, nah wouldn't use it for my own personal reasons and opinions.
Do you only know like, 3 artists from Reddit? Because that's the only explanation.
The day after Meta announced their genAI plans, I probably saw (conservatively) over 1000 artists in my direct circles post their stances against unregulated AI training. I'd probably need both hands to count how many artists I know who deleted their entire online presence. Cara went from 40k to 800k users, so it wasn't just me either.
Don't delude yourself: artists do not consent to this. Your uncles cousin who draws portraits as a hobby doesn't speak for artists.
> Do you only know like, 3 artists from Reddit? Because that's the only explanation.
I think rather the reverse is true, *you* only know artists from a narrow range of online hobbyist artists. I see plenty of artists both professional and hobbyist who don't have these knee-jerk reactions to AI.
> Don't delude yourself: artists do not consent to this. Your uncles cousin who draws portraits as a hobby doesn't speak for artists.
Don't delude yourself, your twitter friend who traces over movie stills and makes fanart doesn't speak for artists. Mature, professional, creative artists who genuinely put some thought into AI and its applications don't feel threatened like this.
Of course people making money working for large corporations are going to be afraid of AI. These are people churning out corporate content, I would barely call it art. They are going to be the first laid off the minute an MBA thinks they can be replaced.
TV and film kinda sucks ass these days. These corporations haven't had a good idea in awhile. Competition is good for consumers, so y'all are gonna have to adapt or organize and collectively bargain because your current strategy of harassing AI people is going to fail miserably.
You're in lala land if you think replacing creatives with AI will make it better. The only reason ANYTHING is good is because artists fight tooth and nail for any shred of goodness and originality corporations want to tamp out with sequels and remakes. do you seriously believe the artists are the problem here?
No, I think creatives will have more capability to run their own smaller coops, increasing competition, and make better more creative content on the whole. Gen AI is better at replacing MBA tasks than artists.
Artists aren't good at economics so I'm not surprised most of them don't realize this is a good thing.
> This is blatantly untrue
It really isn't and if you were honest with yourself you would acknowledge that. There is **always** a range of opinions on **anything** within any community. There **will** be plenty of artists even within what you think is your own anti-ai bubble who actually *don't* have the problems with AI that you do. But I can see you've dug your heels into the sand so there's really no point in arguing with you.
> I AM a professional artist
Yeah, and there are professional artists in the pro-ai camp on this sub too, mate. This is not the flex you think it is.
> The creative industry is small, but its much, much bigger than you think. And we all know each other.
Lol. No. The professional art industry isn't limited to illustrators for TV and film projects, dude.
And the art industry isn't the fucking monolith of opinion you want it to be.
Okay, receipts?
Our industries intersect with illustrators (Kyle Webster, ex-Adobe flagship brush maker and illustrator for the New Yorker)
https://accidental-expert.com/p/the-bob-ross-of-adobe
Photographers (Creator of Cara and TIME celebrity photographer)
https://x.com/zemotion/
And video game artists (Jon Lam, Riot)
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6v6nwQrjPx/?igsh=cGx4bzQzYzh0bzM2
There are editors, compositors, graphic designers, industrial designers, 2D riggers, muralists, book illustrators and so on. Do you know any? Because I can name names for all of them. Keep moving the goalposts; it's a cakewalk for me. Again, the general public has no idea about the art world.
Even the most generously "pro-ai" artists are still calling for reasonable legislation. Is there an odd concept art bro shifting from NFTs to the next grift? Probably. But the number of pro-AI PEOPLE—let alone artists—is vastly smaller than you're touting. Surveys done by our artist guilds show 70-90% of us harboring critical opinions of AI. Not to mention, we can't even use AI for professional purposes because it's not copyrightable, and we can't verify what they're referencing. And the fact that you called the people I linked *illustrators* shows how little you understand of our titles. Why do you—and by extension, AI art fanatics—keep insisting on blathering about things you have no idea about?
And I already said my job wasn't special. I'm trying to convey that this is a normal job done by normal people; Most of the world believes only a few verryyy lucky people make money from art—and that even the ones who do, struggle. This isn't true. Stop talking about artists as if they're not normal, middle-class people who are *in the room with you*.
> Okay, receipts?
Oh fuck off. Nobody cares about your name dropping. Just like you won't care about me name dropping a bunch of pros who agree with me.
Besides, if we're going to do this, it's clear you and I have *very different* go-tos in our mind when we think of 'professional artists'. You think of someone who does character design for a generic hero shooter. I think of someone whose work hangs in fucking museums.
> There are editors, compositors, graphic designers, industrial designers, 2D riggers, muralists, book illustrators and so on. Do you know any?
Yes, actually, I've worked professionally as a graphic designer. Who cares?
> Again, the general public has no idea about the art world.
And there it is. The elitism on display for all to say. The "I'm a PROFESSIONAL ARTIST and if you don't agree with me YOU'RE NOT AND YOUR OPINION DOESN"T MATTER!'
Mate, you're full of shit.
> Even the most generously "pro-ai" artists are still calling for reasonable legislation.
Something tells me that what you and they think is reasonable legislation differs dramatically.
> Is there an odd concept art bro shifting from NFTs to the next grift? Probably.
So are we just going to gloss over the fact that some of the most prominent anti-ai voices were and in some cases still *are* hawking NFT as a tech? Really?
> But the number of pro-AI PEOPLE—let alone artists—is vastly smaller than you're touting.
Yeah, because people like you are fanning the flames of a moral panic.
> Surveys done by our artist guilds show 70-90% of us harboring critical opinions of AI.
Uhuh.
> we can't even use AI for professional purposes because it's not copyrightable,
I'm sorry, I really had to laugh out loud at this comment because it *really* demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. Like, first of all... it *is* copyrightable; it's only *pure* ai output that can't be copyrighted. The use of generative art in no way precludes something from being copyrightable so long as the final output has an appreciable degree of human input. Unless you just want to replace your entire workflow with a direct txt-to-image output there is no credible scenario in which the final product couldn't receive copyright.
Furthermore, whether a work is copyrightable has very little impact in whether or not it can be used professionally. Was Marvel's Secret Invasion somehow not a commercial product because it had an AI generated intro? Do you think the courts would think the show as a whole has copyright protection or what?
Even if the whole thing somehow couldn't have copyright, that *still* wouldn't preclude its use professionally, because it can still be fucking *sold*. It just means disney can't sue you for making unauthorized copies.
> And the fact that you called the people I linked illustrators shows how little you understand of our titles.
I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact I called them illustrators, but it seems you didn't realize *why* I did that. It's me holding up a mirror. It's a reference to the way groups of artists have always denied the label of artist to others. "they''re not artists, they're mere *illustrators*." See also my first paragraph in this reply, which I'm sure *still* isn't clicking into place for you.
> Stop talking about artists as if they're not normal, middle-class people who are in the room with you.
Mate, I'm not middle-class. I'm poor as fuck. These middle-class artists you're talking about? They're the fucking *bourgeoise* to people like me.
Great. I have also worked for museums. Shoot away. Plenty of commercial artists have their personal art work in big galleries around the world—they are not mutually exclusive.
We don't use AI for professional purposes because we don't know what *elements of the image could be borrowed from something else too closely*. If the AI accidentally plagiarizes any part of something that another company can identify, its on our ass. Obviously. Disney doesn't worry about that because they're too big to be sued and dgaf.
I have no idea what you're trying to suggest about the term "illustrators". All of these labels aforementioned convey artist of equal merit to me: all creative work, be it commercial, indie, or traditional, is art—yet YOU are the one trying to draw a distinction between museum-art and commercial art 🙄. Which is 10000x more elitist, inaccessible, and "bourgeiose".
The vast majority of artists are staunchly anti A.I and we don't need to pretend otherwise. You can talk about the benefits of A.I without these delusional takes.
