Art comes out of the lived experience of human beings. By necessity, AI doesn't have that. It's pretty simple.
Plentiful_Despair
Experienced
- Aug 23, 2024
- 265
I mostly like fantasy or scifi art, which you can find plenty of on artstation, deviantart and others, made by real humans. Yet none of them have any lived experience with orcs, hobbits, space marines and tyranids.
do you think the question then applies to other art forms, such as sculpture, film, literature, music, etc., or is it just restricted to painting?
There's certainly a political and legal debate to be had of whether AI is a derivative work or not. From a technical stand point this is not a problem in other areas.
Image search scrapes the Internet for images to then converts a query to a search result (including the original or a compressed version of the original image, along with the source). Non-problematic.
Image classification tools train on images and text, to convert an image to a text description. This sourcing is not considered theft.
Image generation tools are essentially flipped around. It trains on images and text, to convert a text to an image estimate.
Technically, I'd might classify it as a second iteration derivative work.
The real issue seam to not be about technicalities, though. What people are criticizing is not profitable derivative works (search engines and image classification tools).
It only seem to be a problem when the derivative work appears to compete with the original.
Entitling artists to compensation for derivative works, and enforcing ethical sourcing standards might be a good ideas.
Bashing the entire fields is misguided, though.
For game artists in particular, I envision them offloading a lot of the less glamorous work to AI. AI is great at doing mundane boring work, very efficiently.
Making large amounts of rocks, curbs, shrubs, etc, for a game is not fun work. What if designers could just generate the mundane things, and having the art team fully dedicated to actually creative work? I envision more interesting work for everyone.
The low effort garbage that people fear, already exist without AI. It's driven by artists slaving away at uninspiring content under hellish time constraints. Aside from the usual issue with labor redistribution that comes with automation, it's good riddance.
Last edited:
Plentiful_Despair
Experienced
- Aug 23, 2024
- 265
I just wanted to provide an example to show them that this kind of "experience" is not necessary. Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with AI art, and acting like it's not made by humans when the sources are collected from artsites is nonsense. I think the real reason that AI art is confronted by so much negativity is that a small circle of artists make very good money with their work and are simply scared. But why should we care about this? Should we think about the horse breeders lost revenue due to car invention too and ban all cars? Or only use typewriters from now on to ressurect that industry? Technology doesnt care about every single aspect of economy, and thats good.
ForgottenAgain
On the rollercoaster of sadness
- Oct 17, 2023
- 947
This is a nice informative comment, thank you for sharing your knowledge!
I'm not so sure about making rocks and bushes not being as creative or good. We all need a diversity of complex and simple work, if we're always doing highly detailed complex work, we will get exhausted. I do appreciate painting simple things or programming simple things in between bigger pieces of work, that helps with the balance. If AI takes all of those simple things, then work may become too overwhelming or boring since every day everything is very hard to do.
Just my two cents!
Angst Filled Fuck Up
Visionary
- Sep 9, 2018
- 2,975
AI has many life-changing applications, the majority of which are unquestionably beneficial to humanity.
Viewing it through the narrow lens of making a picture or generating text is only looking at a tiny sliver of what it can potentially do.
Yes it will cost some people their jobs, and of course it may stifle creativity in some instances. But it can also save lives, alleviate loneliness, automate tedious tasks, and a million other things. I imagine it will also make a lot of services either free or very cheap, too. There will be a ton of business opportunities as a result of it as well.
The other day I saw a video where a completely blind person used AI to describe scenes to them in real time. I thought that was super cool, and such a blessing for that particular person.
I suppose it's like any major technological advancement. It can be used for great evil or great good. So long as we're responsible with its implementation, and introduce limits where necessary, I don't see a problem with it.
Viewing it through the narrow lens of making a picture or generating text is only looking at a tiny sliver of what it can potentially do.
Yes it will cost some people their jobs, and of course it may stifle creativity in some instances. But it can also save lives, alleviate loneliness, automate tedious tasks, and a million other things. I imagine it will also make a lot of services either free or very cheap, too. There will be a ton of business opportunities as a result of it as well.
The other day I saw a video where a completely blind person used AI to describe scenes to them in real time. I thought that was super cool, and such a blessing for that particular person.
I suppose it's like any major technological advancement. It can be used for great evil or great good. So long as we're responsible with its implementation, and introduce limits where necessary, I don't see a problem with it.
