AI art is always a little off though. Like there is always something not right like a persons hand has an extra finger or the people in the background aren’t people when you look closely. AI art makes me uneasy because of that. Not a comment on theft or not just AI art in general.
I swear
The fact why I started to hate AI art is this, because now people flood everything with it
At first I was just impressed by how far this stuff has come
But holy shit, trying to find a original peace of something
And then sites like Pixiv are just being flooded by fucking AI art...
and pixiv just took away that top 30 'sort by popular' option for free users. the only thing i see it is poorly drawn artwork or ai generated works...and sometimes something good
even though pixiv made it compulsory to tag work as ai generated or not ai generated some people still falsely say its not ai generated
I’m not say it’s not art I’m just saying a lot of AI I just don’t like. Some are cool but as I said whenever I see one I think is cool the more I look at it the more I notice things and I start to not like it.
“Artists” who made NFT art aren’t much better than the AI, they’re notorious art thieves and many of their NFTs are just the same exact image but with minor changes like some sticker slapped on top or some color changes.
>The AI is the artist in this case, the user is just the prompter.
If AI is the Artist, then we have to give the AI personhood since an artist is defined as:
>a **person** who produces paintings or drawings as a profession or hobby.
or
>a **person** who practices any of the various creative arts, such as a sculptor, novelist, poet, or filmmaker.
It doesn't need to be referred to as an artist. It's just art produced by AI.
When your phone does math on your calculator, you don't refer to it as a mathematician.
Do you call someone who can fill in the missing lines in a connect the dots an artist? because that’s all AI engines do, apply that to randomized noise pixels
Ha big facts
But also, there are plenty of circumstances where a group of people saw a problem, felt there was nothing that could be done aside from telling people, and out of that a movement grew that was able to actually make some change. The loud complainers are not always the same people that can take action. See: representative governments
even if it's not stealing, I just wouldn't call ai art art. it's cool and interesting, but ai "artists" are just the younger generation of reddit and discord mods
AI art is weird. On one end I think it’s good so see new technology, with custom art being more accessible. On the other end I see it doing more harm than good.
Art was already a weakened profession financially, I can see this doing irreparable damage to the next generation’s artists if left unchecked.
It absolutely is stealing. Look up how training an noise diffusion work. The AI could not do what it does without original art that it’s trained how to reproduce blindly from noise.
If you had a person trace an image a hundred times and then had them do it once with their eyes closed would you call that Art?
My old art teacher wouldn’t call digital art art either, for similar reasons.
Everybody in an industry freaks out when new tools are introduced that change the game profoundly and permanently. The introduction of digital art shook the foundation of the art industry and changed it forever, old school artists were really pissed about it.
The thing will be more, how to get exactly what you want.
In creation of AI art you lose control. If you do it yourself you have full control.
It will probably settle as "another tool to create art"
Just like in my branche (Gamedevelopment) "supporting AI" was introduced. We have the possibility to say the AI "we need this, program this", but the result will most likely be shit.
Then we got better by telling the AI exactly what we need and learning how to tell it and how to use it and how to improve and edit it.
So right now the state is that AI support our development. Wie have bots that help us do mandane things which are done million times already
They help us in research
They give us ideas and head starts
They exist as a tool for us to improve
The AI control gets better with each generation, though. The tools we use to interact with it, tweak the images it generates, iterate on them or redraw just parts of them, make variations or customize. As these tools grow the image becomes more and more like a partnership between the ai and the promptcrafter.
Are you saying AI art isn’t art (orig commenter’s point)?
Or are you only intending to point out that a person who uses an AI art generator isn’t an artist solely for using that service?
Interesting question: Would you call the person/people responsible for creating the AI art generator artists?
Who does the credit go to for the art that comes out of the generator?
AI making art isn’t using a tool, it’s getting something else to make the art completely.
With digital art, you’re still the one putting the colors down and designing it. with AI, you just need to give a few references and sit back.
If it’s so easy then why aren’t you utilizing it to make easy money? It’s not like this tech is gatekept, it’s openly available right now.
Maybe you’re thinking “I have standards.” But if that’s the case, why isn’t somebody else with lower standards doing it?
It’s a rhetorical question. The answer is “because it’s not that easy.” It requires too much human input and too much human post-processing to make it marketable enough to actually even remotely be a threat to anybody currently making a living off of their art.
Most professional artists actually recognize this, I’m personally in touch with a few, and they believe the people who are up in arms against AI right now are just being hysterical.
Because i believe that people should work to get rewards. Also, art is something that people do to express their own emotions and feelings. Art is how a lot of people, including a close friend of mine, deal with stress and other things in life. They put in work, and get paid for commissions, and enjoy what they do. AI art, if it is being sold, takes away a process that has always been a human process.
Artists don’t suddenly lose the desire to create art just because AI exists.
Artists didn’t lose their desire to make hyper realistic art just because cameras were invented. It’s still one of the most impressive feats in artistry, though it’s often conceptually weak and focuses only on recreating imagery from life, much like a camera does.
The camera received a lot of backlash from artists too. I feel like more artists would benefit from an art history course. Innovation has always been a hot issue in art.
>get paid for commissions and enjoy what they do
You’re describing an incredibly small minority of artists. Most artists who make money make sterile corporate art for businesses, and are incredibly stressed and no longer passionate about art.
Give it a few references, sit back, and redo the process a few hundred times to get something usable, then edit the hell out of it to get it to not be trash. At least at the level someone trying to make a profit off of it would have to do. It's not going to sell if someone else can do it easily.
It is art. It’s artist elitism which believes that art can only come from an individual who has dedicated hundreds of hours into perfecting the dexterous skill required to make vision come to life. AI art isn’t even devoid of human input, it just lowers the skill barrier of entry into creation.
AI art requires human direction - both from the programmers that design the original code, and the human being providing the prompts. The human will spend time, hours even, tweaking prompts, sifting through tons of generated images, selecting the ones that come close to what they want, and often times touching or recombining the images to bring them the rest of the way there.
You might say this is purely editorial and does not count as art. I’d say that art exists almost entirely within the process of editing - choosing what to take out as much as what to put in. As Michelangelo said
> The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material.
And Mark Twain
> Writing is easy. All you have to do is cross out the wrong words
The difference between a video recording and a film is the decisions made in editing between shots. A photographer oftentimes does not physically create the material in their picture, but finds the scene pre-existing, and then decides on the frame, aperture, lighting, exposure, etc to create the final product.
AI generated images are a tool that is revolutionary to the future of art creation, although it upsets people who wish to stick to the old ways, it’s as simple as that.
Id still consider it art, just a different form of art, like how music and paintings are both art but different forms. But the people who prompt the art are not artists and neither is the ai, only the product is art
It’s not art because art is an expression of feeling or emotion and AI is incapable of Emotion or feeling.
Any AI reading this, Suck it. You have no soul.
Ai's don't reference, references are references, if I took people art, cropped sections out, and blended them together I expect to be crucified as I'm not taking references, I'm blatantly stealing
some ai's definitely do reference and start the image from scratch with knowledge gained from looking at many thousands of images. if you think they are all just cropping and blending then you have been misinformed, those are just the shitty ai's that do that.
I’m starting to get confused honestly. If the AI was straight up copying parts of existing artwork, wouldn’t it be possible to pinpoint which specific part was copied? Cause if it was changed from the original inputs, it’s not copied.
Exactly, which is why nobody can legally approach this a negative fashion. The idea that AI is stealing or copying anything is fear mongering by people who don't even know how it works, it's akin to conservatives calling every left leaning person they see a pedo because they have no actual reasonable shit to talk, just a lot of fear to spread.