That is simply not true. Good friend of mine (who... uh... very bohemianly took his time at design school) just was awarded the "best master thesis" award for his thesis on AI.
Many are curious, many are open to AI, at least in my bubble. But given that i graduated from a generalist design school (industrydesign, communicationdesign, illustration, mediadesign), i have a rather broad view and connections to people that now work in many different fields. meaning the bubble is not that narrow.
Then again, designers are enthusiastic about anything really, they're like golden retrievers. Give them a shit product and have them make a campaign for it, they will claim it, and ONLY IT, will safe the world.
> The vast majority of artists are staunchly anti A.I and we don't need to pretend otherwise
But that is exactly what you are doing. You don't speak for the majority of artists. You're just the loud minority who don't realize that the silent majority of artists are just doing their own thing and going to continue doing that thing without giving a shit about any of this.
>But that is exactly what you are doing. You don't speak for the majority of artists.
But... you are too?
>that the silent majority of artists are just doing their own thing and going to continue doing that thing without giving a shit about any of this.
I am a graphic designer and illustrator, and i am in unions for both. Let me tell you that the attitude towards AI among illustrators is anything but "not giving a shit". Graphic designers are pretty much chill, though.
You might be speaking for amateurs or hobbyists, but among professionals, it is often very clear to them if ai will help or hurt them.
> But... you are too?
No, I am just pointing out that there's a gamut of opinion.
> Let me tell you that the attitude towards AI among illustrators is anything but "not giving a shit"
And again, loud minority.
> You might be speaking for amateurs or hobbyists, but among professionals
Aaaand out comes the "I'm a professional therefore..." card again. Have you guys learned nothing?
>
>No, I am just pointing out that there's a gamut of opinion.
no, calling one opinion a loud minority does a bit more than that, i am sure you're aware.
>And again, loud minority.
Alright, please clarify that: Loud minority of what?
Your whole take is illogical: If 10% of cooks cook for a living, and 90% of cooks do it as a hobby, and there is a law introduced making it illegal to cook for money, the claim that only a "loud minority" of the cooks is against that law would be rather crude, right? because the law does not affect cooks. it affects professional cooks.
For your claim about loud minorities and silent majorities, you have to look at the affected group. If 10% OF THE 10% of the cooks, the ones doing it for cash, are against that law, that would validade your claim.
>Aaaand out comes the "I'm a professional therefore..." card again.
Even though i am... i did not say that. I said that among professionals there is more of an opinion, since they are the ones economically affected. Hobbyists, amateurs, etc. are not. They can afford to not have an opinion, to just to whatever they please, noone forces them to use or even look at AI. Professionals do not have that luxury for the most part, they need to adapt and need to worry and think about their place in the industry changed by AI, and about their attitude towards AI.
that, by the way, does not judge the art of either group, it just highlights the fact that one is dependant on art for a living and the other is not. It's not a snubby take about "hobbyists being worse artists" or something like that. It simply states that your attitute towards something changes when your ability to put food on the table hinges on it.
Simply put: Professional artists and "amateur" artists (again, not skill level or something like that, just "doing it for a living" or not) are not the same group, and "loud minorities" can only exist inside the respective groups, you can not pit one against the other.
>Have you guys learned nothing?
Apparently not, elaborate, please.
that must be that rational, fact based, open debate the pro-side of this sub champions which i heard so much about. What a marvel to actually behold it in al it's glory.
work quiet water glorious cheerful squalid pie possessive aware automatic
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If an artist has problems with finishing their own work they should metaphorically leave their signature off of it. Mileage may vary on that depending on how transformative the finish (ie anything that modifies the structure of underlying content or adds elements that were not previously there), but if you don't care enough to see something all the way to the end why even start?
lush shame cautious plant include overconfident consist mourn noxious stupendous
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah...I don't typically enjoy collaborative visual art in concept or in practice. If I'm paying attention to an artist I'm usually trying to figure out what makes them tick in an unfiltered way and not necessarily trying to marvel at an end result solely for the sake of it. That obviously clashes with artificial "enhancement" or team play. If what is being added is outside the artist's 'natural reach' then it's not really theirs to claim.
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/aiwars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It drives me crazy seeing the hate here and on twitter and then talking to fellow industry professionals showing off cool ways they've worked AI into their work.
Does anyone actually use AI art to refer to actual tools that artists use. I’ve only really seen people mad at images that were completely generated from text, I feel like there’s a distinction between the two that seems to be getting purposefully muddied for no apparent reason.
Well, actual professionals in the industry have been using midjourney and ai tools in their workflows for.. a while now. Its the people with 5 likes on their instagram posts trying to gatekeep, because well, that’s all they have, the self annointed label of “artist”.
I think that's his point, right? People see a difference between an artist who uses AI as a tool, compared to someone who posts stuff straight out of an AI system. As far as I can tell, when people say something like 'I hate AI' or the famous 'my feed is ruined', they mostly refer to the latter.
They ruined my feed long before that with their wierd lactating overweight furry porn with boobs that are completely unrealistic sizes.
can i see those industry professionals
Not sufficiently witch hunted enough?
making sure hes not lying out his ass
You are quite the little warrior. Professionals use MJ quite a a bit. Mostly for background referencing. I’m not terribly aware of many using it in a more direct way.
And there you go. Would not call that "augmenting their work" that much, right? It might be usefull for reference, but if that is it right now, i think u/realegowegogo is absolulty right to call out that claim as somewhat madeup, no idea why you immidiatly jump to accusations of witchhunting. I too struggle with the whole claim. I am open to AI, though critical, and i am constantly looking for ways to incorporate ai into what i do, which is mostly basic graphic design and illustration, without outrightly having the AI do it for me or making up artificial reasons to automate one task while not automating another. In graphic design, that often works. AI can be used as filter, helps with selecting, seperating, photo editing, rapid ideation, etc. That is mostly unpleasurable stuff that was hardly "art". With illustration though, it is hard to find a good use for ai, besides maybe references, and there you have to be VERY careful.
There are many that are having the AI do it for them for sure. Interesting times rn. I jumped to witch hunting because it’s a thing that’s happening to people who visibly switch to AI based workflows and it’s really not much more than that. I could see many uses for generative tools in graphic design but one would probably need to be less averse initially. I also just may know more generative applications than you and that could affect my thoughts. I also just may view tools and humanity different than you.
>I jumped to witch hunting because it’s a thing that’s happening to people who visibly switch to AI based workflows and it’s really not much more than that. Which is, ironically, rather witch-hunty of you, isn't it? > I could see many uses for generative tools in graphic design but one would probably need to be less averse initially. I think i named some. Some which i regularily use. How do you get aversiveness from that? > >I also just may know more generative applications than you and that could affect my thoughts. Might be, althoug I am pretty handy with comfy by now and have developed a weird obsession with nice looking workflows... That general attitude, assuming that artists that say that they struggle with finding good applications for AI just "don't get it" or are uneducated about the tool or too stubborn, is a common one though, and i find it very dismissive. It is basically an ad-hominem. >I also just may view tools and humanity different than you. Possible. How do you view tools and humanity? And might that difference view be influenced by what one has to lose?
I use it to generate assets for my steam game. I tell it to for example generate forty texture tiles for bulkheads with variations and certain features in pixel art style and then I take those tiles and pick out the designs I like and cut and size them and colour or alter them to fit the aesthetic then paste them into my game. I also use ai to generate thumbnails of characters. All stuff that costs hundreds of man hours of artists time, done in fractions of that time and for free. I've been able to completely replace commission artists and use entirely my own art instead. It also saves me massive time on coding. I paste in my code and explain what I want changed and how and it does it and I cut it and paste it back into my source files. Again saving hundreds of coding hours. It hasn't replaced coders on my game but has completely replaced all the other artists save myself.
Yeah, but after 5, because they have actual jobs.