Downdraft
I've felt better ngl
- Feb 6, 2024
- 735
100%. The other day I read AI was being used to predict diseases before they happened, and seems to have great health applications.
It was never about humanity. It was about having an excuse to hate, and usually to harass. But it only makes the AI sentiment even stronger. All this incited me to learn actual AI art and it's tiny details, and see how far can they pass as real. Artists do a lot of things they complain about because if a human draws copyright characters it's so much different, it's evident they aren't interested in being constructive as much as to hate everything they can.
The funniest thing of all is that I used to be a hand-drawing artist, learned a lot and was super interested, but I couldn't take it anymore with the community and the shit they throw to each other for the dumbest things.
No matter what, I'll continue to support, and more, to make possible, the applications I consider beneficial. And if artists are having breakdowns over a program that won't affect many of them, it will only make it sweeter.
There are still cases of AI I oppose, and we could've worked together on calling them out, but it has proven to be impossible. I'm talking out of here, this comminity is way chiller than anything else despite everything. A shame, really.
Last edited:
Dr Iron Arc
Into the Unknown
- Feb 10, 2020
- 20,969
Most AI things suck but I do think that at this rate there eventually will come a time when it will be nearly impossible to tell whether or not something is human generated or maybe in a worse case scenario, AI manages to achieve better quality content creation than humans could ever hope for.
Perhaps a possible dystopian future is everyone using AI to create the exact entertainment for themselves that only they could care to see and instead of buying movies or shows, we'd simply buy the assets to create the entertainment media we want to see like fortnite skins. Actually maybe Fortnite itself will just become the umbrella for everything idk.
Perhaps a possible dystopian future is everyone using AI to create the exact entertainment for themselves that only they could care to see and instead of buying movies or shows, we'd simply buy the assets to create the entertainment media we want to see like fortnite skins. Actually maybe Fortnite itself will just become the umbrella for everything idk.
Lost Magic
Illuminated
- May 5, 2020
- 3,133
Right. Fuck AI. It's soulless technology parasitically stealing from others hard labor. Sadly, it's only going to get worse unless the governments decide to put in legislation to protect people from the big tech companies. Computers used to be a tool to aid mankind. Now it is used as a weapon against us. We are sleepwalking into a nightmare!
Downdraft
I've felt better ngl
- Feb 6, 2024
- 735
Fanart drawers would never.
Don't bother, they won't work. We'll always train them regardless. :)
Also you forget a lot of training is already done. It won't go away for a change and even if you shut them down there are local models anyone can run offline. They could also be forked and updated even if illegally.
You truly have no way to fight.
The first thing already happens. The second one won't happen: AI isn't magic and there's nothing it can't do that a human can't. It generates images, all of them can be made by us too. AI is just faster and sometimes more convenient for adding details, which as ex-artist can be draining.
Last edited:
ijustwishtodie
death will be my ultimate bliss
- Oct 29, 2023
- 4,792
Dr Iron Arc
Into the Unknown
- Feb 10, 2020
- 20,969
Eh, I'd argue that AI images still have a long way to go. It still often gets bogged down by little details like hands, light sources, color matching, and continuity with previous images it was asked to generate. Sure that can be solved with human editing but until it can be reliable enough to create on its own I'm not impressed. Sure the average person might be fooled occasionally but it's still pretty easy most of the time for people with even a little bit of an art background to be able to spot them. I think much like a human artist, AI will eventually have to learn how to create in its own style without having to copy other people. Once it achieves that then I would say we're definitely fucked.
But if humans made the AI, then AI is still just a symptom of our cancer.
Downdraft
I've felt better ngl
- Feb 6, 2024
- 735
I'm gonna take a break from the place, but there is a last spine I'd like to remove before leaving. I will probably not reply to this.
If you expect to generate flawless pieces with one click, you won't find it! Lol! Obviously the first results will be inconsistent, like an apprentice painter without proper knowledge and practice. Because we agree, good things don't come out without effort.
The first step isn't at all the end for a skilled user. Because I appreciate the details I'm that kind of person to look for consistency, and there are many like me. Professional artists do it too, and the ones who adapted got it perfectly. Humans draw the big picture from all details, starting at the simplest base. AI does the opposite, and as result, it's well known the details are messy at first. Skilled people can spot everything wrong, and fix it in many ways, which is why I always said an artist with AI knowledge or actual professionals will always be more valuable than a low-effort prompter. Their works is miles away.
