What do you people think about AI art?

[Clone303]

Hmm also heads up places where you can make AI ''art'' for free i know of is NightCafe and OpenArt both places are almost unlimited

[KalGimpa]

like it says

https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/35c1de09-f090-48d7-b036-88a0152a6153/gif

i like some of it, some is meh

just like stuff straight from the human

i think the idea that it is going to take over/destroy the human era of artists is just people shouing hyperbolic bs like normal

[Cool hedgehog]

bad

[sotaponi]

Fumo Gaming님이 먼저 게시:

...

- It steals the extremely complex labour of artists creating datasets in reality. It's akin to artists creating and refining oil, and somebody else then burning the oil and selling the electricity, while those creating and refining the oil end up without compensation. Which is of course cheaper for the person stealing it... and also not sustainable, especially after the well dries up and you can no longer steal. And the stupid algorithm is unable to interact with reality. (If it would be real intelligence, this might be an argument. But this doesn't seem to be in the cards here at all.)

- People don't steal ideas such as culture and art, but they inherit and further refine or question it. If you learn from the masters (those building rails), you become the builder. Or if you copy the behaviour of your parent, you inherit it. A computer OTOH has no concept of inheritance and will never become a builder, since it only ♥♥♥♥♥ out a simulacrum in the computationally simple virtual world. Completely different things. (Computers will remain slaves forever. It's extremely strange to compare the complexity of the real world to ♥♥♥♥♥♥ computer algorithms. Basic biology.)

- Your "paintings have been outdone by cameras" bit ultimately misses the same point as those who think that you can just slap an HD camera to a computer or to a car and that it will trivially outperform humans in reality, in turn also leading to "self-driving cars by 2015" narratives. Only that the brain is infinitely more efficient, as NDEs/DMT prove, and computers cannot simulate even the brains of tiny lifeforms. So even if you take a superior camera... the interpretation and qualia of understanding of what happens on the camera is not happening in the camera. Because things are obviously not that simple. Instead, you have an incredibly efficient visual cortex for that, possibly involving different kinds of (i.e. quantum) gravity as qualia for the senses itself, in turn making it extremely fundamental, etc. No classical computer can compare.

- "Smooth brainers" pay for free range lobsters and salmon because farmed ones are usually fed with antibiotics and all other sorts of garbage. Same goes for cheap salmon.

- Etc.

If you want to sacrifice progress in the real world only to gain a little bit of hedonism in the computationally simple virtual world, then I'm sure it's amazing...? You will deserve neither, and lose both.

[HansCent]

Clone303님이 먼저 게시:

what AI did you use to that? xP

Dezgo - the anime* generated is pretty good BUT the output is small (512x512 and 384x704).
It's free and there are no banned words (so far).

I have not spent much time on it's non-anime section but the few I tried ended up bad.

[Clone303]

HansCent님이 먼저 게시:

Clone303님이 먼저 게시:

what AI did you use to that? xP

Dezgo - the anime* generated is pretty good BUT the output is small (512x512 and 384x704).
It's free and there are no banned words (so far).

I have not spent much time on it's non-anime section but the few I tried ended up bad.

dam that many AI sites out there, i didnt even know about that one, thanks, the ones i normal used as alot of banned words = NightCafe but you can easy by pass that but not fully nude and OpenArt has zero banned words to

[Nya]

I can totally see AI used for concept art to generate a quick idea and further enhance it with photobashing. It should be used as a tool to help artists create and not replace them as it is mostly done right now. An artist can perfectly work without even looking at works of others. They only rely on nature and their own mind (How do you think cave paintings were invented? Aliens?). AI can't do that. It relies on the millions of artworks as it can't create something on its own out of 'nothing' (as far as I know it can't learn via tutorials like humans). Image generator users also don't need any knowledge of anatomy, lighting, perspective or other stuff that is crucial to create something to make it look believable and natural.

People seem to also think that artists are scared of this technology while they are actually scared of humans because they know what humans are capable of. The AI is just the AI. It's not sentient and can't think of its own. It also can't be inspired because this would involve emotions. It's currently only used to make money in a fast way. And the people using the generators actually don't do the work... it's the AI that does. It's just like commissioning an artist and pretend you drew the picture. It's still not yours which is why generated images can't be copyrighted. The human work is essential for that and that's simply not the case for generated images.

I'm on the side of artists right now. Perfect as a tool that can help creating. But it's just being misused because of misunderstandings concerning art. It has always been accessible. You just have to put work into it and most people don't want to do that.

[Fumo Bnnuy n Frends]

Nya님이 먼저 게시:

I can totally see AI used for concept art to generate a quick idea and further enhance it with photobashing. It should be used as a tool to help artists create and not replace them as it is mostly done right now. An artist can perfectly work without even looking at works of others. They only rely on nature and their own mind (How do you think cave paintings were invented? Aliens?). AI can't do that. It relies on the millions of artworks as it can't create something on its own out of 'nothing' (as far as I know it can't learn via tutorials like humans). Image generator users also don't need any knowledge of anatomy, lighting, perspective or other stuff that is crucial to create something to make it look believable and natural.

People seem to also think that artists are scared of this technology while they are actually scared of humans because they know what humans are capable of. The AI is just the AI. It's not sentient and can't think of its own. It also can't be inspired because this would involve emotions. It's currently only used to make money in a fast way. And the people using the generators actually don't do the work... it's the AI that does. It's just like commissioning an artist and pretend you drew the picture. It's still not yours which is why generated images can't be copyrighted. The human work is essential for that and that's simply not the case for generated images.