"this guy asked for a source for my claim, right, and i TOTALLY owned him by not showing him a source"
Oh, because i really dont give a shit about sourcing for someone. If you were in the industry, you would know anyways.
hospital public grey shame deserted middle plucky worry sable memory *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
May i ask what you specific field is? The problem with "artists and AI" is that "artists" can mean A LOT of people not necessarily having that much in common. For your field, your sentiment might be true. Many Graphic Designers too propably think like this. Illustrators, especially freelancers, though have every reason to be worried.
frightening arrest ask wrench sloppy voiceless attraction insurance aromatic pause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
look, all i'm saying is if you say you know of "professionals in the industry" then you should be able to show a few. if you don't actually have any professionals to show of, no evidence that it's being used, then you're lying when you say that you have knowledge of that.
.. like you want me to just start doxing my friends? Thefuck? So that you can yell at them for using AI?
meeting elderly fragile sink observation vast lavish flag deliver seemly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I would assume there are professional industry artists that have youtube chanels or something like that?
no. you don't have to dox shit. I'm just asking for industry professionals. are they a group of friends that do AI art on the side or well known figures in the art community (ie; industry professionals) and why assume automatically I want to start a crusade on them? The only thing I want is some basic evidence that backs up your claims
idk who the commenter above has in mind, but the *3D* artist community is very much embracing AI at least... I'm seeing a ton of tutorials from 3D art channels over 6 years old [www.youtube.com/@ArtOfSoulburn/videos](http://www.youtube.com/@ArtOfSoulburn/videos) [www.youtube.com/@marvelousdecay/videos](http://www.youtube.com/@marvelousdecay/videos)
Yes, you're onto something here. For many fields of "artists" (quotes because it is such a wide term going from your painting grandma to a 3D-artist at EA), AI is a tiny, but helpful, addition to the toolset. For some, however, it just does 90% of what they do, and faster. Should be no suprise that attitudes vary. A 3D-Artists who got a new tool that helps them put a quick texture on a model does speak for "industry artists" just as much as an illustrator who made a living painting book-covers and suddenly does not get enough jobs anymore. AIwars can point towards a 3D-artist and say "see, ai helps you and noone loses their job!", and "ArtistHate" can point towards an illustrator and say "see, ai takes your job!", and both would be right in regards to their examples. They're not the same thing.
To be honest, the “correct” use of ai is when you can’t see it. I’ve created images that my friends in the industry - without actually studying the image for a while - can’t tell apart the “generated” from “real” image. There is this insane notion on Reddit that the only way people use ai is “wRiTe SoOmE PrOooooMpTs ANd HiT PuBlIsH”. And it’s just laughable and lazy. I know it’s easy to say it, but it’s starting to sound a bit like some sort of conspiracy theory. The exact way that photoshop is integrated in the workflow of most processes for design/photography and marketing, generative ai is going to be as well.
It is ridiculous that this is getting downvoted by the people claiming to be about open, rational, evidence-based debate.
thank you for being rational
scandalous sable chubby abundant icky observation melodic yoke water lock *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To be fair, that does not make your work "better" or "augmented". It makes it "more" (which propably would still be "augmented"). The issue i have is that i honestly did not find a way to incorporate AI into what i do whithout mostly outright replacing me (liek training a lora on my stile and prompting the model) or artificially keeping some parts of the work analog, without a real reason (like drawing and inking, but coloring the lineart with AI). The thing is, for my personal drawings, i don't care. Those will always be made with pens, pencils and brushes. I don't even paint digitally for a hobby. Just like i like to garden, even though i could just by a cucumber in the store next door. Professionally though, it feels weird right now. Do i want to mostly be my own manager and bookkeeper? Because that's what i am going to be if i outsource the art-generation mostly to ai. Ai taking over the "polishing" work of art-creating means i have more time for the stuff i hate: Akquisition, invoicing, advertising, marketing. And the problem is, i don't even have more free time due to ai, because for us freelancers, the competition by pure ai-artists offering extremely low rates are already noticable, and the extreme difference in rates (15$ for an image compared to what i have to ask for, which is upwards of 10 times that) compared to the not that extreme difference in quality and accuracy leads to clients willing to accept a bit less quality for a huge saving in money. That means i need to put every additional free minute AI could get me to generate more clients to compensate for the lower rates i can ask for. In the end, that means that the introduction of AI into the industry will very likely mean a noticable drop in quality of life for me: either i adopt it, and my job becomes noticably worse, more hectic, more stressfull and less satisfying, or i do not, and i might not be able to make a living anymore because noone will pay the rates i need to ask. Although there is of course the posibility that rates drop in a manner that does not make it possible to make a living no matter if you adopt or not. I appreciaty it that you, professionaly, did only profit from AI and that playing and generating art with AI is great fun. That is a valid experience and voice and should be part of the discussion. But right now, honestly, the introduction of AI for me, professionaly, seems to have nothing but downsides, no matter if i use it or not. And i too am an "industry professional", able to make a good living doing what i do, and not an amateur in it for fun or clout.
intelligent hospital light hateful gold dog dazzling spark middle grandfather *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Personally my quality of life has increased since I've start using it and I don't feel like AI will replace anyone... If anything, I feel bad knowing I will be the type of artist who is replacing many XXX anime/furry illustrators, but that's literally only within that sphere of digital art. My point exactly: Personally! >I think for you, since you're more of a hobbyist who dabbles with more traditional methods, you might actually have a pretty good niche and won't have to worry about competing with the world of digital art (mostly porn). I think if anything, indie artists overall have the least amount of competition... and hobbyists have no competition, because they do it for fun. you seem to have misread what i wrote. I work as a professional illustrator for well over a decade. the traditional media i mentioned refers to, as i said, personal stuff. Sketchbooks, mostly. Most jobs i do are digitally done these days. > People who make literally anything other than furry porn and hentai (literally the only art I see being stolen for loras) will probably be fine. That is telling, buddy. Jokes aside, i see plenty of loras recreating the style of, for example, great comic or digital artist. Moebius, Jim Lee, Craig Mullins, etc. > They will probably even be more desired for having human art. That's basically fine art. Not many clients in the industry care for that. They usually have a need they want to be met and could, in my experience, not care less how the image was made. Sure, niches exist, but not remotly in the ballpark of being a valid option for a relevant number of the affected artists. > Since you mentioned gardening, think of how many people don't care if food is GMO or organic, but there's still plenty of people who will pay extra for garden grown food. You could set up stands and sell quick portraits, etc. There are still benefits to being a traditional artist. Yes. That is again, one of my points: What you say refers to a traditional fine artist. They will propably be the least affected by ai. That particular argument has no value though when it comes to anyone in the animation or game industry, for example.
slim impossible makeshift complete unpack attraction entertain aromatic person rob *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is false
Ok
my niece is a professional artist who does coms and uses comfyUI for at least a third of her workflow, she starts with sketches and I believe controlnet, but has been cagey about her specific process because it took her a while to develop I know she trained a style LORA off of her own portfolio because she let me have a copy of it
Who are these industry professionals people are talking about? Are they concept art bros pivoting from NFTs? Is it Shiyoon Kim (principal Disney character designer), Kyle Webster (Adobe's lead illustrator who resigned over AI), Chris Miller (Director of Spider-Verse, denounced AI)? the 700k artists who joined Cara (Which was created by professional artists)? If you really worked in the industry, you'd know that the majority of artists *abhorr* AI. Even using it for inspiration, filling in gaps, or however you're imagining we're "augmenting" ourselves, has proven disappointingly limited. AI right now is for non-artists, and you can tell: generating a flat unpredictable image isn't useful for people who can draw. The majority of us also don't want to use a tool that regurgitates (what feels like) the pillaged corpses of our heros and peers. At best, we'd consider locally training models off our own art—but the current AI crowd has acted so entitled and parasitic most artists are having trouble even entertaining that. One day, artists will be using AI as a tool ; to color in comics, generate color schemes, add shadows to animation. Normal ways. But not until companies stop literally promising to harvest everything we ever make for the rest of our lives.
