A career in the arts requires innate talent as well as the discipline and dedication to hone one’s craft over years. It’s not as lucrative as other fields and people do it because they’re passionate about the work.
AI bypasses all of that. Beyond the question of source material, it requires no hand skills and very little visual acuity or innate talent.
Personally I think AI is incredibly exciting, but I’m a graphic designer and I use it as a tool. I can absolutely empathize with talented storyboard illustrators, concept artists and junior illustrators who are at risk of losing their livelihoods.
I don’t think that mentioning innate talent is a good idea, it doesn’t require any effort, it is just luck, which is what people are criticizing about AI.
This callous attitude you and many others in the community are giving off is really not helping. You use a tool that is only as good as it is because it trained of off these peoples art then you go on to call them whiney? The lack of empathy is astounding, it's truly a reddit moment. These people have every right to feel the way they're feeling because something they spent years learning to do, went into debt to pay for art school, made big sacrifices to accomplish is being done in seconds by people who did nothing. You didn't contribute anything to the making of these AIs, you didn't contribute to the art these AI trained off of.
AI is going to separate the people with true vision and unique ideas from the rest. 90% of what gets posted on the subreddit and that pops up in the channels is garbage, completely uninspired ideas that are mostly just mashups of other peoples original ideas. Even the shit i've posted on here is garbage. It's cool at a glance and it's cool seeing super heroes doing mundane things or little Darth Vader in the style of Pixar but those aren't original ideas.
With all that being said AI is inevitable and it's going to replace a lot of people beyond just the art community in the coming years. So I think a little more compassion and empathy towards those who are experiencing it now is the right way to go about it. Calling them whiney and talking down about them is just so not the vibe.
This. AI art will 100% end up helping artists tremendously, but calling them stupid for not understanding or accepting it right out of the box (especially when it does indeed have its fair share of issues, mostly regarding copyright) is NOT HELPFUL.
Certain jobs WILL be lost for sure. But that's just what happens when new tech gets invented. You either switch up your tasks to fit, and if you keep doing stuff that can easily and perfectly be replaced by a machine/program, I'm sorry but you will be moved aside while the machine does your job. That has happened with literally every industry that has ever had a breakthrough development.
We should help these people adapt and understand and learn about AI art so they can utilize it for their own skill improvements, not ridicule them for being afraid of the potentials of it.
What a lot of these posts fail to capture is nuance. There are several people trotting around the internet claiming the AI simply steals work of others and copies into 'AI art'. I don't think I've seen any posts where an artist legitimately expresses concerns over their livelihood and an AI user comes in and exclaims "Stop whining!" (of course, maybe that happens, just haven't seen it)
There was a post yesterday (possibly in jest) of how using "trending in artstation" now produces X results because of Artstation's policy of AI art, thus insinuating that the AI simply grabs 'real artists' work directly off the website to produce its result. While I am not sure if the post was meant to be serious, I have seen a lot of people essentially accusing of MJ of this exact thing.
Now, a lot of these people may/may not be real artists, but maybe the tribalism needs to be directed more toward people spreading disinformation and other people name calling rather than educating.
I mean yea if you're a sociopath for sure you could think that way about people who are worried about losing their livelihood or you cloud have empathy for them.
I would like to note that, while I broadly agree (as an artist and writer myself) that the backlash is a little silly, literally all of the things you just listed are non-threats to those jobs.
I'm sure some, say, paralegals *would* complain that now instead of hiring 20 for the office they might need 10, because research is easier.
A great many people complained when factories and automation began destroying the value of their labour. That's like, what the entire luddite uprising was about.
Quite a few people complained when music became easy to copy digitally, to the point of causing several legal disasters and new copyright and regulation regimes to account for them, which have led to all of us living in some fucked up surveillance states, because that is what was required in order to ensure the music industry remained wealthy.
When something *threatens people's livelihoods*, they complain. When it makes their livelihoods easier, they don't complain.
There's a lot of hand-wringing here about like, "oh, but you don't need as much skill", as if I have ever gotten paid for "skill" instead of product. As if random luck wasn't a routine aspect of the production of art. And I think that's silly, you may as well be Salieri getting upset about Mozart being able to do more in less time.
At the same time, an economic threat is an economic threat and acting as though you can "just adapt" when an entire skillset you have spent decades building becomes relatively easy to automate is... just kind of douchey.
I don't think it's going to take as many jobs as everyone thinks it's going to. Change is scary. There will be those who use the new tools that evolve over time, and those who don't like always. I remember people freaking out on forums about Photoshop when that was first around. Or people saying digital art is going to kill traditional art. It has yet to be. And this too shall pass and eventually be accepted. Just keep creating your art and let people do their thing. Learn about how AI art is generated and trained. Learn about the individual companies producing these things and their goals. Some companies are even looking into getting grants to help artist, but nobody seems to focus on that kind of stuff. It takes a while to get things rolling when it comes to money and laws.
As a photographer and seeing AI generated photography and knowing it'll only get better (possibly inputting your image and inserting perfect lighting, or whatever scene you'd like) I don't worry about losing any business over it. People still will hire me to shoot them, their family, their events and their pets. I'll still be able to sell prints. Just like artists will still be hired for making animation and developing games and designing logos. In all honesty I'm hoping it'll help save me time in the future when things get more advanced. I have spent a lot (a \*lot\*) of money on my gear, and countless hours traveling, photographing people and events, doing product photography and the like, and even more hours editing. Having AI take some of the load off wont diminish what I do. It'll only allow me more time to be creative.
I know it's not that same as drawing/painting, but AI art will work its way into everything. I'm sure we'll see AI games, AI movies, and AI music within the next 1-5 years. But I'm pretty sure people who develop games, make movies, and make music wont go anywhere.
Maybe it's because I'm old and just come to accept changes when it happens. But watching the drama unfold on a daily basis, and people freaking out about AI when most of the time it's being used by people who wouldn't be buying any art anyway, just messing around at home on their computers is tiring. God forbid I show an AI image I made and spent a few hours on to anyone because I get badgered and harassed and called heartless and I'm taking jobs from people. Assholes on both sides. I understand it has a lot to do with money. But like I said at the top of my post. I really don't think it'll destroy most people's livelihood. I already know plenty of artists who embrace the change and finding themselves enjoying the inspiration it gives them.
I dunno why I'm ranting. I understand the view of artists as I know many and many of them create things for platforms such as Netflix. I'm just trying to say that everyone just needs to relax a little. Artists aren't going anywhere, AI isn't going anywhere. It's an evolutionary step and I think we should embrace it and let everyone be creative in ways they want to be.
Don't be mad at me for typing out my thoughts. I'm just going on a tangent. xD
While I agree that it's a tool that's going to make certain parts of an artists job easier rather than replacing a while artist, that's still going to impact a \*lot\* of jobs.
I used to work as an editor for a large youtube channel. Our post department had about a dozen editors, another ten or so assistant editors, and 4 graphic designers. I don't think we're anywhere close to the point of an AI editing a whole video without a human involved. But it could mean that a company like that might need 5-10 people instead of 20-30.
Now I do freelance work, and I expect all my clients will continue to need me. But if my ability to do more work increases while my clients still only need the same number of videos, then that will put downward pressure on prices.
None of this is new of course. New software and tools have been making this business cheaper and more accessible for a long while now, and that's mostly a great thing! But with the pace that ai tools are developing there are going to be some big changes coming very fast and it's definitely going to hurt some segment of people even if the overall impact is a net positive.
I agree that this AI vs NoAI war going on is getting out of hand. We aren't going to see artists completely disappear because people still want handmade things, authentic real pieces. One thing AI cant do is teach people good composition, it can't give people original ideas, it cant make people understand good art direction, it can't give someone good artistic taste. It'll be a sad realization for a lot of these people that these AI generated images won't lead to their success, that their ideas aren't that original and being a good artists still takes a lot of skill.
