It's interesting to me what the AI topic has revealed about different perspectives when it comes to art. To me the value of a work is determined above all by the work, but evidently there are people like this who consider context like the artist to be more important than the actual substance of the art.
I guess it's nothing new, which is why people spend obscene sums on junk like Pollock or Rothko, but I always attributed that to just rich people looking for artificial prestige items to dump their money into, not "normal" people browsing art online.
It's interesting to me what the AI topic has revealed about different perspectives when it comes to art. To me the value of a work is determined above all by the work, but evidently there are people like this who consider context like the artist to be more important than the actual substance of the art.
I guess it's nothing new, which is why people spend obscene sums on junk like Pollock or Rothko, but I always attributed that to just rich people looking for artificial prestige items to dump their money into, not "normal" people browsing art online.
There is no "work" in AI pictures. That's why it's got no "substance" or "value" as you described. It's just stolen art assets.
the 'perspective' is AI art generally feels dull and soulless. it's not that deep, anon.
If they're dull and soulless why did the artist praise them as being "amazing"?
CitrusC said:
There is no "work" in AI pictures. That's why it's got no "substance" or "value" as you described. It's just stolen art assets.
That does not follow. The value of an image is the image, not the effort. You could put years of effort into something that turned out to be crap and it would have less value than a masterpiece made in a week. And I don't see how you can call it "stolen assets". Looking at publicly-viewable images and learning from them is not "stealing", and if it is then literally every human artist in history is a thief too so it doesn't matter. The images are still original creations; it's not as though they're actually using existing art, like a collage would.
If they're dull and soulless why did the artist praise them as being "amazing"?
because it's that easy to derive hard-working artists of their work, by putting in a prompt and letting some dumb AI do all of it in a matter of minutes.
Maybe we should stop consuming Dreamworks/Pixar animations too. Because all this '3D crap' made in a matter of minutes a lot of what cell coloring artist did in the 20's. Losing their jobs as now even less people are now needed to make cartoons.
I still remember the early 2000's when 3D assets were called 'souless' and that their quality could not compare to 2D sprites. Times changed and proved wrong.
Maybe we should stop consuming Dreamworks/Pixar animations too. Because all this '3D crap' made in a matter of minutes a lot of what cell coloring artist did in the 20's. Losing their jobs as now even less people are now needed to make cartoons.
I still remember the early 2000's when 3D assets were called 'souless' and that their quality could not compare to 2D sprites. Times changed and proved wrong.
The difference being that from then to now 3D animation actually requires a considerable amount of human effort. No matter how good mass produced AI art looks, it doesn't change that you're just sticking a prompt into a machine that does all the work for you. It's not even art by legal definition.
It's not even a comparable argument, because those animations take months or years to make.
It's not even a comparable argument, because those animations take months or years to make.
They take months to years because of computing rendering work, not because of the human effort. That's why the Madagascar penguins series look dull compared to the movie, because they omit rendering details to produce a quick movie for every week TV broadcast. Look at most of the credits in any animation, it looks long because they include from the marketing team to the pizza delivery. Animators just move bones, recycle assets and call it a day. You don't see the same hate as people here have for AI art.
artists feel ai art invalidates their time and effort into learning how to draw, but there are people making a huge stink because of unrelated issues. on the other hand, some AI art generators just want to be able to visualize their creations but get lumped in with genuine deadweight asshats who make the idea look way worse by badmouthing artists with it.
at this point someone has to draw a line actually balancing this or this shit is going to go flying the moment something outweighs the other.
artists feel ai art invalidates their time and effort into learning how to draw, but there are people making a huge stink because of unrelated issues. on the other hand, some AI art generators just want to be able to visualize their creations but get lumped in with genuine deadweight asshats who make the idea look way worse by badmouthing artists with it.
at this point someone has to draw a line actually balancing this or this shit is going to go flying the moment something outweighs the other.