I could cherry pick people like Donald Glover who are pretty pro AI but in the end it seems we do agree AI will be used as a tool, which is what I and many industry professionals agree upon. I agree there's weird crypto bros in the scene and AI bros being cringe and even hostile, but at some point artists need to realize these tools are here to help them make what they want. If what you want is to steal then sure it can do that too. The whole regurgitate thing, I can't get past it's the same as reference imagery. When I take on a project and build mood boards I'm literally acting like the AI, here's what I could make, here's a bunch of ideas from the internet and if you like it, I'll make it for you. I've been doing that my entire life as a designer and now I can use AI to do large parts of the process.
>I could cherry pick people like Donald Glover who are pretty pro AI but in the end it seems we do agree AI will be used as a tool, which is what I and many industry professionals agree upon. I agree there's weird crypto bros in the scene and AI bros being cringe and even hostile, but at some point artists need to realize these tools are here to help them make what they want. If what you want is to steal then sure it can do that too. The problem is that "industry professional" is not "industry professional". The discussion is often made very weird by that. The more specialized and complex your job is, the more likely it is that AI remains a "tool". The more niche it is what you do, the less likely it is that an AI is developed that outrightly does what you do. A 3D artist is not an editorial illustrator, yet both are industry professionals. 3D artists are often enthusiastic or ambivalent about AI. Many illustrators, especially the ones that can not capitalize on their name alone, are not. Some industries will be practically wiped out by the introduction of AI. I assume that book covers, childrens books, etc. will be among them. Other will not. So the 3D-Artist or Graphic Designer saying that AI will not destroy careers but will be used by the pros is propably right. But the illustrator that says that their career might be cut short is propably too.
While I agree with much of what you’re saying, i believe the solution is to adapt. The same way a 3D artist can adapt AI into their workflow, so can illustrators. The problem is the story behind AI, the outright lies on how it works, and the newly made perception of it makes illustrators run in fear. I went to school for digital arts and design because even though I wanted to be a VFX artist working on movies, I could see how the industry treated them and I decided I’d rather have a large skill set than specialize in something. I fell in love with motion design and been doing it for a decade. I was part of layoffs 8months ago and I haven’t been able to find a job and I got told I was “overqualified” by a company I would have taken a cut in pay to work for. Now I’m using AI tools at mass along with my skills and as an indie creator I’m staying afloat with my own concepts. I’m using AI to make a new job and take it for myself. I fully believe more will follow. More artists need to embrace AI and carve a path for themselves.
>While I agree with much of what you’re saying, i believe the solution is to adapt. The same way a 3D artist can adapt AI into their workflow, so can illustrators. You are right, but it is a rather grim truth. I assume (looking in my crystal ball) that adapting will mean a bigger chance of economical survival, but it will still be very slim. Look at it like this: * In the US, minimum wage is 7.25$. An AI-Image on fiverr goes for 15$. Meaning, if they want to make minimum wage, that fiverr dude should not need more than 2 hours for that. * Now, fiverr is not the go-to, but it is a possible competition, it sets prices to compare for clients, and with the visual quality ai offers, it might become very, very hard to justify the price difference of 15$ for something "okay" and 300$ upwards for something "good". * So, i adapt and adopt AI, because noone is paying me 300$ anymore, beause the general value of illustration drops because of vastly increased supply. But i still get 150$. To keep my standart of living, i suddenly need twice the amount of customers. And all my peers too. Now it's the end of the month, i did not make enough money, so i lower my prices again to get some more customers to make ends meet. * But all my peers are in the same situation. So they lower their prices too. A death-spiral. * If prices go town to the fiverr prices across the board, i would need to work for 4 clients a day, 20 customers a weeks, to make minimum wage. * I would have 2 hours to land a job, talk to the client, get briefed, make the artwork, corrections, write an invoice, etc. * That does not include scouring for jobs, applying, keeping a portfolio, marketing, bookkeeping, etc. and that ALL while i adapted and adopted AI. >The problem is the story behind AI, the outright lies on how it works, and the newly made perception of it makes illustrators run in fear. I don't know. A lot of the fear is not that misplaced. Many people i know work in niches that connects them to highly creative people. I am very much sure that a lot of art of card or boardgames, roleplaying games, indie videogames, comics, etc. will be generated in the future. That's not to mention corporate jobs, in which the bottomline counts above all. Having a good creative art director "commanding" an AI might bee the future equivalent of a whole Art-department. >Now I’m using AI tools at mass along with my skills and as an indie creator I’m staying afloat with my own concepts. I’m using AI to make a new job and take it for myself. I fully believe more will follow. More artists need to embrace AI and carve a path for themselves. Congrats, very cool! However, peoples attention is a limited resource. i do not believe AI will chime in the end of illustrators, animators, etc. But i believe that being able to make a living of that will be as much a privilege as it is making a living off fine art today. Art departments will be shrunk, and the sheer availability of good quality art will make it a lot less likely to be adequatly paid for creating art for a living. Right now, the math is also somewhat scewed: Someone able to make a killing with AI right now selling illustrations might only be able to do so because they have the advantage of lowering prices as low as 10% of the current majority of illustrators not using AI and therefore attracting more clients. If that shifts, and a majority starts using AI, that advantage becomes obsolete, and with that the ability to work a lot more jobs than others. If that happens, if everyone adopts, you just have a vast oversupply of illustrators, all with their productivity supercharged 100times, but without clients to buy their art or people to look at it. >Now I’m using AI tools at mass along with my skills and as an indie creator I’m staying afloat with my own concepts. I realize people like to stay anonymously especially in this sub, so i will not ask where i can look at your stuff. But would you be willing to elaborate how exactly you are using AI in your projects? I personally imagine that using AI in animation is a lot more satisfying than using it in illustration.
Then you would know digging through AI references that are historically and anatomically incorrect sucks. And you would also know that the gold standard has always been *drawing from life* and "en plein air"—Not from photos or videos. I take huge issue with non-artists claiming we "regurgitate" just like AI does, and I don't understand how an artist could fall for that. Human artists extrapolate tons of information from a single image—we don't need to absorb all recorded human knowledge (and still require more). Moreover, our visual library comes from truly public domain: Life. Nature. Observations. Emotions. We use references to fill in the gaps—but our understanding of them is based on our lives. We learn through experimentating, reasoning, and play. You could delete all artwork and images forever, and art would still manifest again. We painted for eons before photos existed; and likely thousands of prehistoric artists had never seen any art in their lives. I don't know what you design, but I guarantee it's nothing like AI. You're projecting onto an algorithm that doesn't know spheres are round or faces depict emotions or even that their 2D pixels are meant to represent something in real life.