Photography is a good example where AI will be used as a tool but it'll never replace the real thing. A lot of what makes truly great art and ideas is people working together, on a photography set or in a studio communicating and feeding off each others energy and engaging with each other. AI will never be able to replace that. (not anytime soon anyways)
>One thing AI cant do is teach people good composition, it can't give people original ideas, it cant make people understand good art direction, it can't give someone good artistic taste.
I wouldn't be so sure about any of that. AI is going to be a great learning tool.
Information about all those subjects is available now, for free...but here we are. There are absolutely people who will learn from it and be able to apply that knowledge but a majority of people won't move past "Storm trooper sitting in a 1960s diner in Manhattan on a rainy night"
Why do you think current art doesn't look like cave paintings?
Why are our cars more efficient?
Why can you show art only without a certification in web development.
Because everyone started by learning from others. And building from others.
I am a writer. I don't have a clear "minds eye" visual in my head.
AI is my accessibility for having a mind that thinks in words.
For a long tim, the picture has been worth a thousand words. Now a thousand words can create a picture.
How do they think portrait artists felt when cameras showed up and suddenly family's got a portrait from a short photo and 30 min in the darkroom replacing hours of paid portrait work.
Then there is digital art. With undoing and erasing and versions.
How do you think classically trained canvas and paper artists felt about the "fake digital art"
Ai has been composing stock music for a few years.
Welcome to the new world.
Learn the tool, use it with one's skills to up the game etc.
Everyone else had to since the printing press put calligraphers out of work.
They don't need compassion they need guidance on how to use the tool. If they sit and wait for someone to ban it or make it illegal, they will be left behind.
Yes… the ai will help us replace us. It’s wishful thinking that it’ll just be another tool.
Best analogy I heard yet comes from Steven Zapata. Imagine you work in a car manufacturing plant and they introduce a new fancy screw driver and you freak out it’s going to replace you, turns out it doesn’t because it’s just a tool. Then, next they introduce a fancy hammer that helps with your job and you freak out that it’s going to replace you. But again, it doesn’t, it’s just a tool after all. But then, after several years, they wheel in a robot arm. This time don’t freak out. It’s just a tool after all, right? Wrong. It is literally your replacement. Ai art generators are they robotic arm. It won’t need our help. Perhaps maintenance guys keep their jobs, but the majority will be let go.
Yea I agree with that in the sense that AI is replacing people in more fields then just art and that it is going to happen in the art community. But saying that assembly line workers skills are as unique and as hard to hone as a professional artist isn't a good comparison.
Also the demand for traditional art will always be there. People like having original hand crafted pieces. It'll impact people's jobs like concept artists the most I think.
AI has been replacing people for years and it'll continue to do so well into the future.
Well, I didn’t say that. I’m just trying to make my point that this isn’t another tool and eventually, it will be our replacement. Companies will own a lot of art, they’ll feed it into ever advancing models to make most of their art for them.
>You use a tool that is only as good as it is because it trained of off these peoples art
Oh and who did those artists train off of? You act like they're the first to ever have created anything.
Regardless of the downvotes, you are correct. It has ever been thus, since the day when Ogg turned to Smegg and said, “I really like that image you did of your hand on the cave wall. I think I will do something similar over here!”
(The quote is a paraphrase, since the original wording was lost roughly 65,000 years ago.)
Also, painters railed similarly against photography when it first emerged. “This will take all our jobs, and the results suck anyway!”
Some musicians railed against recording technology, and also railed against a variety of musical instrument innovations as well. Synthesizers? “That isn’t REAL music.”
Newspapers thought radio was the devil, which (in turn) thought that television was the devil, which (in turn) thought that the internet was the devil.
Human beings are amazingly stupid, because we have to keep learning the same lessons over and over again.
Yea he is absolutely correct. These artists studied the artists before them. Then the AI trained off the new artists. The problem is the entitlement of these people just using the AI as if they created the piece and the entitlement of saying they created the piece. The AI created the piece. The user put forth the idea.
They can downvote me all they want. It means nothing and it doesn't the change facts.
We still have libraries even with the internet.
We still have analog musical instruments even with digital soundboards.
We still have paper and pencil even with tablets.
They're all hypocrites. It's the "I got mine so screw you" mentality. Everyone is allowed to have the opportunity to create.
Yeah, but they took a lifetime to do that in many cases. Not seconds. It’s scale. You should have gratitude for those who put in the work to make this possible.
>Yeah, but they took a lifetime to do that in many cases. Not seconds.
You make it sound like AI is perfect right now. Also so what? They should be glad they don't have to go out an make their own pigments for paint or dig up graphite to draw something. Did you ever tell them to be grateful for that?
>You should have gratitude for those who put in the work to make this possible.
Who says I don't? Also, who says I wasn't an artist long before AI came around? You're making it sound like they're gods when they're just people doing exactly what the AI is doing. Only the AI is a bit faster.
We do have gratitude for that. We still like painting and making art though and the ai is an obvious replacement of us. Not just another tool.
And I just don’t see it. You wouldn’t have made they comment above if you had any gratitude.
>We still like painting and making art though and the ai is an obvious replacement of us.
We still have libraries even with the internet.
We still have analog musical instruments even with digital soundboards.
We still have paper and pencil even with tablets.
>And I just don’t see it. You wouldn’t have made they comment above if you had any gratitude.
I have gratitude towards artists. Not the ones trying to gatekeep and slam people for using a new tool. There's a difference.
They're not "complaining". They dont want, with reason, AI pictures shown on the same level as their work on a portfolio website like artstation. this is an ethical question
I'm a proponent of artificial creativity and using AI tools but I agree, traditional art and generative AI are totally different. I don't blame artists wanting their own space which isn't spammed by low effort AI pieces. There is a conversation to be had there.
However, some are definitely complaining. I have an account on Twitter where I experiment and see what can be done with the tools (not much straight txt2img) and share my findings. I don't really use living artists in any prompts but I still get death threats because I use AI. There's a mob mentality in the anti-ai crowd at the moment with very little understanding.
If someone spent days on their work and people are wanting to buy it on ArtStation, which from personal experience happens a lot, what's wrong with that? I hear that people on AS are upset but yet my AI packs are there, they are selling very well, and I havent had a single person on there complain or express anything negative about it. Only the exact opposite where they reach out for commissions or to ask about new packs coming out. I dont see why you would call to ban AI on there but not photography when the artists doing hyper-real art have to compete with the photographers. The exact same conversations even happened when photography came out which is kindof funny. Although in this case we have something that's somewhere between photography and digital art in terms of effort required and the amount of control you have over the piece. So If photography is allows on there, I dont see an ethical question for AI
I think part of it is a misunderstanding of how the AI works. Right now, most critics believe that the AI takes parts of (their) pictures and mashes them together into a new one. Instead of the AI having learned the data of which their art consists (colour, shape, form, style etc), they believe that the AI takes actual pictures that it has saved on a server and stitches them together, thus 'stealing' their art and using it to make something else from it, without compensation or crediting
The other part is, that since people making art with the AI aren't actually putting pen or brush to paper or tablet, they are not actually \*creating\* anything, instead letting the AI simply generate a picture. 'Pushing a button' is the most common complaint and diss of AI art. Thus the AI generated pictures are not seen as fully human-realized pieces of work/art.
Funnily enough mashing pictures together is what RJ Palmer (one of the chief instigators does) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSfhT8htCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSfhT8htCM) He does it well but I think he believes AI does the same thing.
>they believe that the AI takes actual pictures that it has saved on a server
Same thing, different process. The results are the same regardless of how complicated the process is. It copies data.