See, the point is we don't condone AI art posted here.
We don't have any problem if the user generates AI art for say, their own game, their own use, their own amusement. It's just doesn't belong here because there's no 'individuality' in AI art. You don't 'create' AI art, you gave prompt to a program which basically blends pictures sourced from other people art into a chimera; same thing as you don't get credited as the artist if you commissioned an art and posted it here. Sure, you own the art, you bought it legally, but you're not the one producing it.
the 'perspective' is AI art generally feels dull and soulless. it's not that deep, anon.
This. It gets easy to recognize AI-generated art pretty quickly because it all shares similar elements. Generic style, generic poses, strange artifacts on certain edges, and a nagging sense of something feeling "off", which I imagine is because all the elements like lighting and environments are there but don't actually go together.
See, the point is we don't condone AI art posted here.
We don't have any problem if the user generates AI art for say, their own game, their own use, their own amusement. It's just doesn't belong here because there's no 'individuality' in AI art. You don't 'create' AI art, you gave prompt to a program which basically blends pictures sourced from other people art into a chimera; same thing as you don't get credited as the artist if you commissioned an art and posted it here. Sure, you own the art, you bought it legally, but you're not the one producing it.
No. As stated by the owner itself, AI is temporarily banned from this site. You are just on a fake crusade about a tool that sooner or later it will be available for everyone on every known professional media editor. It's been less than a year since that resolve and results have gotten better while the line between the artist and the assistance gets blurried. When your favorite artist will be using AI like a custom Photoshop brush, you will be playing the fools as if anything negative said about AI was never told by yourselves.
This is not about morals and copyrights (more than half of the commisions and copyrighted characters without the original author's permission wouldn't be here), that's only an excuse to hate on a new technology like cameras and computers were hated too.
rom_collector said: It's been less than a year since that resolve and results have gotten better while the line between the artist and the assistance gets blurried.
... that's the thing.
'less than a year'. like you could close your eyes for a second, and wake up to your profession being replaced by a mere robot. the only fool here is those that think this can potentially be used for good, when it is really That Easy to rid folks of their careers. because "an AI can do it better, lol".
'less than a year'. like you could close your eyes for a second, and wake up to your profession being replaced by a mere robot. the only fool here is those that think this can potentially be used for good, when it is really That Easy to rid folks of their careers. because "an AI can do it better, lol".
get a grip.
This is such a dumb argument. A technology allows things to be done easier, therefore it's bad? How do you think the computers you use, the clothes, you wear, the cars and other vehicles you use were made? Do you think the value of something is based on how much effort someone took to do it, so instead of having a modern society, every piece of equipment should be assemble by hand, every cloth be sewn by hand, pieces of ore picked from the ground with your bare hands, so that the maximum amount of people is employed doing manual labor, and that's the only way something can have value, or do you acknowledge that the goal of technology is making things easier, cheaper and more plentiful?
This is such a dumb argument. A technology allows things to be done easier, therefore it's bad? How do you think the computers you use, the clothes, you wear, the cars and other vehicles you use were made? Do you think the value of something is based on how much effort someone took to do it, so instead of having a modern society, every piece of equipment should be assemble by hand, every cloth be sewn by hand, pieces of ore picked from the ground with your bare hands, so that the maximum amount of people is employed doing manual labor, and that's the only way something can have value, or do you acknowledge that the goal of technology is making things easier, cheaper and more plentiful?
No matter how easily, cheaply, and more plentiful a machine can make art, it'll never manage to make something like the Eiffel Tower, Rachmaninoff's Third, the Pietà, or the Ex-Wife. You cannot - I repeat, CANNOT - engineer your way into making shit that moves the soul with something without a soul.
No matter how easily, cheaply, and more plentiful a machine can make art, it'll never manage to make something like the Eiffel Tower, Rachmaninoff's Third, the Pietà, or the Ex-Wife. You cannot - I repeat, CANNOT - engineer your way into making shit that moves the soul with something without a soul.