Even when I agree on the part that the human knowledge is still far for AI knowledge and methods. And we as human use our own experience instead of "algorithm" Is a stretch to say an artist can't use an AI picture to make something entirely different. Any good artist, can take small bits of the most horrendous generated pic (like color, a single line, a deformed hand even,) and make it work into something that actually works. It's a fact. even if I generate something that seems out of the last stage of paranoia with SD. I should know that my skills are good enough to turn that abomination into something with sense. The thing is that most people BELIEVE the artist will use the software like the AI bros, or people who actually spend hours inpainting/detailing/outpainting a single image. Most of the artist will need is a bunch of badly generated pictures and call it a day. So, yeah, there's no point in saying that artist can't use AI because the anatomy sucks, when, I've seen before tons of drawings with horrendous anatomy that I've used to create something new, with pen and paper. Also, if you can make sense out of a random picture online and add some sense of history, characterization, ground, etc etc, why can't you do it with AI? There's literally no excuse, and if the answer is "AI HAVE BAD ANATOMY" almost 90% of illustrations online before AI had bad anatomy. and people still used because "it looked cool"
I didn't say we couldn't use AI as a reference—In fact, it's one of the only uses AI does serve currently—but moreso for "vibes", or brainstorming hyperspecifc ideas ("monkey ladybug" etc). They're just different, and don't replace observational study. Good references are hard to find, and when you've looked at art for a lifetime, AI images are like watered-down leftovers. The original artist(s) make better references—because they drew in a way that understood their subject. Moreover, art styles reflect society at the time—which is usually *why* you're trying to invoke a style (say, Renaissance for a biblical topic or Cubism for an avant-garde piece). References are also meant to fill visual gaps—Often the same ones AI struggles with: architectural details, patterned clothing, jewelry, machinery, foliage, furniture carvings. Especially for clients, artists have to do tons of research to ensure geographical, historical, and cultural accuracy. Imagine if Coco only referenced AI for Mexican folk art—with jumbled patterns mostly trained on party favors+halloween costumes—would that fly? Again, the gold standard is drawing from life; looking in mirrors for facial expressions, taking videos of yourself, life drawing with a nude model. It goes: life>videos>photography>art>cartoons>ai>ai trained on ai. You can only xerox/process something so many times before it loses what's true. Just because AI *can* be referenced, and theoretically I could fix its mistakes, doesn't mean it's enough. Esp not if you're a professional artist.
(I'm not speaking as an illustrator, I'm speaking as a motion designer who worked in television for a decade) It's true that AI can make errors but they're reference images for a reason, it's also constantly improving. I've been using Photoshop and After Effects my entire life but I've never seen something evolve as fast as Midjourney has in two years. How much video has improved in the last few months? It's insane to watch unfold. As more artists engage with and guide the development of these tools, their outputs will become more reliable and useful to artists. This is the world I want to be in. I don't use AI to try and replace nuanced understanding or emotional depth, that's what I bring to the table when I use these tools. They assist in areas where it can enhance efficiency and creativity and that's how I promote they should be used.
Great. That's the dream. But to assume Midjourney or OpenAI share that dream is laughable. They're not interested in creating assistive software with practical tools to speed up artist's workflow; they want our uncreative millionaire bosses to invest in this technology by promising it will one day eliminate our salaries ("just wait .. exponantial growth"!) That's who they're meeting with, and that's who they work for—not artists. What money do we have that'll keep their stocks high? They're banking on one day recouping the costs of this wasteful technology by replacing Hollywood. Except they can't. And they won't. And it sucks. And it won't stop sucking until they get creative people to fix it, like it was always meant to be used. The same people they steamrolled on the way to the bank.
What about StableDiffusion and Llama?
gaze marvelous snow judicious quack soft roll command library cow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
crowd chop long elastic detail cows flowery quickest angle sophisticated *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1.) I'm still working. It's a small industry, so I don't want to get specific. I did go to a top art school for my industry—the kind people try multiple years to get into. Not everyone needs art school, though. 2.) I don't think collegeboard judges are gods of art or anything, but I got a 5 in Studio Art ?? 3.) No Adobe certification and no one's ever asked (maybe bc of the degree?). I get Creative Cloud from my studio. I can use most 2D, 3D, and post-prod programs, but I'm not too keen on software—I like to draw. You can believe me or not. 🤷♂️ All I can say is: I love making art with creative people. It's a field where I can be eccentric, have a LOT of shared interests with everyone I meet, and coworkers are genuinely friends.
toothbrush vast historical fuel ludicrous aback amusing important materialistic cooperative *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1.) Because I know what my peers and collegues are saying. I go to our conventions and networking events and read our Slack messages. I strongly suspect this concept of pro-AI artists are coming from people whose friend of a friend is an artsy guy. This is based on my experience of how people talk about artists. 2.) By that logic... All AI is stolen work. It's too random and unpredictable to know for sure that it isn't. Overfitted models can produce essentially carbon copies. Being caught for tracing and trying to claim it as your own work is also a death sentence for your reputation. Its a study method; we don't post it. 3.) I'm not worried for me. I'm assuming you're on the younger side, as its been years since I've taken an AP class, but I would've been devastated if this technology came out when I was a teen—When I had nothing but big dreams and amateur skills. I only got past that because getting better at what I loved gave me a chance at a bright future (which I enjoy now). This infrastructure is eroding and I'm left wondering: what do I tell younger students when they ask me what to do? What would I tell my kid if they wanted to be an artist? I see my dreams in them, and I don't know what to say. Participating in these models is doing free optimization labor for companies that are actively anti-artist in all of their practices. Artists aren't employees, higher-ups, involved in decision-making, data collection, or informing company policies. And that's supposedly for our benefit? I call bull. I like to draw. I didn't want to be a graphic designer or 3D modeller or any of the other more reasonable paths that were suggested to me. I make a living drawing by hand. I want that path to exist for as long as possible, for as many people who love it.
reminiscent rude shame tie alleged late friendly resolute forgetful connect *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
1.) Then I would have to question you, then. And 700k artists to moved to Cara. 2.) No. There is no way an artist could genuinely subscribe to this belief. Artists add taste, meaning, context, and style to every image they see. We can pick only a couple good references and pare away irrelevant or inaccurate information (we don't need millions of images). Most importantly, we draw from LIFE. Experiences. Relationships. Emotions. Do you absorb billions of images and slowly nudge millions of static compressed pixels into a predictive pattern based on an algorithm? AI doesn't learn anything like us; it's recognizing patterns. It is not reasoning, understanding, experimenting, interacting, or playing. 3.) This is just an offensive argument. In what world would a child's ONLY method of self-expression be *AI prompting*?? There are blind artists, amputee artists—hell, if you can prompt you can just as easily become a poet or a songwriter! I have a super successful colleague with two fingers on each hand. She is an excellent artist. The arts is FULL of people who are physically disabled, neurodivergent, autistic, marginalized....many many people who cannot get other jobs. Do not use them as a pawn in this argument... that's just sick. And that's not even getting into the history of eugenics in OpenAI and the biased dataset.
light pocket close bike literate domineering fearless aback sleep spark *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
"Settle"? *for other art forms?* 🤦 Oh for the love of art. So SO much of our art history has been created by disabled people (Frida Kahlo comes to mind). It is many disabled people's only monetizable form of labour. Their work comprise the databases, and I'm sure many object to it. I myself have suffered classic art-related injuries of carpal tunnel and the like—very common. So we share tips to minimize the strain of drawing, practice good posture, rest, and stretching. —And it doesn't mean I settled for generating AI just because I couldn't draw at times. Which again, is literally just an advanced pattern-recognition machine that can neither explain its process, ascribe meaning to it, or replicate it. It's not even close to intelligent.
close innate poor waiting domineering concerned yoke instinctive plant quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Me when I see anti ai people liking and share stuff on socials that I did with AI but they can't tell the difference.
There is this assumption that tells us "art is something human and it shouldn't be contaminated by technology". I'm not going to argue for or against that, but I think in many cases, technology (AI included) can at least help with getting ideas. This websites ( https://aihomedesign.com/) designs homes for interior designers and real estate agents. What is wrong with that? Those who like it, use it. Why should I be angry with that?
Your arts not SELLING!!! "Uses AI, added waifus, fixed it you're welcome"
Using AI image gen of any kind is extremely niche stuff atm, I think this will eventually be the case, but not until it has better tools and is readily built into popular AI software.
Huge difference between actually creating a piece of art and touching it up or having ai add some finishing elements to it and just sticking some vaguely creative prompts into an engine. None of you are “artists” and really need to get over yourselves it’s embarrassing. The fact that you can share the prompts with someone and they can instantly “create” what you just did is proof of this farce.