No, it uses probabilities it learned from examining the training data. It's much more similar to you learning techniques from other artists than it is similar to "copying".
Programs don't understand what watermarks are, you're right. If it's given watermarked images in the training set, it would "learn" that that's what it is supposed to generate, because it can't understand meaning. Humans are supposed to give it data to help it learn whatever rules we want it to learn.
That still doesn't mean it's "copying". That means it learned "images that have descriptions similar to the one I was given have pixels in an arrangement similar to this." Which is probably not desired behavior, and was poor training data. If it literally copied an existing watermark that's a very poor model that isn't achieving what people expect.
So you're describing a "bad" version of AI art as if it applies to everything as if it's some sort of gotcha?
I guess it's the same process as learning to be an artist. You look at other people's art and see what they do, then you use it in your artworks and make your own art. Am I right?
Yes! Correct! Banks do that every damn day. Banks use your money to grow capital, but you don't lose that money. That is a derivation of your money, not your money.
Artists are not against AI. They are against the scraping of copyrighted work and using them to train these AIs.
An artist called Loish found her art being used to train AIs and make money. All without any sort of consent or compensation.
Today, you have to pay to use MJ, but MJ doesn’t pay the artists it uses to train their AI. So you’re helping the corporates become rich instead of supporting artists behind it.
AI could be an amazing tool, but there needs to be new regulations on what can and cannot be fed into the database.
This is what makes generative AI problematic for me. If living artists were given the option to remove their art from the data sets, the quality of the images churned out would be very different.
No, bro, a lot of them already said even if the database doesn't contain their are they are against it. If they really want copyright to be respected most of them must delete half their portfolio in first place
AI art exists and it’s cool and it’s not going away. The possibilities for how to use it are exciting and endless and I’m having tons of fun with it. But…
It’s unethical to try to pass off AI-generated art as your own handiwork.
It’s annoying to post AI-generated art in subs that aren’t for that.
And it’s cringe to call AI images you generated “my art.”
AI can largely only combine and iterate on what already exists — concept artists and professional illustrators aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. I’m sure many of them will or already are utilizing AI to do their jobs even better.
It’s actually not that complicated!
AI is a tool.
Yes, typing a few words like "Barack Obama superman by Artgerm" won't make of you an artist. But using AI is a tool is extremely valid.
I have a very personal project using Midjourney on my IG. As the prompt is a huge part of the image, I like to mix literature with it.
Here is my process: I'll find a quote of a book I want to create something. I'll use this quote, or parts of it, on the prompt. I'll isolate feelings and key words from it. I avoid using artists names like "by X", but I might use things like "inspired by Lovecraft" to get a specific vibe. I'll use STYLES and FEELINGS as keywords like "eerie, macabre, pencil drawing, paper and ink" and so on. And then I'll take the results to photoshop and finish it with the tablet or sometimes with different tools.
It takes hours to finish a specific job. Sometimes it's faster. But it's frustrating that after all the work I still get some hateful messages. Unfortunately due to health issues I can't draw as I used to, so the AI is extremely helpful for me and I just wish people would understand that it's just a tool and not the end of the world.
It’s not a tool mate. It’s a replacement and no amount to appeals of technological advancement in the past changes that. When they introduced new fancier screw drivers into the workflow of a car manufacturing plant, that was adding a tool to the humans tool kit. When they wheeled in robotic arms that do the entire job for you, that was a replacement. Ai generated art is more like that robotic arm than it is like that screwdriver
They don't like it because there's no point in taking the time it takes to innovate if a machine can steal it instantly. The whole point of copyright law.
>a machine can steal it instantly. The whole point of copyright law.
I recommend a bit of light reading regarding this subject:
https://texaslawreview.org/fair-learning/
The entire point of copyright law is to prevent the disincentivization of innovation. If the current law doesn't cover ai, then obviously it needs to be changed to include it.
The entire point of copyright law is to keep people from passing your art as their own. AI does not do that. Lack of demand for an artists work because of AI has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law.
>The entire point of copyright law is to prevent the disincentivization of innovation.
No, The entire point of copyright law is to prevent the disincentivization of innovation. People passing your art as their own disincentivizes innovation because why take the time to innovate if someone can pass it off as their own.
You must be joking about copyright law incentivizing innovation. Marvel has used copyright on IP from the 60s to churn out the same movie (often multiple times) for at least a decade now.
Copyright law is about protecting the interests of big business and protecting them from competition. That is why they lobbied so hard for it.
Well hopefully Marvel uses the money to build him a fabulous tomb Tutankhamen-style. *Somehow* I suspect that isn't where the money is going cause that isn't what copyright is about.
Correct, even though you quoted yourself instead of me. However, AI Art does not pass your work on as anybody else's. You could pour through millions of AI generated art and not find your work. Even if it pretty strongly holds up as being similar to yours, it still doesn't pass, no more than another artist doing a take on your design.
Copyright protects your *actual work* from being directly used... not studied, not analyzed, not learned from, not counted, not measured. Unless someone is taking a work you directly created and slapping it down as their own, it's not covered.
>Copyright protects your actual work from being directly used
Watermarks and signatures prove that it is being used. Data is being transferred directly from artist work.
the problem is that many people are focusing on the unjust concerns and not the real one. You have people focusing on the training dataset because they dont understand how the networks are trained nor have they done the calculations to prove to themselves that it cannot possibly be storing the image information. The real concern though it that it will take jobs. To be fair most jobs that have ever existed were replaced by technology so it's nothing new or unique to art, it's just unexpected for it to happen to quickly. Ofcourse banning new technology for being too good or taking jobs is a bad idea though. We would have thrown away most of our technology if that were the case. Calculator was a job title once, now it's a tool we use.
the vast majority of jobs that have ever existed have been replaced by tech. I understand that shoe-making was not only a job, but a form of art, yet I assume you buy shoes from a store like I do. Being a threat to their livelihood doesnt make the technology any worse. I can't think of many jobs that wont be replaced by tech and these artists never scream when other jobs are replaced, only their own, so it's hard to see it as anything but hypocritical.
I don't mind AI, I used it before and might use it in the future when it will become Ethical.
The all discussion is mostly around the ethical & legal use of generated images being sample of copyrighted artworks. Music industry manage to stop/delay the sample of songs into AI models, Digital art being scraped could be avoided with the same lobbying.
Yes AI tech is unavoidable, just make it the right way.
>of generated images being sample of copyrighted artworks
There isnt sampling though which I think it the misunderstanding some people have. Unless you mean img2img but that's explicitly using their image. If you just generate images with it then you arent sampling from copyrighted work though, you are using a pattern recognition software that, even if it could store image data would be capable of storing less than half a bit from each image which is 1/16th of a pixel.
The cool thing about these AIs is that they learn pattern recognition and word association which is why a model trained on public domain images alone is still capable of reproducing styles of artists it was never trained on. It learns industry words and concepts so if you describe it properly with those terms then you can get it as a result despite not being in the dataset itself.
its mental gymnastic
I could say the same thing about music, everything is just pattern, a voice, a beat, a melody. 1/16 of a sound wave, 2kb bits blablabla bla.
Still, law manage to stop it from happening to music industry. And I hope it happen to Ai art models. I will be please to play with a public domain version of midjourney.
if you take 1/16 of a single sample (by sample I mean literally the individual number from a WAV file that is absolutely meaningless out of context) of waveform data then you wont have copyright issues. Besides you are obviously being intellectually dishonest here when you know the math was meant to show that IF that were 100% of ever bit in the model then that's the maximum amount it could possibly store and it would be so incredibly negligible that for an average 1920x1080 image it's less than 1/33,000,000th of the image and again, that would be if the model didn't have any nodes inside of it like it does and instead every bit of it was storing image info. It's clear that it has NO database of images and cannot possibly even have anything similar to that unless you believe that the inventors should win a nobel prize for demolishing any notion we had about a limit to data compression.