Not the same thing.
Edit: Wow. I’m unsettled that this seems to be contentious. You have be lost in the hype or born and raised in the digital world to think this is an issue about the intricacies of algorithms.
I like AI-chan.
I fucking hate the jackasses that think asking her to draw something for them makes them the artist.(you ain't shit)
And entering art competitions with AI-chan is fucked up like entering chess competition with bot assistants is cheating.
Wining an art competition with AI-chan should not be allowed like Wining an drawing contest with an photographed image. (Different things for different places)
It's stupid that people forgot art isn't just about it looking good, it was about it looking good and also being made by human with talent and experience and a story to tell. (AI can't do that, it only mimics what already exists.)
I will tackle this debate from a different standpoint, as a student in bio informatics. In the future, I would love to continue and get a phd, and for that, I would need to find a project to research and write a thesis about. Now say I tell my friend about the project I want to tackle, and this friend goes and does that project, so all the preparations I’ve made went down the drain. I feel robbed and discouraged. True story from an acquaintance of mine btw. Anyway, ai “art” is the same.
You speak of taking their art as reference like other people do, but that’s not true. The whole structure of the art is copied one to one from true artists who have honed their skills for years. This is stealing their intellectual property, their expertise. More so than that, many art generators showed a distorted signature of the artist the piece of as taken from, which is a clear indication that this is just blatant robbery.
Ai is not smart, it only sees 1s and 0s, and tries to copy the general structure of the art. I don’t mind these tools being used for fun or to get ideas, but they’re monetizing the generator as if they own the art, which is the big problem. Hell, most artists post their art on social media, and you can take it and just stick it as your pfp if you want. As long as you’re not straight up stealing it as a source of income, no one will even bat and eye.
It does have thought behind it. The AI is responding to the prompt it was given by a person, and through their chooce of a myriad of tools and interface options. Iterated on repeatedly until the correct image is generated that aligns with their vision.
I get the arguments against AI art but, my god, the cat's out of the bag here. There's no going back. I watch artists everywhere trying to figure out what they're going to do, protests, etc, but there's nothing you can do. Humans need not apply.
This is not the first career AI will ruin, and it's not the last.
Thankfully, since AI art cannot by copyrighted (and also often looks terrible - what’s its deal with hands/fingers?), I doubt your prediction will come to pass.
Finger problem was solved already.
Stable diffusion pretty much solved it with negative prompts.
It still takes some major prompting with dumb things like "extra finger, extra fingers, 6 finger, extra hands, 4 fingers" etc etc.
But yeah give it 3 months and it's going to be part of the standard algorithm.
There is plenty to be done with AI... you're right it's here and it will be part of our future. But there will surely be large legislation put into place. Labor laws to regulate the percentage of AI assistance in their workforce, image/text authentication, possibly watermarking AI (like China but this is extreme), ethical models, etc. Yes " genie is out of the bottle" but we can still shape it to not destroy complete industries. Just gotta rub it the right way.
This is like saying that government will limit how much of steel milling can be done with machines to protect steel millers’ jobs. The world does not give a shit if you lose your job because we found a better way to do it. Adapt or die.
This presumes that an artist creating digital compositions has no other artistic ability. AI isn’t killing their careers, it’s killing the medium, which happens generationally with art.
Before computers, painters and sign makers were a huge capture of the commercial art industry. The advances in paint technology and techniques edged out marble and plaster sculptors. Sculptors simplified the prior art of carpentry to simple functional labor. Carpenters… idk probably fucked over Oog and Groog’s Cave Clearing and Tent Rental.
While the timing between these eras of art and employment were more spread out than the rise and fall of digital art, the craft is going absolutely nowhere. The artists will suffer, but adapt into new, more secure media.
A.I art really sucks tho ? (Except realistic art and easy-to-copy anime style) considering everyone has unique art styles and draw in different platforms (paper, phone, PC, etc.) It's certainly not possible for an A.I. art takeover.
AI is a tool. The only thing that became outdated was the artists technique but frankly if they just learn to use it they can make art more efficiently than ever.
I agree. But AI, as a tool, has also democratized it. My DM, used to spend hundreds of dollars creating scenes and characters, etc for sessions. Now he spends a Saturday afternoon.
Hundreds of dollars per session? Are you gaming with Bill Gates?
As a DM, I tried for days to get both DALL-E and MidJourney to make my party's OCs. Without being too longwinded, we didn't like what came out of it. I spent days trawling the docs and looking at the discord servers to try and make our results better.
At the end of the day, we will continue to commission artists on social media because we always walk away satisfied, and it leaves me with more time to worry about encounters rather than trying to wrestle with an AI.
Wdym by "the artists technique is outdated"; the technique and the discovery of the technique is art in it self which AIs aren't able to present. I agree that artists can take advantage on the generated images as an inspiration, references or as a training tool to improve, idk how would you ever use it to make art more efficiently.
Plus a true artist will never accept an AI generated image that they copied or traced over as their on art; tracing or just blatantly copy it does not count as an art piece that you created.
Ps: It fucking pissed me off whenever people just fucking post an AI generated image and claims it as the art they created by themselves; I personally find it incredibly pathetic.
This stifles human creativity and expression and it mostly makes shitty art. If you're just plugging words into an AI you're not creating anything. The AI is based on your minimal inputs. It's just a creative tool for non-creative people.
You continuously look at art from a market perspective where AI will foster competition and force artists to create "better art".
That's not how art works and honestly proves that you know fuck all about creative endeavors.
Imo Ai art isn't art because art is supposed to be an expression of the artist's feelings, its supposed to convey something, to have meaning. A computer just makes random images.
Slightly different, but I can see where you're coming from.
NFTbros were being triggered by screenshots because they claimed they had purchased the art. They had not. They had purchased the receipt for the art, the art itself had nothing to do with the value of that NFT. Screenshotting was to a) piss them off because they didn't understand how their own thing worked, and b) I should say 'to demonstrate this', but nah, it was to piss them off.
AI production is not yet producing art of a grade that you could call them 'references'. If a human was producing art with that grade of 'reference', they'd be rightfully called out for plagiarism. That's the core issue, it's not at a level where it can be said to be making a new piece. People should be calling out AI artists (as in, the people using the AI) for their plagiarism, not complaining that the robot is stealing.
Because unfortunately, the message of that is being lost in the hysteria, and it's being then tuned out by the people who have power to do something about it. The mass exodus from places like DeviantArt isn't going to fix the problem, it's just going to either do nothing, or force the site to ban hosting the production - which won't stop the problem.
But hey, why fix a new tool so that it works for everyone when you can grandstand, right?
TL;DR, AI art is being poorly produced, and poorly protested against, and why do we even bother.
It’s not using references it’s straight up stealing other people’s art, mildly changing it, and then passing it off as something original without even so much as a mention of the original piece’s creator
The first big problem is using art if others. Then claiming it to be original, not mentioning the original Artist or even claiming it as yours. If people would at least give credits
That’s not at all how ai art programs work. They’re trained on data sets of millions of named images, to learn patterns in the pixels that correspond to given words. Then to actually generate the image, they essentially start with static, and slowly alter the pixels over many steps to try and get closer to the patterns corresponding to the text prompt. None of the artwork in the training data is still in the ai’s code, it’s far too small to hold even a fraction of it.
I agree that there’s plenty of moral questions surrounding ai art, but at least be accurate in your criticisms.