That's just sentimental nonsense. You could just as well say that food doesn't have a soul if you haven't hunted it yourself. It would only make sense in a world where it's the norm by tradition or technology constraints, but it would sound absurd in a society where a more practical alternative is made common.
Also, it's interesting that you mention the Eiffel Tower specifically, since the only thing Gustave Eiffel did was ordering it, the design was made by his employees, and the construction of the tower itself by made by hundreds of laborers, masons, engineers, etc, each of them doing no more creative work than a machine And of course the construction itself was heavily mechanized with cranes, power tools, and large quantities of steel that were only made possible by the second industrial revolution. So the major achievement of the Eiffel Tower was an engineering one, it demonstrated that humans had acquired the ability to convert a simple thought to something concrete and impressive in a short amount of time, what took the Egyptians decades of work by thousands of laborers could be done quicker, taller and cheaper with technology. To me the parallels with machine learning seem clear
Literally none of that is relevant because art is a form of human expression. AI cannot express. It can only produce, and it cannot produce without feeding it pre-existing creations.
And if you're gonna say "humans learn using other people's art too!" Humans don't specifically require pre-existing art to make more art, I can draw a person without ever having seen another drawing of a person. Because I am a person, I know what a person is. Currently AI struggles to draw people despite having billions of art fed through its database.
There's a reason the Mona Lisa is famous. There's a reason works of art made by people that are no longer alive are absurdly expensive, if not priceless. Stop comparing artistic expression to feats of engineering, they're not comparable. No one is going to pay thousands or millions of dollars for art made by AI, unless they're scammed into thinking it was made by a person.
bunkhead said: You cannot - I repeat, CANNOT - engineer your way into making shit that moves the soul with something without a soul.
Even if you believe in the existence of souls, it is absurd to claim they are required. Are you saying that the natural beauty of a landscape, which happens more-or-less spontaneously without any intervention by people you believe have "souls", cannot move you? That a mathematical structure like the Mandelbrot fractal which, as a direct property of the simple equation zₙ₊₁=(zₙ)²+c, is an innate feature of the universe regardless of any "souls" it contains, cannot be beautiful? Do you truly feel no awe at anything that is not made by "soulful" human hands?
When the meaningless, undirected, and random actions of wind and water on rock can sculpt a spectacular vista, and when the mere repeated squaring and addition of numbers generates an infinity of patterns more intricate than the finest man-made arabesque, what sense does it make to say it's impossible for any machine to do the same? I'd take one natural landscape over a thousand Rothko rectangles. I'd take a fractal over all the paint Pollock's "soul" could throw. And you can be damn sure I'd take AI over them too.
And if you're gonna say "humans learn using other people's art too!" Humans don't specifically require pre-existing art to make more art, I can draw a person without ever having seen another drawing of a person.
Show it, then. Show me what art made by somebody who has never seen any preexisting art looks like.
Currently AI struggles to draw people despite having billions of art fed through its database.
So it's only a matter of time, then? Five years ago, AI struggled to draw anything at all. A year ago, it struggled to follow specific instructions of style, or fine details, or some other point. What's next? If the objection is that it's just that it's not good enough right now, it's clearly getting better, fast.
There's a reason the Mona Lisa is famous.
Yes, and that's because it was famously stolen and then recovered. You can see how a mythology has been built around the painting by comparing how it looked in 1911 and nowadays. But that has nothing to do with the quality of the art itself, or the humanity of the author, just a feedback look where something that is famous keeps getting more popular, because it is famous.
There's a reason works of art made by people that are no longer alive are absurdly expensive, if not priceless.
