AI artists

[Nogsec]

Are half of them trolling?

I feel a wave of cringe when I hear one say I "drew/composed/wrote/came up with/created" this with AI!

LIKE there's no way they're serious right?

Please tell me Im not the only sane one who thinks they're just failurebound cheating themselves

[Dracoco OwO]

I have a friend to whom i had shown an AI art website and he makes AI art publicly but he don't go around and say he's an AI artist he just share the stuff he likes, he's not pretending to be skilled or anything.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Spencer:

Its a tool, so it depends how they use it.

Otherwise you will have to exclude anyone with a wacom.

A Wacom doesn't create anything for you with a few words.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Couldn`t care less who or what made it as long the picture or video looks good.

[Mr. White]

Most of them are trolling yeah

[Dracoco OwO]

Publicado originalmente por Phantasmagoria:

AI "art" is slop...

Most of it is, but you can find very good results if you ask for very specific things.

[Stormer]

Publicado originalmente por Spencer:

Its a tool, so it depends how they use it.

Otherwise you will have to exclude anyone with a wacom.

its a tool that simulates getting another artist to draw something for you, a wacom is a tool that simulates a pen

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por Stormer:

Publicado originalmente por Spencer:

Its a tool, so it depends how they use it.

Otherwise you will have to exclude anyone with a wacom.

its a tool that simulates getting another artist to draw something for you, a wacom is a tool that simulates a pen

It doesn't stimulate another artist, I stimulates a machine that scanned copyrighted art to make an approximation of what you tell it to.

One good thing about it is that art produced by AI is not eligible for copyright. So anyone can download AI art and sell it without consequences.

[BloodShed]

Only narcissistic ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ would use the terms 'AI artist' or artist as titles for making generated art.

A prompter would be the more accurate title.

[D. Flame]

No such thing as an AI "artist." If it was made by AI, then it is not art, by definition.

[Saturn830]

Publicado originalmente por Not Impressed:

For people who use AI to get "inspiration" for their art, would u consider them to be ripping off millions of legit artists?

It depends on to what level they are directly replicating the work they are using for inspirational purposes. Same with using human made art for inspiration, just with one extra step. It's a case-by-case basis, and there's no exact measurement, but most people I think will understand when something is a clear rip-off of an existing work.

[Duck Twacy]

Publicado originalmente por BBQ Shampoo:

Are half of them trolling?

I feel a wave of cringe when I hear one say I "drew/composed/wrote/came up with/created" this with AI!

LIKE there's no way they're serious right?

Please tell me Im not the only sane one who thinks they're just failurebound cheating themselves

Artistry is about expressing yourself, highly influence by your feelings or emotional state. AI has none of that, and can only draw what it interprets and is instructed to do.

[the vampire of time and memory]

Publicado originalmente por Not Impressed:

Publicado originalmente por Wraith:

As someone who uses AI, I'd say that you can use some AI-generated elements to add as another layer of your digital artwork and still be called an artist, but typing prompts itself has nothing to do with art. It's like Google searching but more detailed. If all you do is typing prompts, you're not an artist.

For people who use AI to get "inspiration" for their art, would u consider them to be ripping off millions of legit artists?

it's an interesting question, you can't really give the proper credit when you're using an AI generated image as a reference, all the artists I'm personally familiar with would generally prefer these AI art models to not be fed their art without their permission

[Chalupacabaras]

Publicado originalmente por SIim Shadow:

There's no difference between AI art and human art, the process is different and the process doesnt matter, the result does.

Except human art doesn't consistently draw arms coming out of a character's elbows, knees, forehead and stomach like some Eldritchian nightmare. Or hands with more than seven fingers. Or poses with three hands.

That's a custom job, you gotta pay extra.

[skOsH♥]

I can't stand AI art as I notice it immediately.

Especially AI voices. Nice try but emulating human vocal cords is kind of more subtle and nuanced than digital waveforms and simulated pauses and breathing. Especially when AI tries to put emotion behind speech, it fails every time.

I would like to be a voice actor. Every job I've been legitimately interested in is just getting replaced by robots. Whatever lol

[Chalupacabaras]

Publicado originalmente por Not Impressed:

Publicado originalmente por Saturn830:

It depends on to what level they are directly replicating the work they are using for inspirational purposes. Same with using human made art for inspiration, just with one extra step. It's a case-by-case basis, and there's no exact measurement, but most people I think will understand when something is a clear rip-off of an existing work.

How do we decide the threshold of resemblance allowed to not label something a ripoff?
Should the original artists' get a say in these matter when their art was used as a fodder for a semisentient tool without their consent?

The threshold already exists. It only works if you successfully submit an application for copyright protections through federal-level agencies authorized to do so, such as the USCPTO (US Copyright, Patent and Trademark Office). Until then, you've got no legal or ethical right to complain that Google misused your work without credit, consent or compensation.