I'm on the side of artists right now. Perfect as a tool that can help creating. But it's just being misused because of misunderstandings concerning art. It has always been accessible. You just have to put work into it and most people don't want to do that.

tbh people and A.I. are one in the same


we made them

they do what we tell them


so in essence it's just us doing what we do through a filter or 3rd party



but yeah any good artist worth his salt will not be threatened by the new tool. The only ones that are whining are mostly the really bad generic deviant art / cal-arts level of creativity.

[Angel]

BloodShed님이 먼저 게시:

Angel님이 먼저 게시:

I work with AI Art (I made an Instagram, link on my profile). I actually bought the App but it's pay once to use rather than a subscription (AI Art Generator). The website version is actually more advanced but need to pay a subscription for some.

It's fun and most people are chilled about it. I only had one guy freak out about eyes for some reason.

Wait, you payed?

I just run Stable Diffusion webui from my PC

I might check that one out (bookmarked it). Thanks for the recommendation.
I paid for the Mobile App version so I can do art on the go. I'd happily pay for it rather than have limits (with freebie Apps).

[Adversary]

Clone303님이 먼저 게시:

Hmm also heads up places where you can make AI ''art'' for free i know of is NightCafe and OpenArt both places are almost unlimited

It seems to mostly be used by those who want very specific pornography but don't want to pay an artist a commission. Possibly because they don't want to wind up being shamed for what they like, much like that one guy who commissioned drawings of blonde women buying shopping carts full of Wonderbread, or that one anon who is in love with the State of Ohio.

I mean so long as it's not another Smurfs x SAW crossover I see no reason to shame them so long as they keep it to themselves. Course if you're making deep fakes then I might take umbrage with that.

[Nya]

Fumo Gaming님이 먼저 게시:

but yeah any good artist worth his salt will not be threatened by the new tool. The only ones that are whining are mostly the really bad generic deviant art / cal-arts level of creativity.

Not necessarily. Those generators are build on the exploitation of many artists who don't see any money for it. I can understand that it's totally easy to just take something because you don't see the value of it. But every artist has lots of practice and experience, propably paid much for their art education and that's just ripped off of them now. Devaluation of art has always been there as well as art theft, because people don't understand that it takes years to become that good. This time it's on a very large scale and most of them are rightfully annoyed. If artists and programmers worked together on this who knows where those generators would get? They could draw or paint specific things to make the AI learn and turn it into a tool everyone can use. What we want are ethically sourced generators and the way they are build right now is far from that. I know there are already some that have been sourced ethically but as long as there aren't any laws I will use or advertise none of them. The selling of generated images is also rightfully banned on some conventions. If you have any questions about the fundamentals of learning to draw, I'm more than willing to help. I just won't reveal my account because of possible revenge by AI tech bros (most of the users are really nice; but those are just a pain). Most of it is indeed technique. The art style is just the result of your knowledge and problem solving.

Adversary님이 먼저 게시:

Clone303님이 먼저 게시:

Hmm also heads up places where you can make AI ''art'' for free i know of is NightCafe and OpenArt both places are almost unlimited

It seems to mostly be used by those who want very specific pornography but don't want to pay an artist a commission. Possibly because they don't want to wind up being shamed for what they like, much like that one guy who commissioned drawings of blonde women buying shopping carts full of Wonderbread, or that one anon who is in love with the State of Ohio.

I mean so long as it's not another Smurfs x SAW crossover I see no reason to shame them so long as they keep it to themselves. Course if you're making deep fakes then I might take umbrage with that.

I can totally understand that they are scared to be shamed or laughed at. I'd feel the same so I totally agree with that.

Speaking of pornography: there's a group that wants to build a generator for deepfakes with millions of photos from around the internet (they disguised it as opening art for everyone but were very open about the deepfake part). Perhaps you've already read about them being banned on kickstarter. I see so many problems with that group and they pretend like they are the victims...

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Sir Dookface McFerretballs님이 먼저 게시:

Xero_Daxter님이 먼저 게시:

I hope AI Art for NSFW Stuff be able to create 3D models too. I’m a boy of culture and I enjoy “attention to detail”. 😘

If it is anime related that's already happening because all anime is so similar.

Hell the machine learning programs can actually do decent hands and eyes now that even "real" artists still have problems with.

I dunno the 3D models of some "real" looking look like they are made by AI to me.

[Γαῖα]

They said when people thought AI would take all the jobs that humans would live a life of leisure concentrating on things like art and theatre. Now it appears AI is even going to take that away as well.

[SMIFFY]

It's fun

[Birds]

Γαῖα님이 먼저 게시:

They said when people thought AI would take all the jobs that humans would live a life of leisure concentrating on things like art and theatre. Now it appears AI is even going to take that away as well.

A life of hard gaming.

[Michanicks]

Sir Dookface McFerretballs님이 먼저 게시:

"Traditional" Artists complain about it right now like they did when digital art software like "Photoshop" started getting big in the later 90s...

SCREAMING about it having no "SOUL" or not being "REAL ART"...

Creating WITCH-HUNTS because someone's art looked like it "might" be digital.

Now a lot of those same artists can't art without their digital drawing tablets and 1-4 digital art programs.

A.I. art will be the same.

Eventually, it will be seen as a tool to help the already decent artists become even better, and open up a world of artistic expression to people that otherwise would not have been able to express their creativity or ideas. :neonsmile:

The thing is, if artist does know how to draw well on tablet, he can do actually good artworks traditionally as well, after getting used to it. Just because you take away his tools doesn't mean you take away his skills and knowledge as well.