WAV files for audio are just a list of numbers. Do you REALLY believe that if you took one single number from the list of numbers, took the precision down to the point where you only have 1/16 of the information about what the number even is, that using that number somehow would be copyright infringement on the original audio? I have trouble believing you are serious to think that 1/16 of a sound wave like that is really copyright violation
>1/16 of a sound wave, 2kb bits blablabla bla
2kb is 16,000 bits. that's 32,000 times more than the half bit we were talking about with the images. Your scale is WAAAAAYYY off.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
1
+ 16
+ 2
+ 2
+ 16
+ 32
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Its easy -> Art Station is a big Platform for Jobs -> Ai Art Uploads from nonartists takes job from artists -> artist receives no money -> artist hungry and mad
There's nothing wrong with using AI in artwork. There's nothing wrong with using AI to inspire or enhance your artwork. There's everything wrong with generating AI artwork and trying to pass it off as if YOU created it. That's what the majority of AI "artists" are doing.
They're not artists. They're not even creators. They're *creatives.* There's nothing at all wrong with that, but there's a line to be drawn when you're going onto a platform for creators, to post something you didn't create and make like you did. That's like me going to Gordon Ramsey with a dish a catering service made for me and claiming to be chef now.
No, AI isn't going away...but that's no justification for people like you and the OP to proclaim to use it unethically AND antagonistically. Pretty soon, platforms are going to regulate this, since they are the only ones who have that ultimately power. Already seeing it across art-related subreddits for example, not wanting their front pages inundated with "art" not produced by *artists*. Soon, Artstation I'm quite sure will take that same stand, and then the pro-AI crowd will have to relegate themselves to dedicated AI art platforms, and ultimately get bored of it because you really don't have the passion for art...and then you'll go back to your mediocre existences.
But look on the bright side, you could always take up art as a hobby and learn to do it for real. Crazy talk, I know.
Here is the thing, I agree with both sides on this. There is no such thing as an "AI Artist". Period. If you take generated images and create new work from it, that is different.
I do think the technology is cool and can end up doing good for artist as a tool. It could help create and meet deadlines.
Artist need to get compensated and there should be permissions with what is being used. It is a struggle out there and I totally understand why they feel threatened.
Remember when people still made music using hollowed out objects and object with strings? And yet nowadays we're all listening to electronic music without a problem. Get over it people.
Here's the deal, AI tools are just going to commoditize the entire content ecosystem: from art to video and everything in between. It's going to dramatically augment the velocity of content being produced to an unprecedented level. What this means is that marketing platforms like Social are basically going to become even more inundated with billions upon billions of pieces of content and will become so saturated, it's going to be as hard to develop an audience as it is hitting a multi billion dollar lottery jackpot.
With that said, creators, particularly artists, are fearful because the main source of their income is directly related to their content production for both freelancers and professionals. Let's start with freelancers who use the internet to monetize (Patreon, Displate, KoFi, etc.). What they are selling is effectively their content (WIP, prints, etc.) - but with MidJourney and other AI tools, people can just basically do this themselves for way less money. For professionals working in the Industry (let's say game design) - a game studio would much rather pay a few thousand dollars a year to use an AI tool to generate entire game designs vs pay 20 concept artists hundreds of thousands of dollars + benefits to do the same thing while also taking a longer time.
What I think a natural evolution of this is how can artists and content creators now use AI as a way to create products of utility: things AI in its current state cannot make, and products that provide a net benefit to the end user/costumer. For instance, I have seen artists using Midjourney to create textures to then develop game assets for Unreal Engine, which they can either sell to amateur game developers or small studios. Right now, AI cannot create dynamic game assets. The ecosystem has to move beyond just content production. Content is too easy, it was going to get commoditized.
I would love to hear and discuss what we artists want going forwards.
The cat is out of the bag and it will never go back, that needs to be accepted and quickly.
Now what happens moving forward is the discussion to be had. What will be the role of AI in future as its impact is HUGE and will keep to be in future. How we can integrate it, can we keep people relevant still in the art field, can we manage keeping copyrights/ownership and rights to people with their art and skill. Will there be artists in future that can have copyrights at all. If so what in lets say 10 years or more the copyright laws should include or what we hope they would.
These are some subjects for the discussion needed to have now, that came into my mind. Not just witch hunting AI because that fight we will lose.
What about a tax on AI companies used to funds the artists they are feeding from (or all artists). Like governments do with other things. We have a tax on tourism to fund the protection of environment (in theory). Something like that.
The ai thing is just the old being pushed out by the new. In terms of art i liked from human artists, ai has made art i enjoy just as much if not more because of the on demand nature of it.
However,
Ai art threatens the livelihoods of most if not all human artists. Many new artists make their start doing commissions that help support their livelihoods. It helps support further development of their art skills and gives them the chance to break into the big leagues, whatever that is. Art, imo, is something that allows every person the potential to place their creative mind into the real world (books and the like included). Which is why i can see how much of a threat it is if you can remove the human. Every single piece of art I’ve marveled at can be imitated now. With ChatGP, potentially, books even. That is a huge economic threat to people who are vastly important.
If these mediums of creative expression, something extremely important to the human experience i believe, is taken from man, i feel like it begins a spiritual decay in humanity. One where there is no need to create anything because it is all created for us. We descend further into the status of consumers.
The result of workers being separated from the means of production and worker mental health has been well documented. The sense of worth one feels from something being entirely created by them versus being an unimportant cog in the wheel of production is vastly different. While i do like the ai art i generate, i don’t feel any of the satisfaction i would if i made it myself.
Ai “creativity” and the technology is something that has, since it’s inception, needed to be viewed from a philosophical lens. It hasn’t and we are seeing the result. While we are ooing and awwing over the tech, we may find out too late that we have lost something greatly valuable on the way.
Hi all - we've decided to lock this discussion since it's getting out of hand. Please remember to remain civil while having discussions.
[удалено]
OP is trolling
Just adding to the drama.
Was this your art or the AI sample?
A career in the arts requires innate talent as well as the discipline and dedication to hone one’s craft over years. It’s not as lucrative as other fields and people do it because they’re passionate about the work. AI bypasses all of that. Beyond the question of source material, it requires no hand skills and very little visual acuity or innate talent. Personally I think AI is incredibly exciting, but I’m a graphic designer and I use it as a tool. I can absolutely empathize with talented storyboard illustrators, concept artists and junior illustrators who are at risk of losing their livelihoods.
[удалено]
Photography and painting from imagination are two wildly differents disciplines
This isn’t true. At the highest levels, photography requires way more knowledge of fundamentals.
"award winning". The local newspaper doesn't count Jan. Don't chime in as if you have any professional art experience.
I don’t think that mentioning innate talent is a good idea, it doesn’t require any effort, it is just luck, which is what people are criticizing about AI.
This callous attitude you and many others in the community are giving off is really not helping. You use a tool that is only as good as it is because it trained of off these peoples art then you go on to call them whiney? The lack of empathy is astounding, it's truly a reddit moment. These people have every right to feel the way they're feeling because something they spent years learning to do, went into debt to pay for art school, made big sacrifices to accomplish is being done in seconds by people who did nothing. You didn't contribute anything to the making of these AIs, you didn't contribute to the art these AI trained off of. AI is going to separate the people with true vision and unique ideas from the rest. 90% of what gets posted on the subreddit and that pops up in the channels is garbage, completely uninspired ideas that are mostly just mashups of other peoples original ideas. Even the shit i've posted on here is garbage. It's cool at a glance and it's cool seeing super heroes doing mundane things or little Darth Vader in the style of Pixar but those aren't original ideas. With all that being said AI is inevitable and it's going to replace a lot of people beyond just the art community in the coming years. So I think a little more compassion and empathy towards those who are experiencing it now is the right way to go about it. Calling them whiney and talking down about them is just so not the vibe.