Yes, artificial scarcity. The same reason "natural" diamonds are worth a lot more than "artificial" diamonds, even if they are the same thing for all intents and purposes. Like artwork sold for millions of dollars, they are a way for rich people to show off their wealth by purchasing something that nobody else can have. In that niche, human painters might be safe, since their inherent mortality means the supply of whatever they produce is limited, increasing price. But I disagree that the price of something determines how good or otherwise worthy it is.
indexador2 said: Show it, then. Show me what art made by somebody who has never seen any preexisting art looks like.
You're actually giving him a lot of leeway. There are congenitally-blind artists who have never seen anything at all. But trying to cite those as a counterargument would still be missing the point, because a blind human still has touch, sound, and other senses, and interacts with other people who do see. He's still training on something.
Everyone is more sick of your constant trolling than anyone.
I wondered why that comment had such a lower score than the rest of them, that would explain it. What is he even talking about? It's not like I insulted him. Does he think I summoned a discord group to downvote him??
Really funny that for all his whining about being allowed to say whatever he pleases, he can't be involved in a debate without resorting to character directed attacks even when people are being civil with him, just because they disagree with his unpopular opinions.
'less than a year'. like you could close your eyes for a second, and wake up to your profession being replaced by a mere robot. the only fool here is those that think this can potentially be used for good, when it is really That Easy to rid folks of their careers. because "an AI can do it better, lol".
I see now they are training T-800 to detect more T-800. It was quite a predictable outcome and an 'elephant in the room' sized irony. If you really want to stop this you better stop using computers now. It's time to go back in time before the 60's.
Right now we're just talking about AI imitating pictures, but there's no reason it can't imitate anything else you find on-line. Blogposts, live-streams, chatrooms, comment sections etc. Any kind of interaction or piece of media could be replicated with enough variation to fool all but the most invasive overview. We could get to the point where entire "fandoms" spring up overnight, trying to bait actual people into engaging with what's "popular".
Not to mention cyberbullying. You think an AI can't be programmed to harass someone? Can't pretend that it's half a dozen "people" who are all in agreement that you're a piece of shit? You think AI wouldn't be used to conduct psychological warfare?
It could be your best friend. Or your worse enemy. And it won't really care either way. Why would you want to have anything at all to do with something like that?
Maybe we should stop consuming Dreamworks/Pixar animations too. Because all this '3D crap' made in a matter of minutes a lot of what cell coloring artist did in the 20's. Losing their jobs as now even less people are now needed to make cartoons.
I still remember the early 2000's when 3D assets were called 'souless' and that their quality could not compare to 2D sprites. Times changed and proved wrong.
You can admit you have no idea how 3D works and save yourself the embarrassment of looking like a retard.
You can admit you have no idea how 3D works and save yourself the embarrassment of looking like a retard.
Well, you can admit you had no idea how cartoon industry started and functioned before 3D animation was a thing and save yourself the embarassment of hating a tool that new artists will use everyday on their favorite image editor, game engine or 3D modeling tool. ;)
Well, you can admit you had no idea how cartoon industry started and functioned before 3D animation was a thing and save yourself the embarassment of hating a tool that new artists will use everyday on their favorite image editor, game engine or 3D modeling tool. ;)
Which is more likely, that you're actually a dumbass who thinks 3D animation takes minutes to make, or that you're only capable of dishonest strawman arguments because you aren't smart enough to defend your obviously contrarian opinions with anything other than false equivalencies?
Oh, I guess it doesn't matter, you're an idiot either way.
Insults, the very last resource when things said are true and no other way to made up false facts are left. Typical of toxic fandoms. AI takes time and dedication too (if you want to). This proves even more you haven't done AI and you complain from no knowledge.
Just because many people now use AI tools like WordArt on Word, it doesn't mean artists can't use these tools to reduce tedious tasks and also create personal artwork with increase in quality and productivity. That's what 3D art did and cell color artists suffered for it.
You can't stop this unless you also stop Internet and computers now... also tagging every image so you voluntary help any AI model understand what is looking at. If you hate progress that much you can move to the woods, build your own tools, hunt your own food, purify your own rain water and stay away from AI models that follow you on every key press while they try to sell you anything.