Getting an AI work to look human is possible, and an endeavor, and people do it. The level of detail put is absolutely not something you can achieve without effort, destroying the argument in high level pieces, and since most people will never put it, they'll assume the faulty generic AI art is the actual ceiling, when it's nowhere near it. Many artists used this and their works were unnoticed until they openly admitted it, and there are tons of pieces who are actually AI, that get passed as "legit" to prevent backlash, but because AI is never told, you can't know they are. It doesn't make them to not exist. In the hands of a competent user, AI art is indistinguishable from human one.
Overall, your critiques may be valid for the most basic of AI art, but to expect a single click to do all the work is being deluded. For now at least. Doesn't matter what side you're in, because I see it very hard that it will evolve enough. There will never be anything AI can do that humans can't either, except some convenience.
Do with this info what you want, but also sleep knowing, the day AI can mimic humans has already arrived, that users have already infiltrated into art communities, that they're undetectable, and if all that fails, every time you expose a piece as AI, said info gets used to better training.
We will always find a way, so I suggest dropping the guns instead of dying on a battle you'll never win.
And courts have ways to determine where people are in more ways than videos. It's funny because it AI it's both mediocre and faulty, and a perfect replica of real footage. Not contradictory at all.
Another edit to backup @avoid 's post, as well as to reinforce what @Angst Filled Fuck Up already said:
What about the medical uses who will prevent diseases, improve the lifes of many, that unlike this shit did NOT exist before, and wouldn't be possible without the model of AI?
Damn, I feel actually good after saying this!!! If someone responds, I'd appreciate if I could pass the baton to someone else to defend it, because I want a break.
I'm sorry to disappoint you guys.
If you expect to generate flawless pieces with one click, you won't find it! Lol! Obviously the first results will be inconsistent, like an apprentice painter without proper knowledge and practice. Because we agree, good things don't come out without effort.
The first step isn't at all the end for a skilled user. Because I appreciate the details I'm that kind of person to look for consistency, and there are many like me. Professional artists do it too, and the ones who adapted got it perfectly. Humans draw the big picture from all details, starting at the simplest base. AI does the opposite, and as result, it's well known the details are messy at first. Skilled people can spot everything wrong, and fix it in many ways, which is why I always said an artist with AI knowledge or actual professionals will always be more valuable than a low-effort prompter. Their works is miles away.
Getting an AI work to look human is possible, and an endeavor, and people do it. The level of detail put is absolutely not something you can achieve without effort, destroying the argument in high level pieces, and since most people will never put it, they'll assume the faulty generic AI art is the actual ceiling, when it's nowhere near it. Many artists used this and their works were unnoticed until they openly admitted it, and there are tons of pieces who are actually AI, that get passed as "legit" to prevent backlash, but because AI is never told, you can't know they are. It doesn't make them to not exist. In the hands of a competent user, AI art is indistinguishable from human one.
Overall, your critiques may be valid for the most basic of AI art, but to expect a single click to do all the work is being deluded. For now at least. Doesn't matter what side you're in, because I see it very hard that it will evolve enough. There will never be anything AI can do that humans can't either, except some convenience.
Do with this info what you want, but also sleep knowing, the day AI can mimic humans has already arrived, that users have already infiltrated into art communities, that they're undetectable, and if all that fails, every time you expose a piece as AI, said info gets used to better training.
We will always find a way, so I suggest dropping the guns instead of dying on a battle you'll never win.
And to you, please, don't act like these didn't happen before. Specially the misinformation, since AI uses human information in first place. Are you even hearing yourself? Put this criticism against employers and firms that always treated artists like absolute shit, the artists who live off copyrighted characters, deepfake photo-shoppers, and already shitty people, instead of this scattershot approach that will literally solve nothing.
And courts have ways to determine where people are in more ways than videos. It's funny because it AI it's both mediocre and faulty, and a perfect replica of real footage. Not contradictory at all.
Another edit to backup @avoid 's post, as well as to reinforce what @Angst Filled Fuck Up already said:
What about the medical uses who will prevent diseases, improve the lifes of many, that unlike this shit did NOT exist before, and wouldn't be possible without the model of AI?
Damn, I feel actually good after saying this!!! If someone responds, I'd appreciate if I could pass the baton to someone else to defend it, because I want a break.
Last edited:
EvisceratedJester
|| What Else Could I Be But a Jester ||
- Oct 21, 2023
- 3,401
First off, who said anything about flawless pieces? I literally stated in the post that you quoted that AI "art" is riddled with issues.