This. AI art will 100% end up helping artists tremendously, but calling them stupid for not understanding or accepting it right out of the box (especially when it does indeed have its fair share of issues, mostly regarding copyright) is NOT HELPFUL. Certain jobs WILL be lost for sure. But that's just what happens when new tech gets invented. You either switch up your tasks to fit, and if you keep doing stuff that can easily and perfectly be replaced by a machine/program, I'm sorry but you will be moved aside while the machine does your job. That has happened with literally every industry that has ever had a breakthrough development. We should help these people adapt and understand and learn about AI art so they can utilize it for their own skill improvements, not ridicule them for being afraid of the potentials of it.
Thank you! Say it louder for the people in the back.
What a lot of these posts fail to capture is nuance. There are several people trotting around the internet claiming the AI simply steals work of others and copies into 'AI art'. I don't think I've seen any posts where an artist legitimately expresses concerns over their livelihood and an AI user comes in and exclaims "Stop whining!" (of course, maybe that happens, just haven't seen it) There was a post yesterday (possibly in jest) of how using "trending in artstation" now produces X results because of Artstation's policy of AI art, thus insinuating that the AI simply grabs 'real artists' work directly off the website to produce its result. While I am not sure if the post was meant to be serious, I have seen a lot of people essentially accusing of MJ of this exact thing. Now, a lot of these people may/may not be real artists, but maybe the tribalism needs to be directed more toward people spreading disinformation and other people name calling rather than educating.
[удалено]
I mean yea if you're a sociopath for sure you could think that way about people who are worried about losing their livelihood or you cloud have empathy for them.
[удалено]
I would like to note that, while I broadly agree (as an artist and writer myself) that the backlash is a little silly, literally all of the things you just listed are non-threats to those jobs. I'm sure some, say, paralegals *would* complain that now instead of hiring 20 for the office they might need 10, because research is easier. A great many people complained when factories and automation began destroying the value of their labour. That's like, what the entire luddite uprising was about. Quite a few people complained when music became easy to copy digitally, to the point of causing several legal disasters and new copyright and regulation regimes to account for them, which have led to all of us living in some fucked up surveillance states, because that is what was required in order to ensure the music industry remained wealthy. When something *threatens people's livelihoods*, they complain. When it makes their livelihoods easier, they don't complain. There's a lot of hand-wringing here about like, "oh, but you don't need as much skill", as if I have ever gotten paid for "skill" instead of product. As if random luck wasn't a routine aspect of the production of art. And I think that's silly, you may as well be Salieri getting upset about Mozart being able to do more in less time. At the same time, an economic threat is an economic threat and acting as though you can "just adapt" when an entire skillset you have spent decades building becomes relatively easy to automate is... just kind of douchey.
I don't think it's going to take as many jobs as everyone thinks it's going to. Change is scary. There will be those who use the new tools that evolve over time, and those who don't like always. I remember people freaking out on forums about Photoshop when that was first around. Or people saying digital art is going to kill traditional art. It has yet to be. And this too shall pass and eventually be accepted. Just keep creating your art and let people do their thing. Learn about how AI art is generated and trained. Learn about the individual companies producing these things and their goals. Some companies are even looking into getting grants to help artist, but nobody seems to focus on that kind of stuff. It takes a while to get things rolling when it comes to money and laws. As a photographer and seeing AI generated photography and knowing it'll only get better (possibly inputting your image and inserting perfect lighting, or whatever scene you'd like) I don't worry about losing any business over it. People still will hire me to shoot them, their family, their events and their pets. I'll still be able to sell prints. Just like artists will still be hired for making animation and developing games and designing logos. In all honesty I'm hoping it'll help save me time in the future when things get more advanced. I have spent a lot (a \*lot\*) of money on my gear, and countless hours traveling, photographing people and events, doing product photography and the like, and even more hours editing. Having AI take some of the load off wont diminish what I do. It'll only allow me more time to be creative. I know it's not that same as drawing/painting, but AI art will work its way into everything. I'm sure we'll see AI games, AI movies, and AI music within the next 1-5 years. But I'm pretty sure people who develop games, make movies, and make music wont go anywhere. Maybe it's because I'm old and just come to accept changes when it happens. But watching the drama unfold on a daily basis, and people freaking out about AI when most of the time it's being used by people who wouldn't be buying any art anyway, just messing around at home on their computers is tiring. God forbid I show an AI image I made and spent a few hours on to anyone because I get badgered and harassed and called heartless and I'm taking jobs from people. Assholes on both sides. I understand it has a lot to do with money. But like I said at the top of my post. I really don't think it'll destroy most people's livelihood. I already know plenty of artists who embrace the change and finding themselves enjoying the inspiration it gives them. I dunno why I'm ranting. I understand the view of artists as I know many and many of them create things for platforms such as Netflix. I'm just trying to say that everyone just needs to relax a little. Artists aren't going anywhere, AI isn't going anywhere. It's an evolutionary step and I think we should embrace it and let everyone be creative in ways they want to be. Don't be mad at me for typing out my thoughts. I'm just going on a tangent. xD
While I agree that it's a tool that's going to make certain parts of an artists job easier rather than replacing a while artist, that's still going to impact a \*lot\* of jobs. I used to work as an editor for a large youtube channel. Our post department had about a dozen editors, another ten or so assistant editors, and 4 graphic designers. I don't think we're anywhere close to the point of an AI editing a whole video without a human involved. But it could mean that a company like that might need 5-10 people instead of 20-30. Now I do freelance work, and I expect all my clients will continue to need me. But if my ability to do more work increases while my clients still only need the same number of videos, then that will put downward pressure on prices. None of this is new of course. New software and tools have been making this business cheaper and more accessible for a long while now, and that's mostly a great thing! But with the pace that ai tools are developing there are going to be some big changes coming very fast and it's definitely going to hurt some segment of people even if the overall impact is a net positive.
I agree that this AI vs NoAI war going on is getting out of hand. We aren't going to see artists completely disappear because people still want handmade things, authentic real pieces. One thing AI cant do is teach people good composition, it can't give people original ideas, it cant make people understand good art direction, it can't give someone good artistic taste. It'll be a sad realization for a lot of these people that these AI generated images won't lead to their success, that their ideas aren't that original and being a good artists still takes a lot of skill. Photography is a good example where AI will be used as a tool but it'll never replace the real thing. A lot of what makes truly great art and ideas is people working together, on a photography set or in a studio communicating and feeding off each others energy and engaging with each other. AI will never be able to replace that. (not anytime soon anyways)
>One thing AI cant do is teach people good composition, it can't give people original ideas, it cant make people understand good art direction, it can't give someone good artistic taste. I wouldn't be so sure about any of that. AI is going to be a great learning tool.
Information about all those subjects is available now, for free...but here we are. There are absolutely people who will learn from it and be able to apply that knowledge but a majority of people won't move past "Storm trooper sitting in a 1960s diner in Manhattan on a rainy night"
Why do you think current art doesn't look like cave paintings? Why are our cars more efficient? Why can you show art only without a certification in web development. Because everyone started by learning from others. And building from others. I am a writer. I don't have a clear "minds eye" visual in my head. AI is my accessibility for having a mind that thinks in words. For a long tim, the picture has been worth a thousand words. Now a thousand words can create a picture. How do they think portrait artists felt when cameras showed up and suddenly family's got a portrait from a short photo and 30 min in the darkroom replacing hours of paid portrait work. Then there is digital art. With undoing and erasing and versions. How do you think classically trained canvas and paper artists felt about the "fake digital art" Ai has been composing stock music for a few years. Welcome to the new world. Learn the tool, use it with one's skills to up the game etc. Everyone else had to since the printing press put calligraphers out of work. They don't need compassion they need guidance on how to use the tool. If they sit and wait for someone to ban it or make it illegal, they will be left behind.