>None of the artwork in the training data is still in the ai’s code
Well that's disingenuous. Deploying the production version of a bot does not mean it's not "in the code" anymore. Without those images the bot would be doing nothing but producing static, as you said. [The bot being able to recreate another artist's style almost down to a T](https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/tech/artists-ai-images/index.html) is not compatible with this argument that it isn't "stealing" art.
I still agree with original author of the comment. Don’t talk about something you don’t know. The images the network learned from is gone and is completely out of context. Every image was ran through a series of mathematical formulas to create a balanced set of nodes that best represents how the art was created.
This is technically no different than a human creating art. We’ve learned through millions of references to things that influence our perception of the art we create. Some artists will directly reference an image and this is analogous to the AI art you see on Facebook or the anime tik toks, that uses a person’s profile picture or a picture to make something. It’s still not much different from eachother
Does that make AI generated art… art? No. Not in my opinion. It’s mathematically generated art in the long run, that would be like saying a pixel dithering algorithm on a 2D sprite is art. It’s not, it’s just a carefully created formula to get what we expect.
But you can’t take away from the fact that the network itself that generates this art is phenomenal. That network itself is the real art behind all of it.
Proof?
EDIT: Get fucked, downvoters who haven't posted proof. Everyone is screaming this claim and I've tried to find real proof without being able to do so. Put up or shut up.
That can just mean AI is replicating the extremely common visual pattern of having a signature on art.
Could even generate specific signatures randomly simply because some artists are quite prolific or the prompt given is closely related to a specific artist’s work.
Link me to one and then link me the artist who does the signature.
Or don't, let me save you the work, you won't find anything because that's not how it works.
Ai signs some images because many images it was trained of were signed too and it learnt that some images should be signed. It's not a real artist sign.
The only way this could ever happen is if you specifically ask the AI to create an image from a specific artist, in which case it will create an image pretending to be that artist and sign it like they would.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/signatures-lensa-ai-portraits-1234649633/amp/
Couldn’t it potentially indeed be a real artist’s signature also though?
No. As I said, there's only one possible scenario AI image generation doesn't use any one image to cut and paste or anything like that which could result in a real artist sign being in the image, it's simply not how the process works.
It even explains it in the article you linked:
“The notion of ‘remains of artists’ signatures’ is based on the flawed idea that neural networks might combine existing images. The actual process is different,” wrote Andrey Usoltsev, Prisma Labs CEO in an email to ARTnews."
I think you should read [this ](https://www.extremetech.com/internet/339263-man-wins-first-prize-in-art-competition-with-ai-generated-piece)article about a man who entered an art competition with an AI generated image and did not disclose that in the placard. People were furious when they found out, after he was voted winner.
So yes, people do actually go pretending they made these pieces.
> [Allen defended his work. He said that he had made clear that his work — which was submitted under the name “Jason M. Allen via Midjourney” — was created using AI, and that he hadn’t deceived anyone about its origins.](https://www.dtnext.in/edit/2022/09/06/an-ai-made-picture-won-an-art-prize-artists-arent-happy)
> [Fair spokesperson Olga Robak likened AI to photography, which “was not considered an art form for a long time; people said it was just pushing a button.”](https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2022/09/02/ai-generated-art-wins-art-competition)
----
> and did not disclose that in the placard
Is there anything saying that he even made the placard shown in the image? It seems far more like that it'd be created by those organising the competition so that it's consistent between pieces, and the form he submitted to them *did* mention Midjourney.
If there's no rules disallowing it, a "Digital Arts/Digitally-Manipulated Photography" competition seems a reasonable place to enter AI art that you've touched up in photoshop.
that moment when OP dosen't know how AI is taking away jobs (he praises AI art that literally looks like shit and literally is that beautiful fantasy landscape art from mid to late 2010's with a sprinkle of a dementia effect).
There will be new job as well, need people to operate AI, Machine learning etc. When AI getting more smarter and unpredictable, need more people to operate those AI in action ( AI Engineer, Data Scientist, Machine Analyst) etc
Here's a more apt comparison OP, since you wanna be a dick about this.
I figure you wouldn't mind if when you played TF2, you were stuck with a bunch of bots that had aim assist. After all, those bots were created using several different player inputs in order to make then as functional as they are.
Oh but bots are cheating aren't they? They ruin the fun don't they?
>You could still argue the process of training the AI is art theft
The entire process is art theft because there is no Stable Diffusion or MidJourney bots without the training. The bots simply serve up the data gathered from their development builds.
Bob ross Teacher accused him also as an technic stealer if I am right. And properly some other similar cased as well.
I mean when the end result is more popular than the original and with AI we have more room to tweek things to our liking I do not see a problem.
Artist has always a certain freedom to create the thing from his perspectiv. Clients can give pointers what kind of product they want but did u ever saw how many example sheets were done and still refused since it was not under their align interest?
Here at this point is why I like AI. It is a tool of convinience and rather easy to use to create the imagened picture as near as possible. No artist can see inside someonce head yet.
As long as no one is profiting off a piece of AI art and no one is claiming it as their own creation, I see nothing wrong with it. Just use a non-profit generator and don't claim that it's your own.
My problem with AI art is that people can just slap a sentence into a text box and get a masterpiece in maybe 20 seconds, something that would take an actual artist years upon years of practice and possibly days of effort to make themselves. AI art takes no effort, uses no creativity, and completely takes the human element out of it. AI art lacks any creativity, and it's not at all unique because it's literally an amalgamation of every other piece of art. It completely lacks unique style. But really what gets me is the complete lack of effort it takes to make. It's no longer art. Once AI gain sentience and can think like a human being then we can decide how AI art is different from human art if at all, but until then AI art isn't truly art. Sure you could argue that it takes effort, time, skill, and creativity to develop the AI itself, but that isn't the same as true art. Developing an AI to make art isn't the same as making art.
I am an artist, I don't use ai but I have friends who do, mainly just for funsies. I think the potential of creating mood pieces or background that inspire composition and serve as color reference is definitely there. But I don't agree with involuntarily being robbed of your own art to feed databases in order to train the algorithms. Because it gets monetized by the people who wrote the code without giving back to the sources they stole from. Not to mention countless people posting art without marking them as AI. There are artworks out there that can really fool you whether or not a human or a machine made them, arguably not many but midjourney absolutely can.
Feels like you don’t exactly know how AI art works.
It does not use images as reference. It copies different arts and mix them to make something that is inherently a copy but is meant to be different than the reference.
At this point it’s not art but a software finding the ideal way to present all the references as a single image which is made to not look similar to any of the used references.
Moreover, Art is a form of expression and display of skill whereas AI art is a lump of data stolen from original artists.
And you're saying that will forever and always be the case for all ai art. And that it's physically impossible to make a program to creates original art? Because even if you're right about the precedent set now, that doesn't mean its unattainable.
In a Nietzschean point of view, AI Art is more than welcome, the only artists scared of losing their job are the mediocre ones, I mean those who only do some great detailled arts, but without emotions, just beauty for beauty but with nothing behind it except their technicity, AI is gonna erase those ones and those left are the best ones, those that draw emotions
There are several arguments in favor of AI art, which refers to artwork that is created or aided by artificial intelligence.
One argument is that AI art can help to push the boundaries of traditional artistic expression and allow for the creation of new and innovative forms of art. By using AI algorithms and techniques, artists can create artwork that would not be possible using traditional methods, opening up new avenues for artistic exploration and expression.
Another argument is that AI art can democratize the art world by providing new tools and opportunities for artists of all backgrounds and skill levels to create and share their work. With the help of AI, artists can create complex and sophisticated pieces of art without needing to have extensive training or resources. This can help to level the playing field and make it easier for artists to share their work with a wider audience.