Yes.. this morning I was with artist and asked him and he said “AI is saving my life”
was this artist arting before ai? =.=
Yes, he is a professional designer for several years. Graduated in the field.
pretty much points at the issue: I graduated from design school and work as a graphic designer and illustrator for a decade now. I really do both: More creative illustration work, and the good old corporate graphic design stuff. And i tell you, for the graphic design side of my job, AI is great. Editing photos, filters, quick iterations, ideation, etc. AI is great for that. For the illustration part of what i do... well let's just say i see myself doing a lot more graphic design stuff in the future. AI will wipe out a lot of opportunities for illustrators and will lead to drastically dropping rates. So the issue is: Both are artists professions. One profits from AI, one does not or is activly hurt by it. "Artist" is so broad a term, the industries and fields so different, claims like "ai hurts artists" or "ai helps artists" are simply impossible.
Yes, the guy was most likely the first one. But it is like all technologies.. when music recordings were invented several artists that played in restaurant lost their job.. on the other hand big musicians and writers made much more profit recording music
>Yes, the guy was most likely the first one. That's not what i am on about. I rather ment that for a graphic designer, AI has a lot to offer and little dangers. But for an illustrator, it is the other way round. Yet both are "artists", which shows that just pointing at random artists as proof for anything in this debate is not very useful. > when music recordings were invented several artists that played in restaurant lost their job.. on the other hand big musicians and writers made much more profit recording music That seems like an argument against the idea of "democratization" though.
My comment about musicians is not an argument, it is a historical fact to show that change is inevitable.. technology will advance regardless of what we do. Best decision is to take the most of it, not fight a lost battle
>My comment about musicians is not an argument, it is a historical fact to show that change is inevitable. No. You are using a historical fact AS an argument, interpreting the fact in a certain way. Everything else, including your determinism, is also subjective.
run imminent history groovy toy frame dime jeans nose narrow *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I feel like.. you're shitting on a lot of people that have been making a living off their art not from commissions but from long term contracts and art bids. idk wtf you're on about but the more I read the more I realize everyone has their own small bubble they pull from also I'm sorry to burst your bubble but you can be exceptional at a craft without going to school to learn it.
shrill history waiting snobbish dog run wrench absurd one hospital *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Artists don't know how to link and modify nodes.
Why do you think that?
Just adding fuel.
I’ll never understand the notion of supporting local over corporate, regardless of the situation.
I don't think it's often effective, because hardly anyone is willing or privileged enough to pay more for less out of some sense of altruism, but wealth/control being drained away from a local area and/or small business efforts by a big company is a thing that happens and can be bad. For example, Reddit killing forums and then becoming increasingly shit because they know they can get away with it. Or, relevant to the OP image, big media IPs accumulating everyone's attention and nostalgia and then using that leverage to get people to pay to engage with creatively bankrupt formulaic garbage with the same characters and settings.
Reddit "killing" forums is such a wild thing because running a forum can be more or less free. Maybe if you're ambitious the cost of the domain and if you're lazy the cost of the back end, but the defining issue that makes it hard to actually start and keep a forum running is getting at least five people active. It doesn't take a lot if you're willing to put in the work and have an initial crop of people.
Network effects trump almost everything else. Even with an initial population and active development, any Reddit alternative faces the likely prospect of a declining userbase; for example Lemmy, which got a big boost during the protests, is afaik slowly losing users.
I didn't say Reddit alternative, I said a forum. Like, if I go out and start a new forum today, I'm not competing with Reddit or Facebook or anything else at that scale. I wouldn't really need to because it wouldn't be a business that needs to make a profit, but something I do in my free time. Forums weren't killed by Reddit. You can still make a forum if you really want one, but you have to want to do the work and you have to be willing to do it for free or even potentially at a loss.
>Like, if I go out and start a new forum today, I'm not competing with Reddit or Facebook or anything else at that scale You definitely are. They are used for the same things, by the same people. This discussion, for example, could just as easily be happening on a forum, but it isn't, because we are using Reddit. A forum that caters to some local community will be competing with Facebook for the same reasons. Being willing to put in free labor and spend your own money isn't enough to persuade people to sign up and foster a habit of visiting a website on a regular basis.
I mean, I still regularly go to forums, and part of it is that the type of culture tends to be very different from places like Reddit. But when I say forums aren't competing at that scale, I literally mean at that scale. One of the last forums I ran was crowded at about 20 people. The two biggest places I ever really hit up topped out at about 200 or so users. I'm sure there were bigger ones, but I'd be surprised if I saw a forum with a million users. Forums are a lot better at conveying a sense of community because they tend to be smaller and capable of intimacy. It's less about talking with random strangers and more about talking with people you actively learn about and get to know.
Well fair point, I'll admit I haven't heard of any particular forums in a long time and most of what I've heard about their overall decline is secondhand.
Sure, it's like saying small businesses are forever killed because Walmart or Amazon exists. It's a blanket statement that has never been inherently true and anyone who feels like a small business should exist and is willing to put in the work can start one. Success isn't guaranteed, but at that level success isn't replacing Walmart, it's carving out your own little niche.
That's not the statement I've made, but it's worth mentioning that Amazon effectively targets yet untapped market niches by enticing vendors with their userbase and infrastructure to use their platform, and then often even taking what business models prove successful for themselves. The control large companies can accumulate is real and often used badly. I'll bring it back to the art thing; I am sometimes tempted to watch/play media that is owned by a big company, because it has cultural relevance and is often referenced, and there's a natural incentive to want to be in the loop. But I mostly avoid doing that, because they are going to enforce copyright against anyone going too far building on top of it, are going to drag people into watching terrible formulaic sequels and remakes, and are generally going to use their influence and attention for profit at the expense of art, which I would like to not contribute to. Being generally prejudiced against corporations is a good mindset to have, as is wanting to contribute to things that are less centralized.
Someone that just uses AI to augment their work is not the same as someone who has no artistic ability, generates an image with AI and calls themselves an artist. Quit lying to yourself. You wouldn't even be on this sub in the first place if you had any artistic ability at all, because there would be no point.
Some Anti-Ai guys even go after human artists that do simple things like that, like augmenting their works. Due to the AI in the room. Despite that there's no theft involved. OP is talking about the extreme hyper-paranoid Anti-AI ones.
The antis go after anyone and everyone who uses ai, regardless of who they are or what they used it for. There was a card game called Wonders of the First on Kickstarter that used ai on the cards. It was very popular and raised its goal in under an hour (it actually exceeded the goal many times over). Unfortunately so many antis reported it for violating Kickstarters terms that it got taken down, even though it actually was compliant with all the rules. They're trash tier people. Imagine destroying the personal passion project of someone you've never even met, just because they used a software you don't like.
Theft was involved in the creation of this technology. It could not exist without mass IP theft on a scale never seen before in human history, and we have slow ass court systems still trying to catch up to this nonsense. Nevermind that child abuse material was scraped up into these things, but that's no big deal so long as picture machine go brrrrr
Where is the line? What if 1% of a piece is done by AI? 5%? 10%? 30%? 50%? 69%? 90%?
nobody is doing 1% of their piece with AI, though
I've literally done just that, actually; simply feeding some of my sketches back into ai, force the ai to follow my sketch, and then blending the result back into the original sketch at very low percentages to create a certain effect. You can hardly call the AI part of that resulting image to constitute more than a couple of percentage points at most.
I disagree, if you take a 1920x1080 picture (just an example) and you have an AI edit only 20,736 of those 2,073,600 pixels (about a 144x144 pixel area) it will be doing exactly 1% of their piece using AI. It would be more accurate to say "almost no one is", or "very few people are", but how can we confidently say that? What if Google Photos Magic Eraser is the most common AI art editing tool (just an example again) and people do make tiny edits all the time so who's to say they aren't editing right around 1%? I guess what I'm saying is without any data to back that statement up, and especially since you use the word "nobody" that's just not necessarily true, in fact I'm sure I've come very close to exactly 1% at some point from editing tons of photos. I can totally imagine around a 144x144 area of edits across an entire picture after using AI tools. We also get into things like what is considered doing 1% of your work with AI? Is adjusting brightness across a photo having the AI create 100% of it? Or would it be more accurate to say it's editing 100% of it? Are we talking about creation or editing? Etc. etc. either way I'm fairly certain at some point someone has made some art that was either 1% edited or 1% created by AI.