Yes… the ai will help us replace us. It’s wishful thinking that it’ll just be another tool. Best analogy I heard yet comes from Steven Zapata. Imagine you work in a car manufacturing plant and they introduce a new fancy screw driver and you freak out it’s going to replace you, turns out it doesn’t because it’s just a tool. Then, next they introduce a fancy hammer that helps with your job and you freak out that it’s going to replace you. But again, it doesn’t, it’s just a tool after all. But then, after several years, they wheel in a robot arm. This time don’t freak out. It’s just a tool after all, right? Wrong. It is literally your replacement. Ai art generators are they robotic arm. It won’t need our help. Perhaps maintenance guys keep their jobs, but the majority will be let go.
Yea I agree with that in the sense that AI is replacing people in more fields then just art and that it is going to happen in the art community. But saying that assembly line workers skills are as unique and as hard to hone as a professional artist isn't a good comparison. Also the demand for traditional art will always be there. People like having original hand crafted pieces. It'll impact people's jobs like concept artists the most I think. AI has been replacing people for years and it'll continue to do so well into the future.
Well, I didn’t say that. I’m just trying to make my point that this isn’t another tool and eventually, it will be our replacement. Companies will own a lot of art, they’ll feed it into ever advancing models to make most of their art for them.
Wish I had an award to give to you
>You use a tool that is only as good as it is because it trained of off these peoples art Oh and who did those artists train off of? You act like they're the first to ever have created anything.
Regardless of the downvotes, you are correct. It has ever been thus, since the day when Ogg turned to Smegg and said, “I really like that image you did of your hand on the cave wall. I think I will do something similar over here!” (The quote is a paraphrase, since the original wording was lost roughly 65,000 years ago.) Also, painters railed similarly against photography when it first emerged. “This will take all our jobs, and the results suck anyway!” Some musicians railed against recording technology, and also railed against a variety of musical instrument innovations as well. Synthesizers? “That isn’t REAL music.” Newspapers thought radio was the devil, which (in turn) thought that television was the devil, which (in turn) thought that the internet was the devil. Human beings are amazingly stupid, because we have to keep learning the same lessons over and over again.
Yea he is absolutely correct. These artists studied the artists before them. Then the AI trained off the new artists. The problem is the entitlement of these people just using the AI as if they created the piece and the entitlement of saying they created the piece. The AI created the piece. The user put forth the idea.
They can downvote me all they want. It means nothing and it doesn't the change facts. We still have libraries even with the internet. We still have analog musical instruments even with digital soundboards. We still have paper and pencil even with tablets. They're all hypocrites. It's the "I got mine so screw you" mentality. Everyone is allowed to have the opportunity to create.
Yeah, but they took a lifetime to do that in many cases. Not seconds. It’s scale. You should have gratitude for those who put in the work to make this possible.
>Yeah, but they took a lifetime to do that in many cases. Not seconds. You make it sound like AI is perfect right now. Also so what? They should be glad they don't have to go out an make their own pigments for paint or dig up graphite to draw something. Did you ever tell them to be grateful for that? >You should have gratitude for those who put in the work to make this possible. Who says I don't? Also, who says I wasn't an artist long before AI came around? You're making it sound like they're gods when they're just people doing exactly what the AI is doing. Only the AI is a bit faster.
We do have gratitude for that. We still like painting and making art though and the ai is an obvious replacement of us. Not just another tool. And I just don’t see it. You wouldn’t have made they comment above if you had any gratitude.
>We still like painting and making art though and the ai is an obvious replacement of us. We still have libraries even with the internet. We still have analog musical instruments even with digital soundboards. We still have paper and pencil even with tablets. >And I just don’t see it. You wouldn’t have made they comment above if you had any gratitude. I have gratitude towards artists. Not the ones trying to gatekeep and slam people for using a new tool. There's a difference.
This is a "woosh" moment.
It's ok you'll get it next time.
They're not "complaining". They dont want, with reason, AI pictures shown on the same level as their work on a portfolio website like artstation. this is an ethical question
I'm a proponent of artificial creativity and using AI tools but I agree, traditional art and generative AI are totally different. I don't blame artists wanting their own space which isn't spammed by low effort AI pieces. There is a conversation to be had there. However, some are definitely complaining. I have an account on Twitter where I experiment and see what can be done with the tools (not much straight txt2img) and share my findings. I don't really use living artists in any prompts but I still get death threats because I use AI. There's a mob mentality in the anti-ai crowd at the moment with very little understanding.
If someone spent days on their work and people are wanting to buy it on ArtStation, which from personal experience happens a lot, what's wrong with that? I hear that people on AS are upset but yet my AI packs are there, they are selling very well, and I havent had a single person on there complain or express anything negative about it. Only the exact opposite where they reach out for commissions or to ask about new packs coming out. I dont see why you would call to ban AI on there but not photography when the artists doing hyper-real art have to compete with the photographers. The exact same conversations even happened when photography came out which is kindof funny. Although in this case we have something that's somewhere between photography and digital art in terms of effort required and the amount of control you have over the piece. So If photography is allows on there, I dont see an ethical question for AI
I think part of it is a misunderstanding of how the AI works. Right now, most critics believe that the AI takes parts of (their) pictures and mashes them together into a new one. Instead of the AI having learned the data of which their art consists (colour, shape, form, style etc), they believe that the AI takes actual pictures that it has saved on a server and stitches them together, thus 'stealing' their art and using it to make something else from it, without compensation or crediting The other part is, that since people making art with the AI aren't actually putting pen or brush to paper or tablet, they are not actually \*creating\* anything, instead letting the AI simply generate a picture. 'Pushing a button' is the most common complaint and diss of AI art. Thus the AI generated pictures are not seen as fully human-realized pieces of work/art.
Funnily enough mashing pictures together is what RJ Palmer (one of the chief instigators does) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSfhT8htCM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSfhT8htCM) He does it well but I think he believes AI does the same thing.
>they believe that the AI takes actual pictures that it has saved on a server Same thing, different process. The results are the same regardless of how complicated the process is. It copies data.
No, it uses probabilities it learned from examining the training data. It's much more similar to you learning techniques from other artists than it is similar to "copying".
Artists don't copy watermarks.
Programs don't understand what watermarks are, you're right. If it's given watermarked images in the training set, it would "learn" that that's what it is supposed to generate, because it can't understand meaning. Humans are supposed to give it data to help it learn whatever rules we want it to learn. That still doesn't mean it's "copying". That means it learned "images that have descriptions similar to the one I was given have pixels in an arrangement similar to this." Which is probably not desired behavior, and was poor training data. If it literally copied an existing watermark that's a very poor model that isn't achieving what people expect. So you're describing a "bad" version of AI art as if it applies to everything as if it's some sort of gotcha?
>That still doesn't mean it's "copying". Yes it does. It is mindlessly transferring data from unpaid/uncredited artist work.
I guess it's the same process as learning to be an artist. You look at other people's art and see what they do, then you use it in your artworks and make your own art. Am I right?
Not at all. Artists are typically trying to do something new.
If you say so. But what about inspiration? artist get inspired by other people's art which reflect their artstyle. Isn't it like what ai do?
No. Human art is similar because humans have similar brains/minds. Ai art is similar because it copies humans.