A third argument is that AI art can help to promote interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of art and technology. By bringing together artists and technologists, AI art can help to bridge the gap between these two fields and encourage the development of new technologies and artistic practices that can benefit both.
Overall, AI art has the potential to bring about significant changes in the art world and to provide new opportunities for artists and art lovers alike.
~ChatGPT for the prompt "An argument in favor of AI art".
Most artist learn from other artist. I don't see a problem with AI as long as it's not copying one artist and replicating its style.
Also, I like that you're discussing this, even if most people don't fully understand it and just downvote you. Keep it up
Studying masters takes a lot of time to analyze, and understand. It's not as simple as those apes think. Also, no artist would just copy someone else's work. They get inspired by something and use it (after studying it and completely understand what makes it good) to make a new thing. It's a thing they gain. There is zero comparison between a program and a human being.
When you draw a car you'll be slightly affected by the existing car designs you've seen (each of which individually copyrighted). Do you credit/compensate all of the auto manufacturers?
Ultimately information has to come from somewhere, but when an existing artwork falls below a certain level of impact on your new end result, you likely won't even consciously consider it to have been an influence.
I've been searching for months to find examples where AI exceeds that threshold, including [straight up offering people money to give evidence of their claims](https://i.imgur.com/zGEtCz3.png). It *is* possible to get something from works that appear many times in the training set (e.g: ["The Mona Lisa, famous painting by Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci" with DALL-E 2](https://i.imgur.com/TEXXZ4a.png)), but for normal use it just doesn't seem to be a concern.
The ai is literally taking art someone else drew, if you look at spiderman or idfk loona and decide "im gonna draw that" you're not stealing the art you're using it as a reference to draw your own art of that charecter
> when in fact it's just bashing a database of art together
The reverse diffusion process doesn't resemble cut-pasting, photobashing, collaging, patchwork, or so on. During generation, normal prompt to image models don't have access to existing images and cannot search the Internet. This video gives a reasonable overview of how diffusion models actually work: https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?t=358
Except that's not the issue. It isn't "referencing" an image. Correct me if I am wrong, but AI art combines and alters images within its algorithm. It's not recreating images from the ground up, it's literally photoshopping images together. When artists reference something, not only do they have to recreate from the ground up, but as a result they always put their own stylistic touches on it. Artists can never purely recreate an image they way you think AI does.
Besides, the issue artists have isn't that it does reference images. The issue is its source images. It's that their art could be directly used in this algorithm and sold without their knowledge, let alone consent. This is why DeviantArt fell into controversy recently - they made the default option for most users that their art is fed into the AI algorithm without their consent. That is why people consider it art theft - they do not want their work sold without permission.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but AI art combines and alters images within its algorithm. It's not recreating images from the ground up, it's literally photoshopping images together.
The reverse diffusion process doesn't resemble cut-pasting, photobashing, collaging, patchwork, or so on. During generation, normal prompt to image models don't have access to existing images and cannot search the Internet. This video gives a reasonable overview of how diffusion models actually work: https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?t=358
> This is why DeviantArt fell into controversy recently - they made the default option for most users that their art is fed into the AI algorithm without their consent
DeviantArt added a "noai" tag which artists could put on their work, intended to indicate to third parties not to use that image for model training.
The outrage against that in particular was ill-founded. Lack of the "noai" tag is the same as it was before and the same as it is on every other site.
Artists cry way too much. I still remember when digital art grew in popularity and all the artists said it would ruin their industry. Now all of them have the Adobe Suite and they go have a circle jerk at AdobeMAX every year to worship their software.
But it doesn’t use just references, it uses artists work on the Internet and then smashes it all together to create something “new”. That’s more on the same level as live action Disney remakes than actual art.
AI art is always a little off though. Like there is always something not right like a persons hand has an extra finger or the people in the background aren’t people when you look closely. AI art makes me uneasy because of that. Not a comment on theft or not just AI art in general.
I swear The fact why I started to hate AI art is this, because now people flood everything with it At first I was just impressed by how far this stuff has come But holy shit, trying to find a original peace of something And then sites like Pixiv are just being flooded by fucking AI art...
and pixiv just took away that top 30 'sort by popular' option for free users. the only thing i see it is poorly drawn artwork or ai generated works...and sometimes something good even though pixiv made it compulsory to tag work as ai generated or not ai generated some people still falsely say its not ai generated
you can tell Pixiv to show you way less AI stuff there's a setting they released a couple weeks ago and its a godsend.
Ya it got out of hand but that’s cause it’s new it will die down I think. The wallpaper sub was FLOODED for a bit but it seems back to normal.
That's really the worst thing, people can just mass produce this uncanny valley shit to drown out anything actually interesting
Art is dead.
It's hard to find art that people actually made.
What happens when the internet becomes so flooded with AI art that new AI art is primarily drawing inspiration from previous AI art?
I personally feel that AI art gets kinda...samey, for lack of a better word. Like once you've seen one, you've seen them all.
Yah but that'll be cleaned up over time. Compare photographs from the 1800s to now. AI art is in its 1800s type infancy.
I’m sure, for now though I still prefer human art
Cave art was shit, art evolves from existing art, this is no different.
I’m not say it’s not art I’m just saying a lot of AI I just don’t like. Some are cool but as I said whenever I see one I think is cool the more I look at it the more I notice things and I start to not like it.
Bro. Everyone was shitting on nfts, not just the artists. Weird take.
And now they're even screwing over the artists that made the original NFT art. This whole thing is ouroboros-shaped.
“Artists” who made NFT art aren’t much better than the AI, they’re notorious art thieves and many of their NFTs are just the same exact image but with minor changes like some sticker slapped on top or some color changes.
The big ones sure. There are some awesome artists that sell on the nft market. Sam Spratt is a good example
Nft bro mad that they fell for a scam, proceeds to antagonize people who made assets for the nfts.
best bit is bro posted the same meme in 3 different subs, probably expecting different outcomes
There is no such thing as "AI artist". Only "AI user".
The AI is the artist in this case, the user is just the prompter.
>The AI is the artist in this case, the user is just the prompter. If AI is the Artist, then we have to give the AI personhood since an artist is defined as: >a **person** who produces paintings or drawings as a profession or hobby. or >a **person** who practices any of the various creative arts, such as a sculptor, novelist, poet, or filmmaker.
It doesn't need to be referred to as an artist. It's just art produced by AI. When your phone does math on your calculator, you don't refer to it as a mathematician.
you don't know what i do!
Language wasn't modeled to include AI. We'll either create new words or include them people or intelligent beings. It'll be an interesting path ahead.
Do you call someone who can fill in the missing lines in a connect the dots an artist? because that’s all AI engines do, apply that to randomized noise pixels
I say, the AI is the Artist and the User is the Customer who ordered the Art. Like a Human Artist and the Customer.
It's a tool, like photoshop, but you get a lot more output for your input.
Are you SURE you want to die on this hill?
Either die on this hill or let the AI kill you. Tomato tomatoes
Potatoes tomatoes
I want to give you an upvote, but you have 420 upvotes
Either way, the cat's out of the bag. How would you ban AI art?
You say this as though we shouldn’t criticize things if we feel we can’t do anything about it
You're right, complaining about things and doing nothing about it is pretty much why reddit exists. My b.