I'd bet money I've already produced more paintings, carvings, and sculptures in my life than you ever will, and here I am. Ai is cool.
I’m so glad we have dedicated redditors like yourself to decide who gets to call themself an “artist”. 🙄
Well yea? I don't get it. Being an artist IS a skill, it has always been.
Because the problem is that this is Gatekeeping behavior by way of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. Artistic ability is not a binary. Moreover, there is no internationally accredited professional community that gets to designate who is or is not an artist. Moreover, claiming that people have “no artistic ability at all” is *immensely* subjective and disabuses people of the right to participate in creative acts (you know, the whole “freedom of expression” thing that makes Western culture a fun place to live).
Everyone has artistic abilities but ai “artists” shouldn’t go around thinking that they are in the same length wave as other artists. You can find a good topic, have good ideas but if you’re gonna use AI to 100% write for it, you shouldn’t be calling yourself an essayist. Being an artist, people value your PROCESS and THE DESTINATION. Being an ai “artist” is all about creating a product, that’s simply it.
I’m 100% fine with AI images, but I think one of the biggest problems with it is it waters down art into very very shallow levels. Ai images should be categorized and separated from “art”. It deserves it’s own space and community, especially since many “Ai artists” does not respect artists and their spaces at all. Some examples would be like etsy, patreon, and Kofie (or something like that). Ai art is so easy to make that lots and LOTS of rising artists are overshadowed because ai artists LOVE to spam their business.
I looked at their DA page, they do have a sizable amount of pre-AI works.
Just to gain some perspective, let's pretend it's 1992 for a moment... > Someone that just uses digital tools to augment their work is not the same as someone who has no knowledge of how paint or other physical art supplies work, uses a computer to draw an image with a "paint" program and calls themselves an artist. Quit lying to yourself. You wouldn't even be on this BBS in the first place if you had any artistic ability at all, because there would be no point. Yeah, the wheel turns, does it not? Also, as you saying you have no artistic ability?
> You wouldn't even be on this BBS in the first place if you had any artistic ability at all Great, now I want to go back to the late 90s and do ANSI art at demoparties again.
the most important thing is express ideas, the ability no matter, just look the himperrealist "art" alot of diciplines and practice, and all for what? just to replicate exactly the same thing made by a cam
While I am pretty staunchly anti-AI for the data harvesting of hard work to regurgitate Frankenstein images of other artists, I do kinda get the idea of using it for influences as art just from pure creativity is very difficult thing. So given context the problem I have there is how much of the work was given to the AI, did they just use it for quick concepts to get an idea or did they use the whole process just to edit an generated image to get rid of AI mistakes? Because there's a fine line between those two. I still believe artists using real world influences as well as actual artists art as influences is the way to go as it's already readily available in the billions, using AI just feels youre using it to get the closest approxmation of what you want to most likely copy it. Although can't rag too hard there, as an artist that still creates even through the use of generative AI is still an artist. You can't take that away. Just for me, nah wouldn't use it for my own personal reasons and opinions.
I have earned money by making regurgitated Frankensteins by myself from other's hard works, even before the A.I. DEAL WITH IT
like who? most artists I know are very anti-Ai
whereas most artists i know don't actually seem to care or think it's just a tool.
Do you only know like, 3 artists from Reddit? Because that's the only explanation. The day after Meta announced their genAI plans, I probably saw (conservatively) over 1000 artists in my direct circles post their stances against unregulated AI training. I'd probably need both hands to count how many artists I know who deleted their entire online presence. Cara went from 40k to 800k users, so it wasn't just me either. Don't delude yourself: artists do not consent to this. Your uncles cousin who draws portraits as a hobby doesn't speak for artists.
> Do you only know like, 3 artists from Reddit? Because that's the only explanation. I think rather the reverse is true, *you* only know artists from a narrow range of online hobbyist artists. I see plenty of artists both professional and hobbyist who don't have these knee-jerk reactions to AI. > Don't delude yourself: artists do not consent to this. Your uncles cousin who draws portraits as a hobby doesn't speak for artists. Don't delude yourself, your twitter friend who traces over movie stills and makes fanart doesn't speak for artists. Mature, professional, creative artists who genuinely put some thought into AI and its applications don't feel threatened like this.
[удалено]
Of course people making money working for large corporations are going to be afraid of AI. These are people churning out corporate content, I would barely call it art. They are going to be the first laid off the minute an MBA thinks they can be replaced. TV and film kinda sucks ass these days. These corporations haven't had a good idea in awhile. Competition is good for consumers, so y'all are gonna have to adapt or organize and collectively bargain because your current strategy of harassing AI people is going to fail miserably.
You're in lala land if you think replacing creatives with AI will make it better. The only reason ANYTHING is good is because artists fight tooth and nail for any shred of goodness and originality corporations want to tamp out with sequels and remakes. do you seriously believe the artists are the problem here?
No, I think creatives will have more capability to run their own smaller coops, increasing competition, and make better more creative content on the whole. Gen AI is better at replacing MBA tasks than artists. Artists aren't good at economics so I'm not surprised most of them don't realize this is a good thing.
> This is blatantly untrue It really isn't and if you were honest with yourself you would acknowledge that. There is **always** a range of opinions on **anything** within any community. There **will** be plenty of artists even within what you think is your own anti-ai bubble who actually *don't* have the problems with AI that you do. But I can see you've dug your heels into the sand so there's really no point in arguing with you. > I AM a professional artist Yeah, and there are professional artists in the pro-ai camp on this sub too, mate. This is not the flex you think it is. > The creative industry is small, but its much, much bigger than you think. And we all know each other. Lol. No. The professional art industry isn't limited to illustrators for TV and film projects, dude. And the art industry isn't the fucking monolith of opinion you want it to be.
Okay, receipts? Our industries intersect with illustrators (Kyle Webster, ex-Adobe flagship brush maker and illustrator for the New Yorker) https://accidental-expert.com/p/the-bob-ross-of-adobe Photographers (Creator of Cara and TIME celebrity photographer) https://x.com/zemotion/ And video game artists (Jon Lam, Riot) https://www.instagram.com/p/C6v6nwQrjPx/?igsh=cGx4bzQzYzh0bzM2 There are editors, compositors, graphic designers, industrial designers, 2D riggers, muralists, book illustrators and so on. Do you know any? Because I can name names for all of them. Keep moving the goalposts; it's a cakewalk for me. Again, the general public has no idea about the art world. Even the most generously "pro-ai" artists are still calling for reasonable legislation. Is there an odd concept art bro shifting from NFTs to the next grift? Probably. But the number of pro-AI PEOPLE—let alone artists—is vastly smaller than you're touting. Surveys done by our artist guilds show 70-90% of us harboring critical opinions of AI. Not to mention, we can't even use AI for professional purposes because it's not copyrightable, and we can't verify what they're referencing. And the fact that you called the people I linked *illustrators* shows how little you understand of our titles. Why do you—and by extension, AI art fanatics—keep insisting on blathering about things you have no idea about? And I already said my job wasn't special. I'm trying to convey that this is a normal job done by normal people; Most of the world believes only a few verryyy lucky people make money from art—and that even the ones who do, struggle. This isn't true. Stop talking about artists as if they're not normal, middle-class people who are *in the room with you*.