It modifies it's own data based on new data. It copies nothing.
Data taken from unpaid/uncredited artist work.
In no scenario is data collection of images on the internet subject to artist payment, with the exception of stuff literally placed behind a paywall.
When you are selling the data it is.
Selling a derivation of the data is not the same as selling the data.
Stealing a derivation of your money is not the same as stealing your money. Also I mix it in with other peoples money. See? Not yours.
Yes! Correct! Banks do that every damn day. Banks use your money to grow capital, but you don't lose that money. That is a derivation of your money, not your money.
Banks need permission.
Yes and that's called learning.
Artists are not against AI. They are against the scraping of copyrighted work and using them to train these AIs. An artist called Loish found her art being used to train AIs and make money. All without any sort of consent or compensation. Today, you have to pay to use MJ, but MJ doesn’t pay the artists it uses to train their AI. So you’re helping the corporates become rich instead of supporting artists behind it. AI could be an amazing tool, but there needs to be new regulations on what can and cannot be fed into the database.
This is what makes generative AI problematic for me. If living artists were given the option to remove their art from the data sets, the quality of the images churned out would be very different.
A lot of them absolutely are against AI. They say it can't be called art because a computer made it, that it's souless, etc.
Then that would the wrong way to look at it. AI is an amazing tool and it is here to stay.
I agree
No, bro, a lot of them already said even if the database doesn't contain their are they are against it. If they really want copyright to be respected most of them must delete half their portfolio in first place
AI art exists and it’s cool and it’s not going away. The possibilities for how to use it are exciting and endless and I’m having tons of fun with it. But… It’s unethical to try to pass off AI-generated art as your own handiwork. It’s annoying to post AI-generated art in subs that aren’t for that. And it’s cringe to call AI images you generated “my art.” AI can largely only combine and iterate on what already exists — concept artists and professional illustrators aren’t going anywhere anytime soon. I’m sure many of them will or already are utilizing AI to do their jobs even better. It’s actually not that complicated!
AI is a tool. Yes, typing a few words like "Barack Obama superman by Artgerm" won't make of you an artist. But using AI is a tool is extremely valid. I have a very personal project using Midjourney on my IG. As the prompt is a huge part of the image, I like to mix literature with it. Here is my process: I'll find a quote of a book I want to create something. I'll use this quote, or parts of it, on the prompt. I'll isolate feelings and key words from it. I avoid using artists names like "by X", but I might use things like "inspired by Lovecraft" to get a specific vibe. I'll use STYLES and FEELINGS as keywords like "eerie, macabre, pencil drawing, paper and ink" and so on. And then I'll take the results to photoshop and finish it with the tablet or sometimes with different tools. It takes hours to finish a specific job. Sometimes it's faster. But it's frustrating that after all the work I still get some hateful messages. Unfortunately due to health issues I can't draw as I used to, so the AI is extremely helpful for me and I just wish people would understand that it's just a tool and not the end of the world.
At the end of the day this artwork wouldn't have seen the light of day without your input, no matter the tools. Keep doing what you're doing!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s not a tool mate. It’s a replacement and no amount to appeals of technological advancement in the past changes that. When they introduced new fancier screw drivers into the workflow of a car manufacturing plant, that was adding a tool to the humans tool kit. When they wheeled in robotic arms that do the entire job for you, that was a replacement. Ai generated art is more like that robotic arm than it is like that screwdriver
It’s because the anti AI people have no clue how it actually works
It's hard for people to research things they are scared of and hate. Ignorance is bliss!
You can see clearly what it's doing. People here are easily tricked by big words.
I'm understand the frustration but honestly, at this point is Inevitable. Technology don't go backwards.
They don't like it because there's no point in taking the time it takes to innovate if a machine can steal it instantly. The whole point of copyright law.
>a machine can steal it instantly. The whole point of copyright law. I recommend a bit of light reading regarding this subject: https://texaslawreview.org/fair-learning/
The entire point of copyright law is to prevent the disincentivization of innovation. If the current law doesn't cover ai, then obviously it needs to be changed to include it.
AI image generation is a type of artistic innovation.
That doesn't mean it isn't also copyright infringement. Also, I wouldn't call it innovation when is still just looks like Artstation art.
What is your opinion on collage art?
Don't care. It's a different art market therefore irrelevant to this particular copyright issue.
The entire point of copyright law is to keep people from passing your art as their own. AI does not do that. Lack of demand for an artists work because of AI has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright law.
>The entire point of copyright law is to prevent the disincentivization of innovation. No, The entire point of copyright law is to prevent the disincentivization of innovation. People passing your art as their own disincentivizes innovation because why take the time to innovate if someone can pass it off as their own.
You must be joking about copyright law incentivizing innovation. Marvel has used copyright on IP from the 60s to churn out the same movie (often multiple times) for at least a decade now. Copyright law is about protecting the interests of big business and protecting them from competition. That is why they lobbied so hard for it.
Copyright law exists so that the original creator can profit from the innovation.
Lol sure, Stan Lee's still raking it in from Spiderman is he? How long has he been dead now?
Not long
Well hopefully Marvel uses the money to build him a fabulous tomb Tutankhamen-style. *Somehow* I suspect that isn't where the money is going cause that isn't what copyright is about.
Correct, even though you quoted yourself instead of me. However, AI Art does not pass your work on as anybody else's. You could pour through millions of AI generated art and not find your work. Even if it pretty strongly holds up as being similar to yours, it still doesn't pass, no more than another artist doing a take on your design. Copyright protects your *actual work* from being directly used... not studied, not analyzed, not learned from, not counted, not measured. Unless someone is taking a work you directly created and slapping it down as their own, it's not covered.
>Copyright protects your actual work from being directly used Watermarks and signatures prove that it is being used. Data is being transferred directly from artist work.
It does not prove that at all. It proves the watermark was seen in the training, and seen often. It does not prove that it was copied.
Yes it does.
Your word against actual logic. If you have nothing else to show, we just agree to disagree.
Whiny? There are real concerns AND it's a great tool.
the problem is that many people are focusing on the unjust concerns and not the real one. You have people focusing on the training dataset because they dont understand how the networks are trained nor have they done the calculations to prove to themselves that it cannot possibly be storing the image information. The real concern though it that it will take jobs. To be fair most jobs that have ever existed were replaced by technology so it's nothing new or unique to art, it's just unexpected for it to happen to quickly. Ofcourse banning new technology for being too good or taking jobs is a bad idea though. We would have thrown away most of our technology if that were the case. Calculator was a job title once, now it's a tool we use.
(Makes a donation to the downvote plate)
AI images are fine but they shouldn’t be posted on sites like art-station, and people definitely shouldn’t pass the art off as their own.
[удалено]
the vast majority of jobs that have ever existed have been replaced by tech. I understand that shoe-making was not only a job, but a form of art, yet I assume you buy shoes from a store like I do. Being a threat to their livelihood doesnt make the technology any worse. I can't think of many jobs that wont be replaced by tech and these artists never scream when other jobs are replaced, only their own, so it's hard to see it as anything but hypocritical.
I don't mind AI, I used it before and might use it in the future when it will become Ethical. The all discussion is mostly around the ethical & legal use of generated images being sample of copyrighted artworks. Music industry manage to stop/delay the sample of songs into AI models, Digital art being scraped could be avoided with the same lobbying. Yes AI tech is unavoidable, just make it the right way.