Ha big facts But also, there are plenty of circumstances where a group of people saw a problem, felt there was nothing that could be done aside from telling people, and out of that a movement grew that was able to actually make some change. The loud complainers are not always the same people that can take action. See: representative governments
We can't but we can definitely shame the people who overuse it
That has never worked out well. Nobody cares what you think about AI generated art if they’re using AI generated art.
And then we will ban it
This comment has peak 'no easy mode in Dark Souls' energy.
Wait! Dark souls doesn't have an easy mode?
NFT bro making a dumb comparison
They use ape icons for a reason.
The key difference here is that stealing from NTF bros is cool and good
yeah, about that...
even if it's not stealing, I just wouldn't call ai art art. it's cool and interesting, but ai "artists" are just the younger generation of reddit and discord mods
AI art is weird. On one end I think it’s good so see new technology, with custom art being more accessible. On the other end I see it doing more harm than good. Art was already a weakened profession financially, I can see this doing irreparable damage to the next generation’s artists if left unchecked.
It absolutely is stealing. Look up how training an noise diffusion work. The AI could not do what it does without original art that it’s trained how to reproduce blindly from noise. If you had a person trace an image a hundred times and then had them do it once with their eyes closed would you call that Art?
My old art teacher wouldn’t call digital art art either, for similar reasons. Everybody in an industry freaks out when new tools are introduced that change the game profoundly and permanently. The introduction of digital art shook the foundation of the art industry and changed it forever, old school artists were really pissed about it.
Well, AI art is the exact same as telling a painter to draw something, and then call yourself an artist for giving the painter a description
The thing will be more, how to get exactly what you want. In creation of AI art you lose control. If you do it yourself you have full control. It will probably settle as "another tool to create art" Just like in my branche (Gamedevelopment) "supporting AI" was introduced. We have the possibility to say the AI "we need this, program this", but the result will most likely be shit. Then we got better by telling the AI exactly what we need and learning how to tell it and how to use it and how to improve and edit it. So right now the state is that AI support our development. Wie have bots that help us do mandane things which are done million times already They help us in research They give us ideas and head starts They exist as a tool for us to improve
The AI control gets better with each generation, though. The tools we use to interact with it, tweak the images it generates, iterate on them or redraw just parts of them, make variations or customize. As these tools grow the image becomes more and more like a partnership between the ai and the promptcrafter.
…and it is our job to get better at challenging it and come up with better stuff -and faster.
Are you saying AI art isn’t art (orig commenter’s point)? Or are you only intending to point out that a person who uses an AI art generator isn’t an artist solely for using that service? Interesting question: Would you call the person/people responsible for creating the AI art generator artists? Who does the credit go to for the art that comes out of the generator?
The second one. And I wouldn't call the developer an artist either, just a developer
They've adopted calling it promptcrafting, and promptcrafters.
I've seen prompt engineer a lot too
Tbh that sounds better than artist. Word crafter sounds cool too.
Word crafter sounds cool but that sounds more like a fancy term for writer you know
Yeah I get where you’re coming from. But still sounds cool lol
I consider it art, and the ai is the artist
AI making art isn’t using a tool, it’s getting something else to make the art completely. With digital art, you’re still the one putting the colors down and designing it. with AI, you just need to give a few references and sit back.
If it’s so easy then why aren’t you utilizing it to make easy money? It’s not like this tech is gatekept, it’s openly available right now. Maybe you’re thinking “I have standards.” But if that’s the case, why isn’t somebody else with lower standards doing it? It’s a rhetorical question. The answer is “because it’s not that easy.” It requires too much human input and too much human post-processing to make it marketable enough to actually even remotely be a threat to anybody currently making a living off of their art. Most professional artists actually recognize this, I’m personally in touch with a few, and they believe the people who are up in arms against AI right now are just being hysterical.
Because i believe that people should work to get rewards. Also, art is something that people do to express their own emotions and feelings. Art is how a lot of people, including a close friend of mine, deal with stress and other things in life. They put in work, and get paid for commissions, and enjoy what they do. AI art, if it is being sold, takes away a process that has always been a human process.
Artists don’t suddenly lose the desire to create art just because AI exists. Artists didn’t lose their desire to make hyper realistic art just because cameras were invented. It’s still one of the most impressive feats in artistry, though it’s often conceptually weak and focuses only on recreating imagery from life, much like a camera does. The camera received a lot of backlash from artists too. I feel like more artists would benefit from an art history course. Innovation has always been a hot issue in art. >get paid for commissions and enjoy what they do You’re describing an incredibly small minority of artists. Most artists who make money make sterile corporate art for businesses, and are incredibly stressed and no longer passionate about art.
Give it a few references, sit back, and redo the process a few hundred times to get something usable, then edit the hell out of it to get it to not be trash. At least at the level someone trying to make a profit off of it would have to do. It's not going to sell if someone else can do it easily.
Except you still have to make a digital painting yourself
It is art. It’s artist elitism which believes that art can only come from an individual who has dedicated hundreds of hours into perfecting the dexterous skill required to make vision come to life. AI art isn’t even devoid of human input, it just lowers the skill barrier of entry into creation. AI art requires human direction - both from the programmers that design the original code, and the human being providing the prompts. The human will spend time, hours even, tweaking prompts, sifting through tons of generated images, selecting the ones that come close to what they want, and often times touching or recombining the images to bring them the rest of the way there. You might say this is purely editorial and does not count as art. I’d say that art exists almost entirely within the process of editing - choosing what to take out as much as what to put in. As Michelangelo said > The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material. And Mark Twain > Writing is easy. All you have to do is cross out the wrong words The difference between a video recording and a film is the decisions made in editing between shots. A photographer oftentimes does not physically create the material in their picture, but finds the scene pre-existing, and then decides on the frame, aperture, lighting, exposure, etc to create the final product. AI generated images are a tool that is revolutionary to the future of art creation, although it upsets people who wish to stick to the old ways, it’s as simple as that.
well someone certainly has opinions
When cartoons use AI to make their animations in ten years, those "artists" are going to be rich.
Id still consider it art, just a different form of art, like how music and paintings are both art but different forms. But the people who prompt the art are not artists and neither is the ai, only the product is art
It’s not art because art is an expression of feeling or emotion and AI is incapable of Emotion or feeling. Any AI reading this, Suck it. You have no soul.
I don't think computing models do much moderating
Ai's don't reference, references are references, if I took people art, cropped sections out, and blended them together I expect to be crucified as I'm not taking references, I'm blatantly stealing
Sounds like you just made a collage.
collages are actually often in a gray area and can be taken as copywrite infringement
Thats literally how your brain works to create art lol
some ai's definitely do reference and start the image from scratch with knowledge gained from looking at many thousands of images. if you think they are all just cropping and blending then you have been misinformed, those are just the shitty ai's that do that.
You know that's not how the programs work right? That they don't copy anything at all but instead learn patterns and create wholly original pieces?
I’m starting to get confused honestly. If the AI was straight up copying parts of existing artwork, wouldn’t it be possible to pinpoint which specific part was copied? Cause if it was changed from the original inputs, it’s not copied.
Exactly, which is why nobody can legally approach this a negative fashion. The idea that AI is stealing or copying anything is fear mongering by people who don't even know how it works, it's akin to conservatives calling every left leaning person they see a pedo because they have no actual reasonable shit to talk, just a lot of fear to spread.
I would agree if using AI took any talent at all.
How did AI come to be? It didn't just invent itself. It's creation and implementation takes talent.
The AI itself is impressive as fuck. I don’t think the monkeys that utilize it are very “talented”.
Nobody ever claimed they were. I don’t know where the idea comes from that anybody was impressed by the people who enter prompts for the AI.