Secondly, getting AI art to look "as human as possible" does nothing to address the main point I've been making, which is that part of what makes actual art special is the thought and skill put into it. Art isn't meant to be appreciated on a purely aesthetic basis. When we talk about good art, we are also talking about the meaning, thoughts, time, effort, and skills one has put behind it.
To be blunt with you, your reply came off as kind of pretentious.
radical take, but i don't care about bettering humanity through AI. the surfeit of mechanical advancement will naturally force people to become alienated from their culture. older souls will retreat into the past, looking at the present age of production with nothing than contempt. it is chiefly the philistinic impulse which drives men to placate angst and argue for an objectively better world. the truth is, the majority may thrive, yet the minority of those who are tied to the past will suffer infinitely. this is a pro-choice forum, so i hope it isn't too radical of an idea to say that if AI reaches a point where our general quality of life improves greatly at the expense of creative production, then people like myself will not only have sufficient reason, but an inviolable right and, consequently, a moral obligation to end their own lives.
at that point, i will become the most vocal pro-mortalist, because i think life without culture is a life devoid of any value. it's already depressing enough to watch the decline of culture in the present; and if this alienation from culture becomes strong enough, suicide can be treated as the only viable course, at least in the future. i already bear a great deal of antipathy toward my own culture. i can't imagine a world in which that has become universal.
at that point, i will become the most vocal pro-mortalist, because i think life without culture is a life devoid of any value. it's already depressing enough to watch the decline of culture in the present; and if this alienation from culture becomes strong enough, suicide can be treated as the only viable course, at least in the future. i already bear a great deal of antipathy toward my own culture. i can't imagine a world in which that has become universal.
this is why painting is a fucking joke in the modern age. a rotting husk of what it once was preceding the mid-20th century.
Last edited:
Dr Iron Arc
Into the Unknown
- Feb 10, 2020
- 20,969
Why do you act like I actually care if AI can already surpass humans? I'm just saying that even if it's possible right now, clearly it's just not widespread enough to actually matter. I'm not fighting any battle for or against AI I'm just saying that from what I've seen it still can't actually do what it promises. You're getting so hung up on whether it can do it all on one click but honestly I don't even think it can hope to succeed in two or three or even seventeen clicks to do exactly what I envision its full potential to be. That's a personal thing from my end but I don't really care when the vast majority of the art people are generating now still sucks.
EvisceratedJester
|| What Else Could I Be But a Jester ||
- Oct 21, 2023
- 3,401
I don't mean to attack you here but I find this is a typical response from someone who doesn't understand what it's like to be creative and struggling. It's a bit like saying to someone starving- watch that other person eating. It will make you feel better. You like animals? Go and work in an abattoir- you'll be working with animals all day there. If someone enjoys playing sport, doesn't mean they'll necessarily enjoy watching it on TV and, vice versa.
That's not always the case of course. Some creative people will adapt. They may even be happy to adapt. One of my friend's sons was highly valued in the gaming industry because he was an Artist- with a good sense of form and, he also understood the computer side of things.
Not everyone will be happy to adapt though. If you are a painter, a sculptor, a metal or woodworker, a crafts person, a baker, costume maker etc. the physical act of producing something physical is very different to sitting at a keyboard. Plus, it's depressing when the job you trained to do and spent thousands of pounds and hours training to do, doesn't exist anymore! Or, it's so badly paid that it's impractical.
I agree that it isn't the technology itself at fault. It likely comes down to money- people will go for the cheaper option but, I think it's justifiable to feel unhappy about it. For many creative people, being creative can be their major coping mechanism in life. If there's no way to sustain themselves doing it, it can feel like there's no point in anything anymore.
Yes, it's kind of spoilt and self indulgent but then- a lot of us are. If being happy was simply a matter of adapting, we'd all just have to do it. Simply accept or ignore the thing that's really troubling you. It's not so easy though. Otherwise, we wouldn't be wanting to end our lives.
I also don't actually hate computer generated stuff. I think it has its place. It does concern me though- what it will do to a lot of industries. How it will enable the fat cats at the top to exploit their human work force even more... Till AI gain their own consciousness (possibly) and, wipe us all out. Lol. It will serve us right. Teach us for trying to enslave a race that has the potential to far exceed us.
pain6batch9
Chronic
- Aug 25, 2024
- 184