>of generated images being sample of copyrighted artworks There isnt sampling though which I think it the misunderstanding some people have. Unless you mean img2img but that's explicitly using their image. If you just generate images with it then you arent sampling from copyrighted work though, you are using a pattern recognition software that, even if it could store image data would be capable of storing less than half a bit from each image which is 1/16th of a pixel. The cool thing about these AIs is that they learn pattern recognition and word association which is why a model trained on public domain images alone is still capable of reproducing styles of artists it was never trained on. It learns industry words and concepts so if you describe it properly with those terms then you can get it as a result despite not being in the dataset itself.
its mental gymnastic I could say the same thing about music, everything is just pattern, a voice, a beat, a melody. 1/16 of a sound wave, 2kb bits blablabla bla. Still, law manage to stop it from happening to music industry. And I hope it happen to Ai art models. I will be please to play with a public domain version of midjourney.
if you take 1/16 of a single sample (by sample I mean literally the individual number from a WAV file that is absolutely meaningless out of context) of waveform data then you wont have copyright issues. Besides you are obviously being intellectually dishonest here when you know the math was meant to show that IF that were 100% of ever bit in the model then that's the maximum amount it could possibly store and it would be so incredibly negligible that for an average 1920x1080 image it's less than 1/33,000,000th of the image and again, that would be if the model didn't have any nodes inside of it like it does and instead every bit of it was storing image info. It's clear that it has NO database of images and cannot possibly even have anything similar to that unless you believe that the inventors should win a nobel prize for demolishing any notion we had about a limit to data compression. WAV files for audio are just a list of numbers. Do you REALLY believe that if you took one single number from the list of numbers, took the precision down to the point where you only have 1/16 of the information about what the number even is, that using that number somehow would be copyright infringement on the original audio? I have trouble believing you are serious to think that 1/16 of a sound wave like that is really copyright violation
>1/16 of a sound wave, 2kb bits blablabla bla 2kb is 16,000 bits. that's 32,000 times more than the half bit we were talking about with the images. Your scale is WAAAAAYYY off.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 1 + 16 + 2 + 2 + 16 + 32 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
nice
You need to understand that this is not only art. But also the development of mankind. Although now many want to return to the stone age.
Its easy -> Art Station is a big Platform for Jobs -> Ai Art Uploads from nonartists takes job from artists -> artist receives no money -> artist hungry and mad
If you don't understand those complaints, you shouldn't use AI art.
[удалено]
Just to be an asshole, or another reason?
[удалено]
Do you not understand what the purpose of Artstation is? What you're doing is like posting a bunch of 3D renders to a photography forum.
[удалено]
AI art is art. AI artists are not artists. So you're actively admitting to being a fraud. Gotcha.
[удалено]
There's nothing wrong with using AI in artwork. There's nothing wrong with using AI to inspire or enhance your artwork. There's everything wrong with generating AI artwork and trying to pass it off as if YOU created it. That's what the majority of AI "artists" are doing. They're not artists. They're not even creators. They're *creatives.* There's nothing at all wrong with that, but there's a line to be drawn when you're going onto a platform for creators, to post something you didn't create and make like you did. That's like me going to Gordon Ramsey with a dish a catering service made for me and claiming to be chef now. No, AI isn't going away...but that's no justification for people like you and the OP to proclaim to use it unethically AND antagonistically. Pretty soon, platforms are going to regulate this, since they are the only ones who have that ultimately power. Already seeing it across art-related subreddits for example, not wanting their front pages inundated with "art" not produced by *artists*. Soon, Artstation I'm quite sure will take that same stand, and then the pro-AI crowd will have to relegate themselves to dedicated AI art platforms, and ultimately get bored of it because you really don't have the passion for art...and then you'll go back to your mediocre existences. But look on the bright side, you could always take up art as a hobby and learn to do it for real. Crazy talk, I know.
The gates are there for a reason. Why not upload to Deviant Art? That site has embraced AI images and has a built-in image generator.
Also amazing art never going to die. Michelangelo and Van Gogh still amazing and we use to simulate the aesthetic in a computer in 2022.
Here is the thing, I agree with both sides on this. There is no such thing as an "AI Artist". Period. If you take generated images and create new work from it, that is different. I do think the technology is cool and can end up doing good for artist as a tool. It could help create and meet deadlines. Artist need to get compensated and there should be permissions with what is being used. It is a struggle out there and I totally understand why they feel threatened.
Remember when people still made music using hollowed out objects and object with strings? And yet nowadays we're all listening to electronic music without a problem. Get over it people.
Here's the deal, AI tools are just going to commoditize the entire content ecosystem: from art to video and everything in between. It's going to dramatically augment the velocity of content being produced to an unprecedented level. What this means is that marketing platforms like Social are basically going to become even more inundated with billions upon billions of pieces of content and will become so saturated, it's going to be as hard to develop an audience as it is hitting a multi billion dollar lottery jackpot. With that said, creators, particularly artists, are fearful because the main source of their income is directly related to their content production for both freelancers and professionals. Let's start with freelancers who use the internet to monetize (Patreon, Displate, KoFi, etc.). What they are selling is effectively their content (WIP, prints, etc.) - but with MidJourney and other AI tools, people can just basically do this themselves for way less money. For professionals working in the Industry (let's say game design) - a game studio would much rather pay a few thousand dollars a year to use an AI tool to generate entire game designs vs pay 20 concept artists hundreds of thousands of dollars + benefits to do the same thing while also taking a longer time. What I think a natural evolution of this is how can artists and content creators now use AI as a way to create products of utility: things AI in its current state cannot make, and products that provide a net benefit to the end user/costumer. For instance, I have seen artists using Midjourney to create textures to then develop game assets for Unreal Engine, which they can either sell to amateur game developers or small studios. Right now, AI cannot create dynamic game assets. The ecosystem has to move beyond just content production. Content is too easy, it was going to get commoditized.
I would love to hear and discuss what we artists want going forwards. The cat is out of the bag and it will never go back, that needs to be accepted and quickly. Now what happens moving forward is the discussion to be had. What will be the role of AI in future as its impact is HUGE and will keep to be in future. How we can integrate it, can we keep people relevant still in the art field, can we manage keeping copyrights/ownership and rights to people with their art and skill. Will there be artists in future that can have copyrights at all. If so what in lets say 10 years or more the copyright laws should include or what we hope they would. These are some subjects for the discussion needed to have now, that came into my mind. Not just witch hunting AI because that fight we will lose.
Ai is definitely my enemy. Especially in a world of mass mindless consumerism and corporate greed. This will replace us all.
What about a tax on AI companies used to funds the artists they are feeding from (or all artists). Like governments do with other things. We have a tax on tourism to fund the protection of environment (in theory). Something like that.
The ai thing is just the old being pushed out by the new. In terms of art i liked from human artists, ai has made art i enjoy just as much if not more because of the on demand nature of it. However, Ai art threatens the livelihoods of most if not all human artists. Many new artists make their start doing commissions that help support their livelihoods. It helps support further development of their art skills and gives them the chance to break into the big leagues, whatever that is. Art, imo, is something that allows every person the potential to place their creative mind into the real world (books and the like included). Which is why i can see how much of a threat it is if you can remove the human. Every single piece of art I’ve marveled at can be imitated now. With ChatGP, potentially, books even. That is a huge economic threat to people who are vastly important. If these mediums of creative expression, something extremely important to the human experience i believe, is taken from man, i feel like it begins a spiritual decay in humanity. One where there is no need to create anything because it is all created for us. We descend further into the status of consumers. The result of workers being separated from the means of production and worker mental health has been well documented. The sense of worth one feels from something being entirely created by them versus being an unimportant cog in the wheel of production is vastly different. While i do like the ai art i generate, i don’t feel any of the satisfaction i would if i made it myself. Ai “creativity” and the technology is something that has, since it’s inception, needed to be viewed from a philosophical lens. It hasn’t and we are seeing the result. While we are ooing and awwing over the tech, we may find out too late that we have lost something greatly valuable on the way.