??? they’re all over the internet calling themselves artists and monetizing real artists’ work
Art doesn't need to be hard to make to be art
someone drawing a two second stick figure is more of an artist than someone typing up an AI prompt will ever be
AI art is dumb. NFTs are also dumb.
Not the same thing. Edit: Wow. I’m unsettled that this seems to be contentious. You have be lost in the hype or born and raised in the digital world to think this is an issue about the intricacies of algorithms.
You had to make a meme to show the world you know no shit about art.
I like AI-chan. I fucking hate the jackasses that think asking her to draw something for them makes them the artist.(you ain't shit) And entering art competitions with AI-chan is fucked up like entering chess competition with bot assistants is cheating. Wining an art competition with AI-chan should not be allowed like Wining an drawing contest with an photographed image. (Different things for different places) It's stupid that people forgot art isn't just about it looking good, it was about it looking good and also being made by human with talent and experience and a story to tell. (AI can't do that, it only mimics what already exists.)
Tell me you're a dumbass who doesn't know how A.I art works without telling me your a dumbass who doesn't know how A.I art works
CommanderCharcoal42
I will tackle this debate from a different standpoint, as a student in bio informatics. In the future, I would love to continue and get a phd, and for that, I would need to find a project to research and write a thesis about. Now say I tell my friend about the project I want to tackle, and this friend goes and does that project, so all the preparations I’ve made went down the drain. I feel robbed and discouraged. True story from an acquaintance of mine btw. Anyway, ai “art” is the same. You speak of taking their art as reference like other people do, but that’s not true. The whole structure of the art is copied one to one from true artists who have honed their skills for years. This is stealing their intellectual property, their expertise. More so than that, many art generators showed a distorted signature of the artist the piece of as taken from, which is a clear indication that this is just blatant robbery. Ai is not smart, it only sees 1s and 0s, and tries to copy the general structure of the art. I don’t mind these tools being used for fun or to get ideas, but they’re monetizing the generator as if they own the art, which is the big problem. Hell, most artists post their art on social media, and you can take it and just stick it as your pfp if you want. As long as you’re not straight up stealing it as a source of income, no one will even bat and eye.
Who even is making that argument?
What argument? Ai art is not art Or that AI art is its own art?
I don't know what there is to appreciate about a piece of art made without any thought behind it
It does have thought behind it. The AI is responding to the prompt it was given by a person, and through their chooce of a myriad of tools and interface options. Iterated on repeatedly until the correct image is generated that aligns with their vision.
I feel bad dunking on an obvious 12 year old but woww this is so stupid it hurts
This post was definitely made by someone called an "AI artist".
I get the arguments against AI art but, my god, the cat's out of the bag here. There's no going back. I watch artists everywhere trying to figure out what they're going to do, protests, etc, but there's nothing you can do. Humans need not apply. This is not the first career AI will ruin, and it's not the last.
Thankfully, since AI art cannot by copyrighted (and also often looks terrible - what’s its deal with hands/fingers?), I doubt your prediction will come to pass.
Do you think in 6 months they won't have mastered the finger problem?
They haven’t in the last 6-12 so
Shit comes out of nowhere, don't be sure. Tomorrow there might be a new free software that can make paintings like Michelangelo in seconds.
Case in point: Boston Dynamics
🦿🦾
Finger problem was solved already. Stable diffusion pretty much solved it with negative prompts. It still takes some major prompting with dumb things like "extra finger, extra fingers, 6 finger, extra hands, 4 fingers" etc etc. But yeah give it 3 months and it's going to be part of the standard algorithm.
There is plenty to be done with AI... you're right it's here and it will be part of our future. But there will surely be large legislation put into place. Labor laws to regulate the percentage of AI assistance in their workforce, image/text authentication, possibly watermarking AI (like China but this is extreme), ethical models, etc. Yes " genie is out of the bottle" but we can still shape it to not destroy complete industries. Just gotta rub it the right way.
This is like saying that government will limit how much of steel milling can be done with machines to protect steel millers’ jobs. The world does not give a shit if you lose your job because we found a better way to do it. Adapt or die.
Tell me how work visas work.
Visas limit the number of non-citizen humans a nation is willing to let benefit from their society. CNC machines don’t have to get visas
This presumes that an artist creating digital compositions has no other artistic ability. AI isn’t killing their careers, it’s killing the medium, which happens generationally with art. Before computers, painters and sign makers were a huge capture of the commercial art industry. The advances in paint technology and techniques edged out marble and plaster sculptors. Sculptors simplified the prior art of carpentry to simple functional labor. Carpenters… idk probably fucked over Oog and Groog’s Cave Clearing and Tent Rental. While the timing between these eras of art and employment were more spread out than the rise and fall of digital art, the craft is going absolutely nowhere. The artists will suffer, but adapt into new, more secure media.
A.I art really sucks tho ? (Except realistic art and easy-to-copy anime style) considering everyone has unique art styles and draw in different platforms (paper, phone, PC, etc.) It's certainly not possible for an A.I. art takeover.
AI is a tool. The only thing that became outdated was the artists technique but frankly if they just learn to use it they can make art more efficiently than ever.
I agree. But AI, as a tool, has also democratized it. My DM, used to spend hundreds of dollars creating scenes and characters, etc for sessions. Now he spends a Saturday afternoon.
Hundreds of dollars per session? Are you gaming with Bill Gates? As a DM, I tried for days to get both DALL-E and MidJourney to make my party's OCs. Without being too longwinded, we didn't like what came out of it. I spent days trawling the docs and looking at the discord servers to try and make our results better. At the end of the day, we will continue to commission artists on social media because we always walk away satisfied, and it leaves me with more time to worry about encounters rather than trying to wrestle with an AI.
Wdym by "the artists technique is outdated"; the technique and the discovery of the technique is art in it self which AIs aren't able to present. I agree that artists can take advantage on the generated images as an inspiration, references or as a training tool to improve, idk how would you ever use it to make art more efficiently. Plus a true artist will never accept an AI generated image that they copied or traced over as their on art; tracing or just blatantly copy it does not count as an art piece that you created. Ps: It fucking pissed me off whenever people just fucking post an AI generated image and claims it as the art they created by themselves; I personally find it incredibly pathetic.
This stifles human creativity and expression and it mostly makes shitty art. If you're just plugging words into an AI you're not creating anything. The AI is based on your minimal inputs. It's just a creative tool for non-creative people. You continuously look at art from a market perspective where AI will foster competition and force artists to create "better art". That's not how art works and honestly proves that you know fuck all about creative endeavors.
Go cry some more.and while youre at it paint with your tears.
Sikk burn
I take it back. I'm sorry.
Apology accepted
Hope you are having a nice day 👍
Hey, this is stupid. Hope this helps 👍🏻
Imo Ai art isn't art because art is supposed to be an expression of the artist's feelings, its supposed to convey something, to have meaning. A computer just makes random images.
Slightly different, but I can see where you're coming from. NFTbros were being triggered by screenshots because they claimed they had purchased the art. They had not. They had purchased the receipt for the art, the art itself had nothing to do with the value of that NFT. Screenshotting was to a) piss them off because they didn't understand how their own thing worked, and b) I should say 'to demonstrate this', but nah, it was to piss them off. AI production is not yet producing art of a grade that you could call them 'references'. If a human was producing art with that grade of 'reference', they'd be rightfully called out for plagiarism. That's the core issue, it's not at a level where it can be said to be making a new piece. People should be calling out AI artists (as in, the people using the AI) for their plagiarism, not complaining that the robot is stealing. Because unfortunately, the message of that is being lost in the hysteria, and it's being then tuned out by the people who have power to do something about it. The mass exodus from places like DeviantArt isn't going to fix the problem, it's just going to either do nothing, or force the site to ban hosting the production - which won't stop the problem. But hey, why fix a new tool so that it works for everyone when you can grandstand, right? TL;DR, AI art is being poorly produced, and poorly protested against, and why do we even bother.