And with this I end my participation on this post, see you on the next one. I'm touching some grass, I recommend you do the same.
This place is filled with Ukraine-supporter levels of IQ. That is, NULL.
AI art is not the problem. The problem is people who use it to make money. The only one with the right to monetize it is the one who created the AI itself, and perhaps the host of its servers. You simply make use of it.
On the other hand, we have "artists" complaining like it's the end of the world. The same happened with automated factories. Guess what? AI, like machines, can't do things independently as of yet. Yes, the machine can build the car in less time, but if there is no one to maintain it, to correct it, and to teach it how to do it by programming it, then it can't do what it does. Human input is needed, always.
There are people out there that can't afford the prices of artists. I mean, you are free to go and assign the value you want to your works. It's your time and effort that births your art, so of course, if you want each hour of work to be worth 500 dollars, then go ahead and do it. But don't go complaining when no one pays for it.
AI brings competition. It brings a new source of art. As such, like all things, art is going to become a more competitive endeavour. Even if your art is not as good, you, as a human, bring the creative part. This makes it more feasible for small, beginner artists to participate and get commissions.
You have AI that makes relatively high quality art for a relatively insignificant amount of money. The problem is that it has no creativity, and struggles to create. You can get art of a known character doing whatever you want it to, because you can use the prompts to get it without needing anyone else. Artists refuse to draw things, but AI does not.
Then you have high-grade artists. They are expensive, and take longer. But they provide high quality art with full customizability. You can get a character created, unlike with AI that can only make art of existing characters. However, these artists, as they are not only confident, but also have a fanbase to back them, have grounds to reject commissions they don't want to draw. Rightfully so.
Now, small artists get a chance. They provide what may be lower quality art, but you can ask whatever. Create a character, draw an existing one, they will do it because they need the money and making commissions creates a certain history for others to consider the artist. Since they lack a fanbase and need to please those few who ask for their art, anything goes. Even more taboo things.
This place is filled with Ukraine-supporter levels of IQ. That is, NULL.
AI art is not the problem. The problem is people who use it to make money. The only one with the right to monetize it is the one who created the AI itself, and perhaps the host of its servers. You simply make use of it.
On the other hand, we have "artists" complaining like it's the end of the world. The same happened with automated factories. Guess what? AI, like machines, can't do things independently as of yet. Yes, the machine can build the car in less time, but if there is no one to maintain it, to correct it, and to teach it how to do it by programming it, then it can't do what it does. Human input is needed, always.
There are people out there that can't afford the prices of artists. I mean, you are free to go and assign the value you want to your works. It's your time and effort that births your art, so of course, if you want each hour of work to be worth 500 dollars, then go ahead and do it. But don't go complaining when no one pays for it.
AI brings competition. It brings a new source of art. As such, like all things, art is going to become a more competitive endeavour. Even if your art is not as good, you, as a human, bring the creative part. This makes it more feasible for small, beginner artists to participate and get commissions.
You have AI that makes relatively high quality art for a relatively insignificant amount of money. The problem is that it has no creativity, and struggles to create. You can get art of a known character doing whatever you want it to, because you can use the prompts to get it without needing anyone else. Artists refuse to draw things, but AI does not.
Then you have high-grade artists. They are expensive, and take longer. But they provide high quality art with full customizability. You can get a character created, unlike with AI that can only make art of existing characters. However, these artists, as they are not only confident, but also have a fanbase to back them, have grounds to reject commissions they don't want to draw. Rightfully so.
Now, small artists get a chance. They provide what may be lower quality art, but you can ask whatever. Create a character, draw an existing one, they will do it because they need the money and making commissions creates a certain history for others to consider the artist. Since they lack a fanbase and need to please those few who ask for their art, anything goes. Even more taboo things.
comrade smooth brain stop, you are about to shit yourself again