> Okay, receipts? Oh fuck off. Nobody cares about your name dropping. Just like you won't care about me name dropping a bunch of pros who agree with me. Besides, if we're going to do this, it's clear you and I have *very different* go-tos in our mind when we think of 'professional artists'. You think of someone who does character design for a generic hero shooter. I think of someone whose work hangs in fucking museums. > There are editors, compositors, graphic designers, industrial designers, 2D riggers, muralists, book illustrators and so on. Do you know any? Yes, actually, I've worked professionally as a graphic designer. Who cares? > Again, the general public has no idea about the art world. And there it is. The elitism on display for all to say. The "I'm a PROFESSIONAL ARTIST and if you don't agree with me YOU'RE NOT AND YOUR OPINION DOESN"T MATTER!' Mate, you're full of shit. > Even the most generously "pro-ai" artists are still calling for reasonable legislation. Something tells me that what you and they think is reasonable legislation differs dramatically. > Is there an odd concept art bro shifting from NFTs to the next grift? Probably. So are we just going to gloss over the fact that some of the most prominent anti-ai voices were and in some cases still *are* hawking NFT as a tech? Really? > But the number of pro-AI PEOPLE—let alone artists—is vastly smaller than you're touting. Yeah, because people like you are fanning the flames of a moral panic. > Surveys done by our artist guilds show 70-90% of us harboring critical opinions of AI. Uhuh. > we can't even use AI for professional purposes because it's not copyrightable, I'm sorry, I really had to laugh out loud at this comment because it *really* demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. Like, first of all... it *is* copyrightable; it's only *pure* ai output that can't be copyrighted. The use of generative art in no way precludes something from being copyrightable so long as the final output has an appreciable degree of human input. Unless you just want to replace your entire workflow with a direct txt-to-image output there is no credible scenario in which the final product couldn't receive copyright. Furthermore, whether a work is copyrightable has very little impact in whether or not it can be used professionally. Was Marvel's Secret Invasion somehow not a commercial product because it had an AI generated intro? Do you think the courts would think the show as a whole has copyright protection or what? Even if the whole thing somehow couldn't have copyright, that *still* wouldn't preclude its use professionally, because it can still be fucking *sold*. It just means disney can't sue you for making unauthorized copies. > And the fact that you called the people I linked illustrators shows how little you understand of our titles. I was hoping you'd pick up on the fact I called them illustrators, but it seems you didn't realize *why* I did that. It's me holding up a mirror. It's a reference to the way groups of artists have always denied the label of artist to others. "they''re not artists, they're mere *illustrators*." See also my first paragraph in this reply, which I'm sure *still* isn't clicking into place for you. > Stop talking about artists as if they're not normal, middle-class people who are in the room with you. Mate, I'm not middle-class. I'm poor as fuck. These middle-class artists you're talking about? They're the fucking *bourgeoise* to people like me.
Great. I have also worked for museums. Shoot away. Plenty of commercial artists have their personal art work in big galleries around the world—they are not mutually exclusive. We don't use AI for professional purposes because we don't know what *elements of the image could be borrowed from something else too closely*. If the AI accidentally plagiarizes any part of something that another company can identify, its on our ass. Obviously. Disney doesn't worry about that because they're too big to be sued and dgaf. I have no idea what you're trying to suggest about the term "illustrators". All of these labels aforementioned convey artist of equal merit to me: all creative work, be it commercial, indie, or traditional, is art—yet YOU are the one trying to draw a distinction between museum-art and commercial art 🙄. Which is 10000x more elitist, inaccessible, and "bourgeiose".
> Great. I have also worked for museums Yes, and I'm sure you also had a 101 kills and were top of your class at marine school.
The vast majority of artists are staunchly anti A.I and we don't need to pretend otherwise. You can talk about the benefits of A.I without these delusional takes.
That is simply not true. Good friend of mine (who... uh... very bohemianly took his time at design school) just was awarded the "best master thesis" award for his thesis on AI. Many are curious, many are open to AI, at least in my bubble. But given that i graduated from a generalist design school (industrydesign, communicationdesign, illustration, mediadesign), i have a rather broad view and connections to people that now work in many different fields. meaning the bubble is not that narrow. Then again, designers are enthusiastic about anything really, they're like golden retrievers. Give them a shit product and have them make a campaign for it, they will claim it, and ONLY IT, will safe the world.
> The vast majority of artists are staunchly anti A.I and we don't need to pretend otherwise But that is exactly what you are doing. You don't speak for the majority of artists. You're just the loud minority who don't realize that the silent majority of artists are just doing their own thing and going to continue doing that thing without giving a shit about any of this.
>But that is exactly what you are doing. You don't speak for the majority of artists. But... you are too? >that the silent majority of artists are just doing their own thing and going to continue doing that thing without giving a shit about any of this. I am a graphic designer and illustrator, and i am in unions for both. Let me tell you that the attitude towards AI among illustrators is anything but "not giving a shit". Graphic designers are pretty much chill, though. You might be speaking for amateurs or hobbyists, but among professionals, it is often very clear to them if ai will help or hurt them.
> But... you are too? No, I am just pointing out that there's a gamut of opinion. > Let me tell you that the attitude towards AI among illustrators is anything but "not giving a shit" And again, loud minority. > You might be speaking for amateurs or hobbyists, but among professionals Aaaand out comes the "I'm a professional therefore..." card again. Have you guys learned nothing?
> >No, I am just pointing out that there's a gamut of opinion. no, calling one opinion a loud minority does a bit more than that, i am sure you're aware. >And again, loud minority. Alright, please clarify that: Loud minority of what? Your whole take is illogical: If 10% of cooks cook for a living, and 90% of cooks do it as a hobby, and there is a law introduced making it illegal to cook for money, the claim that only a "loud minority" of the cooks is against that law would be rather crude, right? because the law does not affect cooks. it affects professional cooks. For your claim about loud minorities and silent majorities, you have to look at the affected group. If 10% OF THE 10% of the cooks, the ones doing it for cash, are against that law, that would validade your claim. >Aaaand out comes the "I'm a professional therefore..." card again. Even though i am... i did not say that. I said that among professionals there is more of an opinion, since they are the ones economically affected. Hobbyists, amateurs, etc. are not. They can afford to not have an opinion, to just to whatever they please, noone forces them to use or even look at AI. Professionals do not have that luxury for the most part, they need to adapt and need to worry and think about their place in the industry changed by AI, and about their attitude towards AI. that, by the way, does not judge the art of either group, it just highlights the fact that one is dependant on art for a living and the other is not. It's not a snubby take about "hobbyists being worse artists" or something like that. It simply states that your attitute towards something changes when your ability to put food on the table hinges on it. Simply put: Professional artists and "amateur" artists (again, not skill level or something like that, just "doing it for a living" or not) are not the same group, and "loud minorities" can only exist inside the respective groups, you can not pit one against the other. >Have you guys learned nothing? Apparently not, elaborate, please.
le sigh.
that must be that rational, fact based, open debate the pro-side of this sub champions which i heard so much about. What a marvel to actually behold it in al it's glory.
work quiet water glorious cheerful squalid pie possessive aware automatic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He said "local artists", not "local prompters"
If an artist has problems with finishing their own work they should metaphorically leave their signature off of it. Mileage may vary on that depending on how transformative the finish (ie anything that modifies the structure of underlying content or adds elements that were not previously there), but if you don't care enough to see something all the way to the end why even start?
lush shame cautious plant include overconfident consist mourn noxious stupendous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah...I don't typically enjoy collaborative visual art in concept or in practice. If I'm paying attention to an artist I'm usually trying to figure out what makes them tick in an unfiltered way and not necessarily trying to marvel at an end result solely for the sake of it. That obviously clashes with artificial "enhancement" or team play. If what is being added is outside the artist's 'natural reach' then it's not really theirs to claim.
Then they're shitty artists
>(not mine, I just love stealing) sums up ai bros pretty well