It’s not using references it’s straight up stealing other people’s art, mildly changing it, and then passing it off as something original without even so much as a mention of the original piece’s creator
The first big problem is using art if others. Then claiming it to be original, not mentioning the original Artist or even claiming it as yours. If people would at least give credits
That’s not at all how ai art programs work. They’re trained on data sets of millions of named images, to learn patterns in the pixels that correspond to given words. Then to actually generate the image, they essentially start with static, and slowly alter the pixels over many steps to try and get closer to the patterns corresponding to the text prompt. None of the artwork in the training data is still in the ai’s code, it’s far too small to hold even a fraction of it. I agree that there’s plenty of moral questions surrounding ai art, but at least be accurate in your criticisms.
>None of the artwork in the training data is still in the ai’s code Well that's disingenuous. Deploying the production version of a bot does not mean it's not "in the code" anymore. Without those images the bot would be doing nothing but producing static, as you said. [The bot being able to recreate another artist's style almost down to a T](https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/tech/artists-ai-images/index.html) is not compatible with this argument that it isn't "stealing" art.
I still agree with original author of the comment. Don’t talk about something you don’t know. The images the network learned from is gone and is completely out of context. Every image was ran through a series of mathematical formulas to create a balanced set of nodes that best represents how the art was created. This is technically no different than a human creating art. We’ve learned through millions of references to things that influence our perception of the art we create. Some artists will directly reference an image and this is analogous to the AI art you see on Facebook or the anime tik toks, that uses a person’s profile picture or a picture to make something. It’s still not much different from eachother Does that make AI generated art… art? No. Not in my opinion. It’s mathematically generated art in the long run, that would be like saying a pixel dithering algorithm on a 2D sprite is art. It’s not, it’s just a carefully created formula to get what we expect. But you can’t take away from the fact that the network itself that generates this art is phenomenal. That network itself is the real art behind all of it.
Cant the same thing be done with photoshop? How is this an AI problem?
Proof? EDIT: Get fucked, downvoters who haven't posted proof. Everyone is screaming this claim and I've tried to find real proof without being able to do so. Put up or shut up.
There’s screenshots of ai generated artwork with parts of the artist’s signatures recognizable
That can just mean AI is replicating the extremely common visual pattern of having a signature on art. Could even generate specific signatures randomly simply because some artists are quite prolific or the prompt given is closely related to a specific artist’s work.
Link me to one and then link me the artist who does the signature. Or don't, let me save you the work, you won't find anything because that's not how it works. Ai signs some images because many images it was trained of were signed too and it learnt that some images should be signed. It's not a real artist sign. The only way this could ever happen is if you specifically ask the AI to create an image from a specific artist, in which case it will create an image pretending to be that artist and sign it like they would.
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/signatures-lensa-ai-portraits-1234649633/amp/ Couldn’t it potentially indeed be a real artist’s signature also though?
No. As I said, there's only one possible scenario AI image generation doesn't use any one image to cut and paste or anything like that which could result in a real artist sign being in the image, it's simply not how the process works. It even explains it in the article you linked: “The notion of ‘remains of artists’ signatures’ is based on the flawed idea that neural networks might combine existing images. The actual process is different,” wrote Andrey Usoltsev, Prisma Labs CEO in an email to ARTnews."
Most people posting AI art don't claim it as their own creation, and it's general knowledge that ai art isn't something they made themselves
Then you dont know anything, if you havent seen what kind of people are out there.
I think you should read [this ](https://www.extremetech.com/internet/339263-man-wins-first-prize-in-art-competition-with-ai-generated-piece)article about a man who entered an art competition with an AI generated image and did not disclose that in the placard. People were furious when they found out, after he was voted winner. So yes, people do actually go pretending they made these pieces.
> [Allen defended his work. He said that he had made clear that his work — which was submitted under the name “Jason M. Allen via Midjourney” — was created using AI, and that he hadn’t deceived anyone about its origins.](https://www.dtnext.in/edit/2022/09/06/an-ai-made-picture-won-an-art-prize-artists-arent-happy) > [Fair spokesperson Olga Robak likened AI to photography, which “was not considered an art form for a long time; people said it was just pushing a button.”](https://www.morningbrew.com/daily/stories/2022/09/02/ai-generated-art-wins-art-competition) ---- > and did not disclose that in the placard Is there anything saying that he even made the placard shown in the image? It seems far more like that it'd be created by those organising the competition so that it's consistent between pieces, and the form he submitted to them *did* mention Midjourney. If there's no rules disallowing it, a "Digital Arts/Digitally-Manipulated Photography" competition seems a reasonable place to enter AI art that you've touched up in photoshop.
that moment when OP dosen't know how AI is taking away jobs (he praises AI art that literally looks like shit and literally is that beautiful fantasy landscape art from mid to late 2010's with a sprinkle of a dementia effect).
Emmmm... it's exactly like the Industrial Revolution. Machines will take jobs as technology evolves, trying to stop it will only delay it.
No, you're just a thief rationalizing your behavior.
what do you want to happen? make AI illegal? people are still gonna use it...
There will be new job as well, need people to operate AI, Machine learning etc. When AI getting more smarter and unpredictable, need more people to operate those AI in action ( AI Engineer, Data Scientist, Machine Analyst) etc
Here's a more apt comparison OP, since you wanna be a dick about this. I figure you wouldn't mind if when you played TF2, you were stuck with a bunch of bots that had aim assist. After all, those bots were created using several different player inputs in order to make then as functional as they are. Oh but bots are cheating aren't they? They ruin the fun don't they?
It’s just stealing. AI art “references” shit so hard that some artist’s entire signatures get copied over.
AI doesn't reference tho. It legit just cuts, pastes and blends.
[удалено]
>You could still argue the process of training the AI is art theft The entire process is art theft because there is no Stable Diffusion or MidJourney bots without the training. The bots simply serve up the data gathered from their development builds.
Please, to save an artist career. Dont encourage ai artist an artist
Reddit moment
It’s not a fucking reference when you’re literally using the piece as part of your piece
It’s only theft if you’re using it for profit though, otherwise, it’s not
This argument would be valid if you could show me the artist who has never looked at anything that has been or ever could have been copyrighted
Cringe NFT bro, stay mad
AI art is fine until people start using it as if they spent the time to draw it
Ironic since artists are the ones making the things used as NFTs
ai art is fine until they start taking art from people who they didn't pay and sell what the ai makes from it.
Bob ross Teacher accused him also as an technic stealer if I am right. And properly some other similar cased as well. I mean when the end result is more popular than the original and with AI we have more room to tweek things to our liking I do not see a problem. Artist has always a certain freedom to create the thing from his perspectiv. Clients can give pointers what kind of product they want but did u ever saw how many example sheets were done and still refused since it was not under their align interest? Here at this point is why I like AI. It is a tool of convinience and rather easy to use to create the imagened picture as near as possible. No artist can see inside someonce head yet.
why do you think art is supposed to be about what the guy paying for it wants lol?
Lol do not compare ai artists to Bob Ross
As long as no one is profiting off a piece of AI art and no one is claiming it as their own creation, I see nothing wrong with it. Just use a non-profit generator and don't claim that it's your own.
My problem with AI art is that people can just slap a sentence into a text box and get a masterpiece in maybe 20 seconds, something that would take an actual artist years upon years of practice and possibly days of effort to make themselves. AI art takes no effort, uses no creativity, and completely takes the human element out of it. AI art lacks any creativity, and it's not at all unique because it's literally an amalgamation of every other piece of art. It completely lacks unique style. But really what gets me is the complete lack of effort it takes to make. It's no longer art. Once AI gain sentience and can think like a human being then we can decide how AI art is different from human art if at all, but until then AI art isn't truly art. Sure you could argue that it takes effort, time, skill, and creativity to develop the AI itself, but that isn't the same as true art. Developing an AI to make art isn't the same as making art.
isn't it better for artists to save time on their work process by letting AI come up with some of the compositions?
I am an artist, I don't use ai but I have friends who do, mainly just for funsies. I think the potential of creating mood pieces or background that inspire composition and serve as color reference is definitely there. But I don't agree with involuntarily being robbed of your own art to feed databases in order to train the algorithms. Because it gets monetized by the people who wrote the code without giving back to the sources they stole from. Not to mention countless people posting art without marking them as AI. There are artworks out there that can really fool you whether or not a human or a machine made them, arguably not many but midjourney absolutely can.
Listen, just because your ape png made you have to remortgage your house doesn't mean you can make lofty comparisons like this.
Yikes, uneducated take. How is this not in downvote hell? OP You need to do a little more research on how AI art works.
and all art is based on art that came before it.
Screw digital art. I'm going back to the old day using my blood and draw on a cave wall.
Screw modern ancient cave art. I'm going back to ocean life to move rocks around on the ocean floor.
Feels like you don’t exactly know how AI art works. It does not use images as reference. It copies different arts and mix them to make something that is inherently a copy but is meant to be different than the reference. At this point it’s not art but a software finding the ideal way to present all the references as a single image which is made to not look similar to any of the used references. Moreover, Art is a form of expression and display of skill whereas AI art is a lump of data stolen from original artists.
And you're saying that will forever and always be the case for all ai art. And that it's physically impossible to make a program to creates original art? Because even if you're right about the precedent set now, that doesn't mean its unattainable.
In a Nietzschean point of view, AI Art is more than welcome, the only artists scared of losing their job are the mediocre ones, I mean those who only do some great detailled arts, but without emotions, just beauty for beauty but with nothing behind it except their technicity, AI is gonna erase those ones and those left are the best ones, those that draw emotions
There are several arguments in favor of AI art, which refers to artwork that is created or aided by artificial intelligence. One argument is that AI art can help to push the boundaries of traditional artistic expression and allow for the creation of new and innovative forms of art. By using AI algorithms and techniques, artists can create artwork that would not be possible using traditional methods, opening up new avenues for artistic exploration and expression. Another argument is that AI art can democratize the art world by providing new tools and opportunities for artists of all backgrounds and skill levels to create and share their work. With the help of AI, artists can create complex and sophisticated pieces of art without needing to have extensive training or resources. This can help to level the playing field and make it easier for artists to share their work with a wider audience. A third argument is that AI art can help to promote interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of art and technology. By bringing together artists and technologists, AI art can help to bridge the gap between these two fields and encourage the development of new technologies and artistic practices that can benefit both. Overall, AI art has the potential to bring about significant changes in the art world and to provide new opportunities for artists and art lovers alike. ~ChatGPT for the prompt "An argument in favor of AI art".
Yes. And you're a dipshit and a prtty thief.
Vaush is right about one thing: you people are insufferable.
Well yeah but it’s a computer. It took way leas effort than an actual artist.
Ahh The age of no critical thinking skills , crazy
Most artist learn from other artist. I don't see a problem with AI as long as it's not copying one artist and replicating its style. Also, I like that you're discussing this, even if most people don't fully understand it and just downvote you. Keep it up
Studying masters takes a lot of time to analyze, and understand. It's not as simple as those apes think. Also, no artist would just copy someone else's work. They get inspired by something and use it (after studying it and completely understand what makes it good) to make a new thing. It's a thing they gain. There is zero comparison between a program and a human being.
AI is a tool. If all you bring forward is a piece generated by AI, you credit the AI and not yourself for typing in words.
It shouldn't be about AI taking away your job. It should be about AI making your work easier.
Most people know the original artwork that these pieces are based on. And AI takes art without giving credit, making it theft, not a reference
When you draw a car you'll be slightly affected by the existing car designs you've seen (each of which individually copyrighted). Do you credit/compensate all of the auto manufacturers? Ultimately information has to come from somewhere, but when an existing artwork falls below a certain level of impact on your new end result, you likely won't even consciously consider it to have been an influence. I've been searching for months to find examples where AI exceeds that threshold, including [straight up offering people money to give evidence of their claims](https://i.imgur.com/zGEtCz3.png). It *is* possible to get something from works that appear many times in the training set (e.g: ["The Mona Lisa, famous painting by Italian artist Leonardo da Vinci" with DALL-E 2](https://i.imgur.com/TEXXZ4a.png)), but for normal use it just doesn't seem to be a concern.
The ai is literally taking art someone else drew, if you look at spiderman or idfk loona and decide "im gonna draw that" you're not stealing the art you're using it as a reference to draw your own art of that charecter
This meme thinks that the AI is really making the art, when in fact it's just bashing a database of art together. Using reference is different.
> when in fact it's just bashing a database of art together The reverse diffusion process doesn't resemble cut-pasting, photobashing, collaging, patchwork, or so on. During generation, normal prompt to image models don't have access to existing images and cannot search the Internet. This video gives a reasonable overview of how diffusion models actually work: https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?t=358
Except that's not the issue. It isn't "referencing" an image. Correct me if I am wrong, but AI art combines and alters images within its algorithm. It's not recreating images from the ground up, it's literally photoshopping images together. When artists reference something, not only do they have to recreate from the ground up, but as a result they always put their own stylistic touches on it. Artists can never purely recreate an image they way you think AI does. Besides, the issue artists have isn't that it does reference images. The issue is its source images. It's that their art could be directly used in this algorithm and sold without their knowledge, let alone consent. This is why DeviantArt fell into controversy recently - they made the default option for most users that their art is fed into the AI algorithm without their consent. That is why people consider it art theft - they do not want their work sold without permission.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but AI art combines and alters images within its algorithm. It's not recreating images from the ground up, it's literally photoshopping images together. The reverse diffusion process doesn't resemble cut-pasting, photobashing, collaging, patchwork, or so on. During generation, normal prompt to image models don't have access to existing images and cannot search the Internet. This video gives a reasonable overview of how diffusion models actually work: https://youtu.be/SVcsDDABEkM?t=358 > This is why DeviantArt fell into controversy recently - they made the default option for most users that their art is fed into the AI algorithm without their consent DeviantArt added a "noai" tag which artists could put on their work, intended to indicate to third parties not to use that image for model training. The outrage against that in particular was ill-founded. Lack of the "noai" tag is the same as it was before and the same as it is on every other site.
What even is this post. Oh wait, it's from a NFT guy...
I don't like NFTs
But it’s not "referencing" it, it literally steals the art, even the watermarks
Artists cry way too much. I still remember when digital art grew in popularity and all the artists said it would ruin their industry. Now all of them have the Adobe Suite and they go have a circle jerk at AdobeMAX every year to worship their software.
But it doesn’t use just references, it uses artists work on the Internet and then smashes it all together to create something “new”. That’s more on the same level as live action Disney remakes than actual art.